he bastardization of America does not come without a particularly unsavory brew of unintended consequences. Most discernible among its more potent ingredients is an upwardly-trending crime rate, which yields a highly disagreeable aftertaste (see state-by-state comparison below).

The problems bemoaned by Heritage Foundation researcher Mary Clare Reim and liberals only get worse with each succeeding batch.

Between 1980 and 2012 incarceration rates have more than doubled in the U.S. and are now more than six times that of the typical nation in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Perhaps because we are not throwing the original offenders in jail, Mary? As commenter Francis Schultz puts it,

One of the few times I have been disappointed in a Heritage Foundation article. The vast, vast majority of inmates who are sentenced to state and federal prison are there because they have earned it. If federal and state legislatures want to reduce crime and the number of inmates they need to quit paying women to have babies. I have been a prosecutor for 17 years and I see a huge correlation between crime and the breakdown of the family.

Exactly. The furthest thing from being in the best interests of any child is allowing him or her to reside with the most irresponsible person imaginable: A "mother" who had that child out of wedlock. We all know or should know the facts.

For example, examination of families with the same race and same parental education shows that, when compared to intact married families, children from single-parent homes are:

• More than twice as likely to be arrested for a juvenile crime;
• Twice as likely to be treated for emotional and behavioral problems;
• Roughly twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school; and
• A third more likely to drop out before completing high school.

The effects of being raised in a single-parent home continue into adulthood. Comparing families of the same race and similar incomes, children from broken and single-parent homes are three times more likely to end up in jail by the time they reach age 30 than are children raised in intact married families. Compared to girls raised in similar married families, girls from single-parent homes are more than twice as likely to have a child without being married, thereby repeating the negative cycle for another generation.

Finally, the decline of marriage generates poverty in future generations. Children living in single-parent homes are 50 percent more likely to experience poverty as adults when compared to children from intact married homes. This intergenerational poverty effect persists even after adjusting for the original differences in family income and poverty during childhood.

Another state-by-state comparison bears out that effect:

Indeed, out-of-wedlock births appear to be far more accurate predictors of crime-rate trends than the extremely mindless poverty-rate excuse psychotically touted by every excessively emoting liberal^(birm).

There is nothing brave or noble about chronically subjecting any child to such a dastardly form of abuse. It is cruel, selfish, unfair, heartless, unjust, immature, careless, neglectful, and yes, immoral. The turpitude of it alone should raise that abuse to the level of an infamous crime.

The thoughtlessly irresponsible claim, "But my choosing to be an unwed mother doesn't hurt anybody!" Really? In addition to the innocent newborn on whom you are about to inflict decades of otherwise preventable abuse, you can include all the individuals and society at-large forced to suffer and endure the extreme selfishness, disregard for others, self-entitlement, and overall lack of basic empathy and morals you will no doubt impart to him or her and he or she will, in turn, far more likely than others, callously and even violently inflict on them, who are going to be needlessly and fundamentally harmed. But you do not care, else you would have never been a willing partner in the commission of so selfish and grievous an offense. If no one forced you to conceive and birth a bastard, then no, you cannot force others to face any of the messy consequences directly stemming from your grossly negligent choice.

Intentionally or negligently having a child out of wedlock should be prima facie evidence of child endangerment.

As alluded to earlier, except in the alleged minds of liberals and other criminal enablers, a prevailing state of poverty does not create crime. If it did, Mississippi would have the highest crime rate and Washington, D.C. close to the lowest.

In light of available data, the far more reasonable place to start finding an explanation for increasing incidences of criminal activity across any group of states is their respective rates of out-of-wedlock births. Crime rates themselves, like the proverbial canary in the coal mine, act only as sentinels, able to warn us of a present danger that usually affects them first. Once it does, however, it is too late to prevent the danger. Rather, you immediately focus all your concerns on your own survival, seeking nothing more than some means of escape. That danger will remain there, of course, until either you go back and remove it or nature gets around to sending something else in to displace it.

Clearly, taking the necessary steps to prevent this danger would save yourself all that extra grief and effort during your next forward push.

“The rights of children are what are at stake here. As society makes decisions as to what's best for everyone, children's rights cannot and must not be ignored, what's best for them needs to be put first and foremost in a legal sense.”

–Sean McLaughlin,

commenting on article

by Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.

(Jackie Bruchi)

If a consenting man and woman have a certain unalienable right to conceive a child, there must be a general expectation both will exercise personal responsibility before, when, and after they do, since such inextricably involves the rights of another person. So we may, in order to secure these rights as well as the blessings of liberty to their posterity, choose to include among our state governments' just powers a new illegitimacy law that promotes primarily at all times and in all cases the rights of the child. For examples, it would provide that the custody of every child born out of wedlock be temporarily granted to a lawfully married man and woman — the most tried and true, safe and stable environment humankind has ever known for promoting the best interests of children — or to the state if it cannot find a suitable couple who may agree to accept such custody. Within one year, if the biological parents lawfully marry each other, or either marries someone else of the opposite sex, that married couple would have sixty days to file a custody claim. Otherwise, permanent guardianship would be granted to the foster parents if they agree to accept it, or else to another married man and woman. Whatever the case, the rights and best interests of the child would always be paramount to those of any other person or persons.

It is our choice. We may either do something like the above or continue trying and failing to live with the clearly, inevitably, and increasingly dangerous consequences to our general welfare which the bastardization of America must and always will brew for us.

Labels: a Republic if we can keep it, greedy and selfish liberals (BIRM), grossly negligent liberals (BIRM), inconvenient facts, liberals are always extreme, out-of-touch liberals (BIRM), socialist injustice

	8:42 PM

Comments (registered users)