Because I don't access to stats specific to this magazine/website, I had to resort to more general arguments against the sophistry of LMarja.

This woman does read Chronicles, especially Dr. Wilson's articles, and am totally against abortion, "choice" (if by that you mean acceptance of sodomy...maybe you don't), free-love, and divorce. These are no-brainers if you read God's word and agree with Him. Even if you don't, they are destroyers of family, state and country.

>I severely doubt that many women read Chronicles. Most women endorse abortion on demand, “choice”, free-love, and no-fault divorce. Chronicles upholds the family. Why, then would most women read it?<

You seem to be supposing that Chronicles is read more by men than women, and that this is because men are more likely to have these conservative virtues that you admire.

But where is your evidence that women are any more likely to endorse...

1. Abortion on demand.
2. "Choice".
3. Free-Love.
4. No-Fault Divorce.

...than men are?

In reality, the only across the board gap in voting patterns vis a vis the social issues you describe is between Married People (both men and women) and Single People (both men and women).

Ann Coulter has been good enough to point this out on national television, so I honestly don't know why you wouldn't know about it.

Canada offers an instructive example. As the traditionally Right party, the "Progressive Conservatives" (sic - the schizophrenia was present even in the name) drifter further to the left, a new, more genuinely conservative part was created. This new party, the Alliance, slowly gathered support, and split the Right vote more or less down the middle, leaving the Liberals in power for decades. Decades.

Only when the Alliance and the old Progressive Conservatives merged into one party were they finally able to regain power, after decades in the wilderness.

The good news is this newly-merged party (now simply called "Conservative") is somewhat more Right than the old PCs were. The bad news is that the Liberals were able to shift the country very far to the Left in the years that they were in power, basically unopposed. And the damage that they have done likely cannot be undone.

I absolutely agree with all of the criticisms of the GOP, particularly its contemptible subservience to Israel. But there is simply no choice. No matter how thoroughly it must be changed, victory can only come through that a transformation of the GOP into a more genuinely traditional-conservative party. Establishing a new party to the point that it can supplant the Republicans is an epochal project - and would only leave the Left unfettered.

Changing the GOP - fantastically difficult.
Creating a new viable party in time to stem the Left - impossible

>While Thomas Fleming’s diatribe may be disturbing, does it really represent the Chronicles “Canon”?I concede that I was over-zealous in categorizing female readership by using broad general terms like “most” and “many”.I would also like to point out that a vast majority of the commentators bear traditionally male names and some evocative of Roman names.Perhaps this reflects upon the readers? Or perhaps female readers do not comment?"And no, I don’t trump either gender as superior. I prefer to attack ideas.Few would deny that the feminist movement helped destroy the family.Women ask for divorces more frequently then men.I don’t think men really adore the idea of free love since it erodes at their sense of honour.No, we’re living in a not-fully realized Plato’s Republic.<

Not if I can help it.

While Thomas Fleming's diatribe may be disturbing, does it really represent the Chronicles "Canon"?

I concede that I was over-zealous in categorizing female readership by using broad general terms like "most" and "many".

I don't understand how I'm annihilating these pro-life women by saying they are unlikely to read Chronicles. Supposing all pro-life women read Chronicles, what percentage of these women would understand or enjoy commentaries on Xenophon? I'm sure it's a small percentage of men as well.

I would also like to point out that a vast majority of the commentators bear traditionally male names and some evocative of Roman names. Perhaps this reflects upon the readers? Or perhaps female readers do not comment?

And no, I don't trump either gender as superior. I prefer to attack ideas.

Do you refer to "men" as the male gender or "men" in the classical sense? Frankly, using the term in the classical sense, we've done it to ourselves.

Few would deny that the feminist movement helped destroy the family. Women ask for divorces more frequently then men. I don't think men really adore the idea of free love since it erodes at their sense of honour.

No, we're living in a not-fully realized Plato's Republic.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't make Thomas Fleming's mindless slander against Queen Elizabeth any less disgusting and wrong.

And in any event, a September 3rd Gallup poll put American Women 50% "pro-choice" vs. 43% "pro-life".

43% is a lot of women, and you are trying dismiss them and their existence out of hand.

May God damn you.

And do you have any evidence whatsoever that women are more likely to support no-fault divorce and free love than men are?

Go ahead and only talk about what's wrong with women, while ignoring the far greater horrors inflicted on our culture by men.

It shows what side you are really on.

If family was thought to be sacred, you might find female readers.

Brock:
I think you're right to say that being American is more than holding a passport. For instance, giving suffrage to naturalized citizens is questionable. Although they might renounce their former citizenship and swear allegiance to the United States, they will be shaped by the traditions and culture of their natal land. They will be shaped by the ideologies and thoughts of their homeland, which will be influenced either from their own upbringing in the natal land or the influence of their parents. I think it would be prudent to give suffrage to the children of naturalized citizens.

I think the states were right to restrict suffrage at the founding.
I also think we should bring back property requirements for suffrage too, but hey, that's a lot to ask for.