Showing posts with label Freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom. Show all posts
Monday, November 26, 2012
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Homeschooling Under Attack
My husband and I are members of the Christian homeschooling organization HSLDA--the Home School Legal Defense Association. You might think that any Christian homeschooler would want to join such a group. You would be wrong. There are many homeschoolers who choose not to be members of HSLDA. They have thoughtful reasons for their decision, reasons that I can respect. My husband and I have considered the pros and cons of membership and have made a different decision.
That, though, is not the point of this post. The point of the post is an article I just read in the Nov./Dec. issue of the HSLDA publication, The Home School Court Report. The article, written by HSLDA chairman Michael Farris, is entitled "The Third Wave of Homeschool Persecution" and outlines what Farris sees as the third in a series of attacks on homeschooling by those who are threatened by it. He says the first two attacks failed because they were based on faulty premises which were in time shown to be faulty, namely that 1) homeschooling doesn't work and that 2) homeschoolers suffer from not being "socialized." Farris says no one seriously argues either point anymore because homeschooling has proven itself to be quite successful in producing students and ultimately adults who are able to function in the world as effectively as students coming out of institutional settings.
What's left, then, for those who want to go after homeschooling? Farris says that the anti-homeschoolers have found a third war cry, and this one (unlike the previous two) happens to be based in fact. According to him, the "third wave" is the argument that "Christian homeschooling parents are effectively transmitting values to their children that the elitists believe are dangerous to the well-being of both these very children and society as a whole." He quotes at length from an article by Catherine Ross, a professor at George Washington Law School. The article, published in May 2010 in the William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, is entitled "Fundamentalist Challenges to Core Democratic Values: Exit and Homeschooling." Here is an excerpt:
"This essay explores the choice many traditionalist Christian parents (both fundamental and evangelical) make to leave public schools in order to teach their children at home, thus in most instances escaping meaningful oversight. I am not primarily concerned here with the quality of academic achievement in the core curricular areas among homeschoolers, which has been the subject of much heated debate. Instead my comments focus on civic education in the broadest sense, which I define primarily as exposure to the constitutional norm of tolerance. I shall argue that the growing reliance on homeschooling comes into direct conflict with assuring that children are exposed to such constitutional values."
Are you tracking with this? Homeschooling is dangerous to our children, the country and the Constitution. Farris also quotes from another author, Professor Martha Albertson Fineman from the Emory University School of Law, who in 2009 in the book What is Right for Children? The Competing Paradigms of Religion and Human Rights wrote,
"Indeed, the long-term consequences for the child being homeschooled or sent to a private school cannot be overstated. The total absence of regulation over what and how children are taught leaves the child vulnerable to gaining a sub-par or non-existent education from which they may never recover. Moreover, the risk that parents or private schools unfairly impose hierarchical or oppressive beliefs on their children is magnified by the absence of state oversight or the application of any particular educational standards." Fineman's solution to the problem? Read on:
". . . [T]he more appropriate suggestion for our current educational dilemma is that public education should be mandatory and universal. Parental expressive interest could supplement but never supplant the public institutions where the basic and fundamental lesson would be taught and experienced by all American children: we must struggle together to define ourselves both as a collective and as individuals."
Are you catching those buzzwords? "Struggle"? "Collective"? Would you like a cup of Marxism with your afternoon dialectic?
The battle line is being pretty clearly drawn. Having failed to attack homeschooling on the merits there is nothing left for the anti-homeschoolers but to attack a parent's right to do it. And that is achieved by going after the child, claiming that the state, not the parent, has ultimate responsibility for that child.
On the one hand, I have a certain sense of security that homeschooling has become so common and accepted that any attempt to eradicate it would fail. I am in the second generation of homeschooling and have personally never encountered what I would describe as homeschooling "persecution." Most of the time the people I come in contact with, even if they don't understand homeschooling, respect it as one of the educational options out there and respect my and my husband's decision to do it. They have overall positive images of homeschooling and often say they would do it themselves if they "could."
On the other hand, I think it pays to be vigilant. We live in a country that has for a very long time now been slowly expanding the power and reach of the State. There are some signs that may be starting to change, but those signs are not definitive and I am not convinced the tide has turned. I for one plan to tighten my grip on my kids, plant myself firmly between them and the ever-grasping State, and proclaim loudly, "Over my dead body." I suggest you do the same. How you do it is up to you.
That, though, is not the point of this post. The point of the post is an article I just read in the Nov./Dec. issue of the HSLDA publication, The Home School Court Report. The article, written by HSLDA chairman Michael Farris, is entitled "The Third Wave of Homeschool Persecution" and outlines what Farris sees as the third in a series of attacks on homeschooling by those who are threatened by it. He says the first two attacks failed because they were based on faulty premises which were in time shown to be faulty, namely that 1) homeschooling doesn't work and that 2) homeschoolers suffer from not being "socialized." Farris says no one seriously argues either point anymore because homeschooling has proven itself to be quite successful in producing students and ultimately adults who are able to function in the world as effectively as students coming out of institutional settings.
What's left, then, for those who want to go after homeschooling? Farris says that the anti-homeschoolers have found a third war cry, and this one (unlike the previous two) happens to be based in fact. According to him, the "third wave" is the argument that "Christian homeschooling parents are effectively transmitting values to their children that the elitists believe are dangerous to the well-being of both these very children and society as a whole." He quotes at length from an article by Catherine Ross, a professor at George Washington Law School. The article, published in May 2010 in the William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, is entitled "Fundamentalist Challenges to Core Democratic Values: Exit and Homeschooling." Here is an excerpt:
"This essay explores the choice many traditionalist Christian parents (both fundamental and evangelical) make to leave public schools in order to teach their children at home, thus in most instances escaping meaningful oversight. I am not primarily concerned here with the quality of academic achievement in the core curricular areas among homeschoolers, which has been the subject of much heated debate. Instead my comments focus on civic education in the broadest sense, which I define primarily as exposure to the constitutional norm of tolerance. I shall argue that the growing reliance on homeschooling comes into direct conflict with assuring that children are exposed to such constitutional values."
Are you tracking with this? Homeschooling is dangerous to our children, the country and the Constitution. Farris also quotes from another author, Professor Martha Albertson Fineman from the Emory University School of Law, who in 2009 in the book What is Right for Children? The Competing Paradigms of Religion and Human Rights wrote,
"Indeed, the long-term consequences for the child being homeschooled or sent to a private school cannot be overstated. The total absence of regulation over what and how children are taught leaves the child vulnerable to gaining a sub-par or non-existent education from which they may never recover. Moreover, the risk that parents or private schools unfairly impose hierarchical or oppressive beliefs on their children is magnified by the absence of state oversight or the application of any particular educational standards." Fineman's solution to the problem? Read on:
". . . [T]he more appropriate suggestion for our current educational dilemma is that public education should be mandatory and universal. Parental expressive interest could supplement but never supplant the public institutions where the basic and fundamental lesson would be taught and experienced by all American children: we must struggle together to define ourselves both as a collective and as individuals."
Are you catching those buzzwords? "Struggle"? "Collective"? Would you like a cup of Marxism with your afternoon dialectic?
The battle line is being pretty clearly drawn. Having failed to attack homeschooling on the merits there is nothing left for the anti-homeschoolers but to attack a parent's right to do it. And that is achieved by going after the child, claiming that the state, not the parent, has ultimate responsibility for that child.
On the one hand, I have a certain sense of security that homeschooling has become so common and accepted that any attempt to eradicate it would fail. I am in the second generation of homeschooling and have personally never encountered what I would describe as homeschooling "persecution." Most of the time the people I come in contact with, even if they don't understand homeschooling, respect it as one of the educational options out there and respect my and my husband's decision to do it. They have overall positive images of homeschooling and often say they would do it themselves if they "could."
On the other hand, I think it pays to be vigilant. We live in a country that has for a very long time now been slowly expanding the power and reach of the State. There are some signs that may be starting to change, but those signs are not definitive and I am not convinced the tide has turned. I for one plan to tighten my grip on my kids, plant myself firmly between them and the ever-grasping State, and proclaim loudly, "Over my dead body." I suggest you do the same. How you do it is up to you.
Friday, March 26, 2010
With Praise Like This, Who Needs Criticism?
Fidel Castro is applauding the government takeover of health care signed into law this week by President Obama. According to this AP article, "Cuba provides free health care and education to all its citizens, and heavily subsidizes food, housing, utilities and transportation, policies that have earned it global praise."
Well, there ya' go. We have arrived. Our President promised to change the way America is viewed internationally, and he is doing just that, eliciting praise from such champions of human rights as the dictator of Cuba. We are now on track to in due time bring Cuba's high standard of health care* to the United States of America. I can't wait.
*WARNING: This is a link to a page on "The Real Cuba" website. It contains multiple thumbnail images documenting the current condition of "health" care in Cuba. The images are small but nevertheless deeply disturbing. If you would prefer not to see them, you can just take my word that they do not suggest the existence in Cuba of a leader or government that honestly cares about about the health and well-being of its citizens.
Well, there ya' go. We have arrived. Our President promised to change the way America is viewed internationally, and he is doing just that, eliciting praise from such champions of human rights as the dictator of Cuba. We are now on track to in due time bring Cuba's high standard of health care* to the United States of America. I can't wait.
*WARNING: This is a link to a page on "The Real Cuba" website. It contains multiple thumbnail images documenting the current condition of "health" care in Cuba. The images are small but nevertheless deeply disturbing. If you would prefer not to see them, you can just take my word that they do not suggest the existence in Cuba of a leader or government that honestly cares about about the health and well-being of its citizens.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Memo to the Nanny State
So, a California lawmaker wants to ban the inclusion of toys in fast food kids' meals. He says the toys are an enticement to children to eat unhealthy food.
Never mind that it's not the kids buying the meals but their parents. When was the last time you saw a six-year-old drive his trike through McDonald's?
Clearly this is yet another instance of government attempting to usurp individual freedom and in this case the authority of the parent. Expect more of this sort of thing with Obamacare because after all, if the government is paying for everyone's health care, it has the duty to tell us how to eat.
I saw the lawmaker in question on Fox News this morning, and when he was asked, "Isn't it the parent's job to decide what his child should or should not eat?" his response was, "Yes, but we just think parents could use a little help."
I'm reminded of the wisdom of Ronald Reagan, who once stated, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Who does this guy think he is? The sheer, brazen audacity--to look me in the face and tell me that I can't successfully rear a child without his high-falutin' help.
Well, I have news for him.
IT'S NOT THE TOY, MAN.
It's the French fries, as any parent well knows.
As long as there are French fries in Happy Meals, kids wll want Happy Meals. Wonder how long it will be before they figure that out and Happy Meals are outlawed?
Never mind that it's not the kids buying the meals but their parents. When was the last time you saw a six-year-old drive his trike through McDonald's?
Clearly this is yet another instance of government attempting to usurp individual freedom and in this case the authority of the parent. Expect more of this sort of thing with Obamacare because after all, if the government is paying for everyone's health care, it has the duty to tell us how to eat.
I saw the lawmaker in question on Fox News this morning, and when he was asked, "Isn't it the parent's job to decide what his child should or should not eat?" his response was, "Yes, but we just think parents could use a little help."
I'm reminded of the wisdom of Ronald Reagan, who once stated, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Who does this guy think he is? The sheer, brazen audacity--to look me in the face and tell me that I can't successfully rear a child without his high-falutin' help.
Well, I have news for him.
IT'S NOT THE TOY, MAN.
It's the French fries, as any parent well knows.
As long as there are French fries in Happy Meals, kids wll want Happy Meals. Wonder how long it will be before they figure that out and Happy Meals are outlawed?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
It Makes Sense, Actually
Is it any wonder that a nation of government school products who have been conditioned in alienation, emotional and intellectual dependency, class stratification, envy, confusion, indifference and fear would elect leaders whose message is "Look to me and I will take care of you and tell you what to do" rather than "You are capable and you don't need me to do for you what you can do for youself"?
As John Taylor Gattor observes, our public schools are not failing. They are doing exactly what they were always intended to do.
As John Taylor Gattor observes, our public schools are not failing. They are doing exactly what they were always intended to do.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Call to Action
I know. It's the pits. BUT WE MUST NOT GIVE UP! WE MUST NOT STICK OUR HEADS IN THE SAND! WE MUST NOT LET THEM WIN!
Sorry. Just wanted to make sure you were paying attention.
If you read nothing else today, read this from Bill Whittle of Pajamas Media. Please.
Sorry. Just wanted to make sure you were paying attention.
If you read nothing else today, read this from Bill Whittle of Pajamas Media. Please.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
"The war is actually begun"
The words of Patrick Henry have been ringing in my ears tonight. Amazing how appropriate they are to the situation at hand. Bart Stupak would do well to read them. Trusting the likes of Obama & Pelosi is akin to trusting George III. By the way, take note of the date.
Speech to the Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Monday, February 15, 2010
Your Tax Dollars at Work
I spent much of the day accompanying young musicians in Solo & Ensemble competition. The event took place at a local high school. Many of the students I accompanied were assigned to classrooms that are normally home to social science instruction (history, government, and economics). In one room the chalkboard had some writing that had not been erased. It was a comparison/contrast chart of the major political parties' stands on certain issues, one of which was censorship. According to the chart, on the question of free speech the Democrat party is "pro-freedom" and the Republican party is "pro-censorship."
This is the sort of thing with which students in our public schools are regularly indoctrinated. And we are told that this is education, and that the government needs more money to do more of it.
I could be wrong, but I think if more parents took the time to go into classrooms and see and hear what their children are being taught rather than blindly accepting that the schools are doing their jobs, they might decide it's time to not only starve the public education beast but to send him back to school himself.
This is the sort of thing with which students in our public schools are regularly indoctrinated. And we are told that this is education, and that the government needs more money to do more of it.
I could be wrong, but I think if more parents took the time to go into classrooms and see and hear what their children are being taught rather than blindly accepting that the schools are doing their jobs, they might decide it's time to not only starve the public education beast but to send him back to school himself.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
"A Decade and Its Crises"
From Sammy Benoit of American Thinker:
When we look back at the decade 2000-2009, we may well define it by three crises: the crisis that didn't happen, the crisis that wasn't supposed to happen, and the crisis that we don't realize is happening. We haven't learned the lessons of the first two, and our ignorance of the third may doom us to be slaves to our government, rather than the other way around.
Click here to read the rest.
When we look back at the decade 2000-2009, we may well define it by three crises: the crisis that didn't happen, the crisis that wasn't supposed to happen, and the crisis that we don't realize is happening. We haven't learned the lessons of the first two, and our ignorance of the third may doom us to be slaves to our government, rather than the other way around.
Click here to read the rest.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Goodbye, Free Exchange of Ideas
President Obama has given away the Internet. Does anyone have any doubt about what this will do for the cause of freedom?
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Obama and ACORN
The President says he's not paying much attention to the ACORN scandal because it's just not that important. Pamela Geller at American Thinker begs to differ. An excerpt:
"This is madness. What this constitutes is a coup on the American electoral system, a usurpation of the will of the people: government by the people and for the people made into a sham. It's a government by the moochers and the looters, for the moochers and the looters, stolen from the good, hardworking Americans. And worse, the American people have sat by and let it happen. Obama's presidency is not an accident of history. It was a very deliberate assault by the hard left on the foundation of the greatest country in human history."
"This is madness. What this constitutes is a coup on the American electoral system, a usurpation of the will of the people: government by the people and for the people made into a sham. It's a government by the moochers and the looters, for the moochers and the looters, stolen from the good, hardworking Americans. And worse, the American people have sat by and let it happen. Obama's presidency is not an accident of history. It was a very deliberate assault by the hard left on the foundation of the greatest country in human history."
Sunday, September 13, 2009
America is speaking, Mr. President. Are you listening?
Earlier this week President Obama referred to Americans who oppose his government-expanding and overspending policies as liars and obstructionists. Yesterday a disputed number of those so-called liars assembled in Washington, D.C. (the estimates range anywhere from tens of thousands to several million). American Thinker has published the observations of several demonstrators, along with a link to a time-lapse YouTube video showing the progress of the 3-4 hour march in just one or two minutes. It is worth noting that there was no violence and no disturbing of the peace, nor was there a big name figurehead spearheading the event. It was instead the result of the vision and execution of everyday citizens across the country, people like you and me, who are tired of being ignored. Similar demonstrations were held in other cities around the nation. Lots and lots of people are trying to speak to this President. The question is, is he listening? And will he truly try to understand instead of assigning to the demonstrators straw man positions that do not represent their true worries and fears?
I don't know if he has yet had any reaction to the march. It would not surprise me if he completely ignored it. To comment on it at all would probably, in his mind, grant it legitimacy and additional media attention. But whether he listens or not, the "Tea Party" Americans are not going to go away, be quiet, or give up. One thing I can give Mr. Obama credit for: I think he may have awakened the proverbial sleeping giant. The question is, does he even care whether or not he and his party retain power? If so, there may yet be hope of putting the brakes on cap and trade and socialized medicine and more harm to the economy, not to mention the ongoing compromising of national security. But my fear is that he and his posse may be willing to fall on their swords if it means furthering their agenda. Perhaps they are thinking that if the power grab is big and successful enough, they will ultimately be able to reclaim control even if they temporarily lose it. If so, they aren't going to listen to the giant, no matter how loudly he stomps.
And that means that this giant better not go back to sleep anytime soon. Because even if he succeeds in ridding himself of the current administration in a few years, he may have to face the effects for a long time to come, in which case he needs to keep on stomping to have any hope of reversing the damage that has been done.
I don't know if he has yet had any reaction to the march. It would not surprise me if he completely ignored it. To comment on it at all would probably, in his mind, grant it legitimacy and additional media attention. But whether he listens or not, the "Tea Party" Americans are not going to go away, be quiet, or give up. One thing I can give Mr. Obama credit for: I think he may have awakened the proverbial sleeping giant. The question is, does he even care whether or not he and his party retain power? If so, there may yet be hope of putting the brakes on cap and trade and socialized medicine and more harm to the economy, not to mention the ongoing compromising of national security. But my fear is that he and his posse may be willing to fall on their swords if it means furthering their agenda. Perhaps they are thinking that if the power grab is big and successful enough, they will ultimately be able to reclaim control even if they temporarily lose it. If so, they aren't going to listen to the giant, no matter how loudly he stomps.
And that means that this giant better not go back to sleep anytime soon. Because even if he succeeds in ridding himself of the current administration in a few years, he may have to face the effects for a long time to come, in which case he needs to keep on stomping to have any hope of reversing the damage that has been done.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Protecting and Regaining State Sovereignty
I just discovered this site and wanted to pass it along to anyone who is interested.
The Tenth Amendment Center
"The Tenth Amendment Center works to preserve and protect Tenth Amendment freedoms through information and education. The center serves as a forum for the study and exploration of state and individual sovereignty issues, focusing primarily on the decentralization of federal government power."
HT: Father Hollywood
The Tenth Amendment Center
"The Tenth Amendment Center works to preserve and protect Tenth Amendment freedoms through information and education. The center serves as a forum for the study and exploration of state and individual sovereignty issues, focusing primarily on the decentralization of federal government power."
HT: Father Hollywood
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Recommended
We watched The Singing Revolution last night. It's a documentary about the role that singing played in the non-violent liberation of Estonia from Soviet rule. Here's my previous post on the subject.
My Lutheran readers may also want to check out this review of the movie in Liturgy, Hymnody and Pulpit, where it is pointed out that the now sainted Rev. Dr. Kurt Marquart was born in Estonia.
The movie is a testament to the power of singing as well as the power of people to stand in the face of tyranny. I can't help but think Americans could learn a lot from this movie, things that may serve us well in the future. Problem is, we don't sing anymore in this country. At least, not like this. Instead, we have people sing to us. I suppose it's evidence of the importance and power of singing that we then turn some of our singers into near gods, looking to them for a sort of redemption. Then when they show themselves to be merely human, we are surprised.
Music can't save us. But when we make it our own it can nourish and fortify us in a way that not many other human endeaors can. May the Estonian people never lose the love for corporate singing that sustained and helped bring them out of the dark days of their oppression into the light of freedom. God bless them, and God bless all who thirst for freedom.
My Lutheran readers may also want to check out this review of the movie in Liturgy, Hymnody and Pulpit, where it is pointed out that the now sainted Rev. Dr. Kurt Marquart was born in Estonia.
The movie is a testament to the power of singing as well as the power of people to stand in the face of tyranny. I can't help but think Americans could learn a lot from this movie, things that may serve us well in the future. Problem is, we don't sing anymore in this country. At least, not like this. Instead, we have people sing to us. I suppose it's evidence of the importance and power of singing that we then turn some of our singers into near gods, looking to them for a sort of redemption. Then when they show themselves to be merely human, we are surprised.
Music can't save us. But when we make it our own it can nourish and fortify us in a way that not many other human endeaors can. May the Estonian people never lose the love for corporate singing that sustained and helped bring them out of the dark days of their oppression into the light of freedom. God bless them, and God bless all who thirst for freedom.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Game, Set, Match
I listened to Rush Limbaugh for a while yesterday. He was talking about nationalized health care, citing this article by Mona Charen. Charen calls Obama's plan to socialize medicine in this country "the whole ball game." In other words, if he wins this battle, he has won the war for the soul of our nation, changing it essentially and perhaps irrevocably. As Rush pointed out, once the government has control of health care, it will be able to claim the right to manage and control almost every aspect of our lives in the name of cost-cutting. It makes sense. Almost every thing a person does can be said to have an impact on his or her overall health and well-being. If the government is paying for an individual's medical care, then, it will be able to assert the right to control your behavior in the name of controlling costs.
We can't lose this one. And we don't have to. The Democrats are already showing signs of infighting (just look at the lack of a clear party line on the release of the interrogation photographs--the White House says no, while Pelosi says yes). President Obama's approval ratings are starting to slide. It's time for the sleeping giant to wake up. Time for all of us to gird our loins and polish our swords. This is war! If we put our minds and hearts and will to it we can win it. And win it we must.
We can't lose this one. And we don't have to. The Democrats are already showing signs of infighting (just look at the lack of a clear party line on the release of the interrogation photographs--the White House says no, while Pelosi says yes). President Obama's approval ratings are starting to slide. It's time for the sleeping giant to wake up. Time for all of us to gird our loins and polish our swords. This is war! If we put our minds and hearts and will to it we can win it. And win it we must.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
The Singing Revolution
To find out more, go here.
Then go sing something. And if you have children, have them sing with you. Some day we might need our own singing revolution.
Friday, May 22, 2009
OBS: The Obama Broadcasting System
So now the President is starting to shut out the White House Press Corps when he feels like it. In its place there is a presidential YouTube station as well as a White House Facebook page, Twitter updates, and who knows what else. The president will say it's all about transparency and access. I say it's all about micro-managing the dissemination of information. Welcome to Obama Nation, or is that Abomination?
Here are a few more thoughts from American Thinker.
Here are a few more thoughts from American Thinker.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
From One Wild Animal to Another
I've been down with a summer cold. Well, not literally down--I'm still doing the stuff I need to do--but I haven't felt like doing much that I don't have to do, including blogging. Maybe I'll get something of my own posted later today. In the meantime, I recommend this column by Lee Cary at American Thinker. It's a review of a book that has caught the attention of the White House, a book which analyzes the psychology of human economic behavior, describing people as animals that are driven by emotion rather than reason and the government as essentially a zookeeper whose job it is to keep the animals from running wild. According to the authors, capitalism doesn't work because people not only buy things that they need but also things that they think they need but really don't (silly, stupid people). That's where the government comes in. From the book: "Such a world of animal spirits give the government an opportunity to step in. Its role is to set the conditions in which our animal spirits can be harnessed creatively to serve the greater good. Government must set the rules of the game . . . . Indeed if we thought that people were totally rational, and that they acted almost entirely out of economic motives, we too would believe that government should play little role in the regulation of financial markets, and perhaps even in determining the level of aggregate demand."
What the authors seem to be missing here is that government is made up of people, people who are just as irrational--and sinful--as the rest of us. What makes them think those people will do any better than we will ourselves? They're not even making decisions about their own money, but that of others. Oh yes, I forgot: the government pigs are smarter than the rest of us. Welcome to Obama Farm--or would that be Obama Zoo?
What the authors seem to be missing here is that government is made up of people, people who are just as irrational--and sinful--as the rest of us. What makes them think those people will do any better than we will ourselves? They're not even making decisions about their own money, but that of others. Oh yes, I forgot: the government pigs are smarter than the rest of us. Welcome to Obama Farm--or would that be Obama Zoo?
Friday, April 17, 2009
Tea Parties
I didn't get to go to a tea party protest Wednesday. In addition to nursing sick children, I had to finish and mail our taxes, attend a funeral, take my son to the orthodontist, and teach piano lessons. But I was there in spirit, and I have appreciated reading articles and blog posts by those who attended and seeing photos and video coverage on television.
Unsurprisingly, however, the MSM are in general not covering the tea party protests accurately. Some outlets have portrayed the protesters as right-wing extremest fanatics and the protests as Republican propaganda. For an example, check out this post by Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake. The MSM just don't seem to get it. People are angry, and it's not just Republicans, but Democrats and Libertarians and Independents and others. And yes, they're angry at Barack Obama--he's the one in power right now--but the anger is directed not just at him. They realize the problem is systemic. But they also see him as making it infinitely worse. I think what bothers me most is how the protests are being played as only a tax revolt. I guess given that they happened on April 15 and hearken back to the revolutionaries who protested taxation without representation, I can't blame reporters for making that connection. But as Jane explains, this is about so much more than taxes. Ultimately, it's about freedom, and the fear that we have come to a place in our history where we are getting ready to lose the basic freedoms that once defined us as a nation.
One of the articles I read about the tea parties described a number of signs carried by the protesters. My favorite by far was this one:
OBAMA: One Big Awful Mistake, America.
The good news is that the ultimate power in this country still resides with the people. But it's up to them to use it. Maybe the sleeping giant is finally starting to wake up and we are seeing the beginnings of something that will lead to real hope and change rather than the narcotic version our politicians will keep pouring down our throats as long as we let them.
Unsurprisingly, however, the MSM are in general not covering the tea party protests accurately. Some outlets have portrayed the protesters as right-wing extremest fanatics and the protests as Republican propaganda. For an example, check out this post by Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake. The MSM just don't seem to get it. People are angry, and it's not just Republicans, but Democrats and Libertarians and Independents and others. And yes, they're angry at Barack Obama--he's the one in power right now--but the anger is directed not just at him. They realize the problem is systemic. But they also see him as making it infinitely worse. I think what bothers me most is how the protests are being played as only a tax revolt. I guess given that they happened on April 15 and hearken back to the revolutionaries who protested taxation without representation, I can't blame reporters for making that connection. But as Jane explains, this is about so much more than taxes. Ultimately, it's about freedom, and the fear that we have come to a place in our history where we are getting ready to lose the basic freedoms that once defined us as a nation.
One of the articles I read about the tea parties described a number of signs carried by the protesters. My favorite by far was this one:
OBAMA: One Big Awful Mistake, America.
The good news is that the ultimate power in this country still resides with the people. But it's up to them to use it. Maybe the sleeping giant is finally starting to wake up and we are seeing the beginnings of something that will lead to real hope and change rather than the narcotic version our politicians will keep pouring down our throats as long as we let them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)