Creeping Socialism

Anyone who doesn't think it's happening, has a serious case of cranial rectumitis. Take a look at this. If that doesn't piss you off, then you have no business living in a free republic. A California (go figure) court, composed of a panel of three judges has decided that parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children without first obtaining teaching credentials. Read that again. "do not have a constitutional right". It seems that is becoming an all to common phrase these days. Justice H. Walter Croskey penned the courts final opinion which contains the following:

"Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children... Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction, and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program."

That, my friends is the government occupying a much larger swath of your life than was constitutionally afforded it. I could quote for you study after study showing the exceptional performance of home schooled students on standardized testing. I could provide for you volumes of data indicating that children who are home schooled, by and large, score up to 30% higher than those who are publicly educated. I could show you where adults who were home schooled as a children have higher participation in their communities, vote more often and are less likely to commit a crime. I could eat up a hell of a lot of broadband cutting a pasting links and completely lose my point within it, but it is easy enough to find yourself. So why? What's so wrong with home schooling that the government would step in and put a stop to it? You ready? Here it is: It is largely dominated by evangelical Christians. That's it folks. That's all thats wrong with it. Not because these stay at home parents can't do the job without some piece of paper, not because these kids are growing up to be completely inept from lack of socialization, not because they can be proven to have any deficiency compared to publicly educated students... it's because these parents teach their children things like creation in lieu of evolution. It is because they may spend as much time on Bible studies as they do social studies. The government has a lumbering monstrosity of a monopoly on education. It is a dinosaur, dominated by left wing liberals that lets so many children fall through the cracks that it is a wonder we've let them maintain a strangle hold this long.

Don't think the NEA isn't behind this! This reeks of the NEA! This is right in line with their agenda. The NEA is a socialist organization from top to bottom. Championing pro-homosexual (not homosexual tolerance but PRO-homosexual) and atheist agendas, they all but openly admit it to indoctrinating kids into socialism. Their bully union tactics sicken me. What if your public schools suck? What if they're not safe? What if you don't approve of their curriculum? What if you can't afford private education? What right does the government have to force sub-standard public education on you? How long will we let our rights be whittled away. California is fast becoming a moonbat nation all its own. Every infringement on the Constitution, every wacko oddity and perversion of mankind, every assault on our men in uniform, every tree hugging eco-terrorist maniac, every challenge to our national sovereignty, every quack court ruling, from county to Federal seems to originate in this nut house of a State.

We should let Mexico annex them. They damn near have, anyway. I'd tell you not to let this happen in your state, but as long as we allow little demi-god judges to legislate from their bench, we don't really have a choice, do we? I know it was a state court that made this ruling, but I've no doubt that were it to somehow make it to the lunatics on the Ninth Circuit that it would be upheld. You really want Hillary or Obama appointing any more judges? Can our freedom stand for it?

From the Archives:

Over the last year, this weblog has grown in its readership. I'm proud to have had the occasional opportunity to stimulate the hearts and minds of prople from all walks of life and from all over the globe. Because new readers have joined the ranks, I have decided to begin including posts from my archives. This will be occasional and adhere to no particular schedule. My recent switch to haloscan for hosting my comment threads has caused all of the comments in my previous posts to be lost. There were some posts which contained some very spirited debates and it is those posts which I intend to resurrect from time to time. Reposting articles from the archives is not an uncommon practice and lends itself to stimulating new debate and conversation among readers both new and old.

Jennifer recently posted an article asking her readers what their definition of "LOVE" was. It's a good question, one which I posted on last year. So I thought I'd bring forth from the dead, MY definition of Love.

From March 29, 2006:

A conversation came up recently which caused me to, believe it or not, ......rant. Yes ladies and gentlemen I am known, from time to time to occasionally give my opinion. Shocked though you may be, 'tis true. The subject was quite..........well, sappy for this blog because it involves matters more of the heart than of the brain, but it occupied quite a bit of my time and thought so I shall post on it anyway. Like always, I invite YOUR opinion, whether square with mine or not, in the comments section.

The subject was LOVE. Yes I am capable of it. No I'm not some calloused gun toting heartless neanderthal bastard that has no idea what it is or how to show it. I do however have a very non-secular definition of LOVE and it is there where you might choose to disagree. Your opinion may be different but I live in a free country and believe strongly in your right to be wrong!

LOVE is a very overused word. We who speak English apply it to food, movies, cars, pets, weather, kids, parents, spouses...just about anything enjoyable or desirable at the time. So, that being said I shall focus this particular issue on LOVE as that "thing" shared between a woman and a man, that "thing" which causes them to decide to spend the rest of their lives together.

I will define what I believe LOVE is by first defining what I believe it is not. It is not an emotion. Emotions come and go. They change with the weather or with the minute hand on the clock. I believe that because we apply the same word to ice cream or bike riding as we do to the relationship of a married couple, it has become diluted to the point of non-potency. It means nothing. We are jaded to the word and basically use it in place of "I am happy with this at the moment". I may have a change of opinion tomorrow, and no longer "LOVE" ice cream because it made me sick. LOVE is not a warm fuzzy feeling of strong attraction from one individual to another. That is lust. Lust is an emotion. Many relationships begin with lust...a physical attraction and grow and develop and mature into a relationship where the bond is LOVE not lust. (this is beneficial when age and gravity take their toll). Many people are fooled by believing LOVE is an emotion. They fall out of LOVE and into divorce because the relationship was based on something that is unstable....how they feel.

So what is it? LOVE IS A CHOICE. It is not HOW YOU FEEL. It is the nuturing, care and cultivation you give to a relationship IN SPITE OF HOW YOU FEEL. It's easy to nurture a relationship when all is well. It's when times are tough, and you don't quite feel like giving LOVE that LOVE shows itself in its purest form. The only thing that can cause you to give that truest form of LOVE is commitment. In other words, "I promised to LOVE you until I die, no matter what, and although you've made me angry (an emotion) and I don't feel like loving you, I will choose right now to stick with my commitment and LOVE you still. And the next time you make me angry, I will choose, right then and there, to LOVE you again. I will make this choice every day for no other reason than because I promised you I would." There is a durability, a concreteness and permanence to a promise like that. It is binding to a greater degree than being merely contractual. It's something you can count on, no matter what.

Now with LOVE comes action, the plate on which LOVE is served, the vehicle by which LOVE is conveyed. Sometimes that action is simply the omission of an act, like refraining from saying what you think or feel. ( I sometimes have a hard time with that one.) It's what you do or don't do that reaffirms to the other that despite current circumstances you shall not forsake your bond with them.

Think of LOVEs lost, either by you or someone you know. What went wrong? What happened? I guarantee you no matter what, you will find that at some point the commitment was abandoned and forsaken, and it was at that point that LOVE hopped the bus. It's a common state of affairs today to be led by ones emotions, to make decisions based on how one feels, even when those decisions conflict with a promise given. To be led by one's emotions is truly a childish thing, yet divorces are filed every minute of every day based on just that. Where wisdom, maturity, honor and commitment exist in a relationship, so too dwells true LOVE.

Why debating a Progressive/Liberal is akin to bashing one's head against the wall:

Civilized debate: What the heck is that? What makes it civilized? Why would civilized people want to argue with one another? What’s the difference between a free exchange of ideas in a civilized manner and just bashing one another with insults and innuendo? Inevitably, during a debate, someone’s going to get their feelings hurt. More often than not, that person will be the liberal in the bunch because their lives are led and their decisions are made based not on reason or logic but rather upon how they feel. It’s what makes debating with a liberal so doggoned difficult. Their emotions are a hindrance to a free flowing give and take conversation. Sooner or later they will become offended and then everyone will have to spend hours trying to decide who the offending party was and by that time the subject has been lost. It seems to become a sub-topic every time a hot debate begins. Thin skinned people who are short in mental stature always seem to be gravitated toward popular topics that are being debated about and they lash out with pointless comments meant only to enrage either because their ineptitude and inability to keep up frustrates them or because they feel as though you have insulted them, the end result being the same, the conversation gets steered way off topic. Often times one will note that, mysteriously enough, these occasions seem to present themselves at a time when the liberal needs to dodge a bullet, so to speak.

Debate is healthy. Open dialogue with one’s opposition is mentally stimulating. Some find it entertaining. Others find it informative. But very seldom is one actually swayed in their opinion. If anyone is actually swayed it is not the participants but rather the silent observers and even this is a rarity. So, why? Why even bother? Is it for the satisfaction that you’ve outlasted your opponent? Is anyone so shallow as to think that because an opponent disengages that it means victory? Some, perhaps. For those, it is more about their word being last rather than being significant. But for me debate solidifies my resolve to constantly evaluate my position. Why do I believe the things I do? Can I articulate to another not only what I believe, but why I believe it? Can I be persuasive enough in my statements to give an opponent a moment of pause to consider their position? Can I glean from their responses anything that would give me pause to do the same? What can I learn from my opponent? Is he crazy, misguided, embittered, or have I misread him? It is easy for one to assume that those who are polar opposites or spectrally different are stupid. I’ve been guilty of that very thing on occasion. Recognizing the ignorance and bigotry of such an assumption it is for this very reason that I seek to engage those who see the world differently than I do. To seek dialogue with a person in an effort, not necessarily to sway their opinion but rather to understand them and their point of view is what freedom is all about. If, in the end, all we have gained is a little better understanding or tolerance for another’s point of view, was it not time well spent?

Unfortunately this endeavor is rarely successful for the traditional/conservative. I speak not from some random, arbitrary opinion but from experience when I say that debating a progressive/liberal point for point is almost impossible. Emotions absolutely cannot be put aside in favor of logic and reason in a liberal mind. They are a constant in the liberal equation. It is the progressive/liberal who leads the forefront of the professionally offended left. Seeking out new things to be offended by is their pastime. They are the inventors of “political correctness” which hinders if not prevents altogether, honesty and the free exchange of ideas. One can no longer call a “spade” a “spade” in the world of the progressive liberal. One must call a “spade” a “perfectly legitimate suit of color which is normal and equivalent in every way, fitting the lifestyles of some but not others that may or may not resemble the head of a shovel.” Often harboring a double standard, progressive/liberals are free to temporarily dismiss this practice to put you in your proverbial place so long as you are not a member of a protected class of peoples. If you are a white, male, Christian, you can be attacked and insulted with no preclusions whatsoever. You however cannot respond in kind lest you be labeled a racist, fascist, or a bigot. Any point you make that cannot be disputed with fact, will be summarily dismissed with prejudice. Their creed is:

“I am a proud liberal, free from the bonds of archaic religious practice. I am the “enlightened” and you are the blind. I am tolerant and you are a bigot. I am open-minded and YOU ARE WRONG!”

They are elitists in their own right. Believing themselves to be above reproach, they make no attempt to defend their position based on any accepted form of reason and logic for it is that “reason” and “logic” that they reject. They are self-appointed custodians of the unfortunate and downtrodden. They are Socialists in Democrat’s clothing. To engage in civil debate would mean that one would have to be open to receiving suggestions from another. Progressive/Liberals aren’t open to anything except slamming the door on Traditionalist/Conservatives. They are looking for conformists. Dissenting viewpoints need not apply.

Christian Theocracy: Legitimate fear, or a fear mongering conspiracy theory of the anti-Christian liberal left?

The debate rages on. Jennifer has really struck a cord, it seems with her recent post that began with some cartoons mocking the liberal attack on the words "under God" in our National Pledge. This evolved to include the discussion of the words "In God We Trust" emblazoned on United States Currency. Now it has morphed into the inevitable debate about the true reason liberals object to these references to God. They fear a Christian Theocracy in the United States.

It cannot be intelligently argued against, that the liberal left has had a virtual monopoly on the Main Stream Media over the past two decades. Specific among these it the collective editorial comment in the nation's print media. Unique among newspapers is their editorial "opinion" columns. Conservatives have virtually no place in which to opine on full page ads from the powerful chair of an editor. These "opinion" pages have now spilled over into the "news" pages and the end result is unfair, biased news reporting that is significantly slanted to the left. I could list hundreds of newspapers across this country, but you all know who they are. I mention this because I believe that in addition to the monopoly the left has on the academia, this control of the print media in America is the prime catalyst for the propagation of this severely misguided fear of a government run by preachers and theologians.

There is a movement among some Protestant Christians to involve themselves in and, in fact, dominate the political process. These "Dominionists", however comprise a small insignificant portion of evangelical Christians. They derive their idea from the Biblical teaching in Genesis that God gave man "dominion" over the earth. There are basically two ways of interpreting this passage. One would be the Dominionists' concept that they are charged with total control of Earth and all of its secular institutions, while the majority of Christians tend to interpret it as a command for stewardship.

Dominionists have a bit of a paradoxical problem to confront when asserting their idea that it is the responsibility of Christians to rule by God's law. You see, God has given all that he has created, including man, the free will to choose. This is evident throughout Biblical text, the fall of Satan, the fall of man, man's continuous defiance of God and God's continuous forgiveness of man, and God's commandment to spread the Gospel to all corners of the earth. (Why would this be necessary if man had no free choice to receive it?)

It is a bit of a conspiracy theory among liberals that all Evangelical Christians seek to impose a Christian Theocracy upon the United States. They are truly frightened by the Traditionalist Conservatives in this country. They peddle this obtuse theory through opinion columns and College classrooms. More recently the internet has provided them with a very flexible forum from which to get their word out that they are the true "free thinkers", liberated from the bonds of archaic religious doctrines and that Christians are evil fascists who seek to impose their beliefs upon the world. The website Jesusland.com, for example has devised what they refer to as a "crypto-fascist theocracy" complete with maps and a new National Anthem entitled "The Star Spangled Bible". You read it. Then you decide who is fascist and who is not.

Most of us seek only to acknowledge that the United States is a country that is largely Christian not to force you to go to church or celebrate Easter. We don't believe in murder. We don't believe in adultery. We don't believe in stealing, lying or cheating. So, to those who would fear that Christians aspire to govern you: How are our beliefs any different than the laws already laid down in this country? Our Bible doesn't allow us to push the Gospel upon you or force you to comply with God's commandments. It requires us to share it with you if you will listen but you have the right to refuse. Where in the Constitution of the United States are you afforded the right to never be exposed to religion? Where in that document of our freedom are you assured that you will never be approached and offered something you have the right to refuse anyway?

Whether you believe in God or not, we have morals and concepts of right and wrong that are derived from God's laws as man has no moral compass of his own. Most would concur that killing, raping, stealing, and enslaving is wrong. But how do you know? Who says? What is wrong for you, may be right for another. If there is no God, then who is to decide what is truly right, and what is truly wrong? If we are not accountable to a higher authority than ourselves, why should we then conclude that anything is bad, so long as we benefit?

The concept of right and wrong comes from the belief in a divine creator God who is all powerful, all knowing and all present; a God who is watching and who knows our every move and our every thought. It is the only reason we should fear killing our neighbor and procuring all that he owns for ourselves under the cover of darkness. Why should that be wrong unless someone greater than ourselves says so? If you are your own God, then it is you who decides what is right and what is wrong. If you then decide that it is OK to rape a little child, who is to contest you? If survival of the fittest and evolution is true, then the weak should die and the strong should live. You should be able to plant your seed wherever your see fit. Civilized behavior and social welfare should be considered counterproductive to the natural cycle of life as it allows the sick and the weak to prosper.

Sounds barbaric doesn't it? It is. But it is in keeping with the theory of evolution to which Atheists cling so strongly. It is, in fact, their "religion", one which, ironically, they shove down the throats of everyone who obtains a public education. (kinda double standard isn't it?) Christians don't hold these propositions to be true and declare it by proclaiming the name of God as Him in whom we trust all things. If you don't believe that, then that's fine. But you are still bound and accountable to the laws of civilized society which are remarkably similar to the laws of God. So if you have to live by them anyway, why should you care to whom the credit is given?

Peace...but at what cost? An answer from an unlikely source.

Peace. In reality, it's what we all strive for is it not? Peace is the end result to all noble endeavors. But what of peace? And at what cost must it be achieved? Nothing in this world comes without sacrifice. Nothing is gained where nothing is forfeited. So how then can the pacifist ever truly hope for peace? Is peace under tyranny, even peace at all?

There are those would give "terrorists" equal footing, equal say and equal consideration...equality at the negotiation table. They believe that a terrorist act is merely a legitimate lashing out against a greater evil and that one must consider their motives, search for their plight and "feel" their downtroddeness in order to eliminate it's cause (which is all to often, American economic influence and foreign policy). Hmmm, so sitting at a negotiation table is the proper response to someone flying hijacked airliners into buildings full of your civilians? That's what they believe.

Sound ridiculous? Well, make no mistake, these people are numerous and they are powerful. And they have their sights set not on you and I, but on yours and mine....our children, that is. They run rampant in our colleges and universities and they're tenured! Ignoring any historical evidence to the contrary, they vehemently believe in the impossible, that offering appeasements and concessions to those who would murder innocent civilians to achieve a political end can result in peace. That's bad enough, but worse still, is their power and influence over our children and young adults. Having nearly unfettered access to them at ages when they are most credulous, they indoctrinate thousands every day. The "truth" it seems, is flexible. Perhaps that is debatable but it is certainly true of history. It is morphed and molded and delivered with the political slant of the professor who's charged with teaching it.

Nowhere is this process of misinformation and indoctrination more true than in the ever-popular "Peace Studies" offered and in fact, mandated by many of this country's higher educational institutions. Churning out little socialist "global citizens" by the hundreds they turn our youngest and most impressionable citizens into enemies of everything our country and western civilization stands for. I recently read an outstanding article at The City Journal entitled "The Peace Racket". If you want to understand this movement, read this article. Read it all. Its content was spot on, but I was puzzled by it's source. ‘Twas an unlikely source, hence the title of this post. The author, Bruce Bawer, is a gay literary critic and writer who touts himself as a "liberal democrat" in his book entitled "Place At the Table", while promoting centrist politics. He also lobbed a few bombs at Christianity and Capitalism in his book "Stealing Jesus". I'm often leery of self professed Centrists. I don't trust them. They flip-flop and switch sides way to often, as seems to be the case here. Well, everyone is bound to hit the mark every now and again and Mr. Bawer certainly did that. Despite being such an unlikely candidate to expose these things, his article is without a doubt enlightening.

War is indeed terrible but it is a part of life and like peace, it has its place and it has its time. War should be avoided but not at all costs. Peace should be pursued, but not at all costs. Pacifists would have you and I believe that Peace is more important than anything, including freedom. Their "turn the other cheek" policy would hold that it is better to give in to a dictator or tyrant and thereby avoid war than for war itself to set one free. History has proven the opposite....at least history as it is written today. People long to be free. They do not naturally accept the position of living at the pleasure of another. If peace is worth longing for and living for, then it is certainly worth fighting for and dying for. One might intelligently argue that the road to peace is, in fact....war. For, historically speaking, no civilization has ever enjoyed the former without suffering the latter. Peace has always been a temporary state of existence. The same is true of war. I do not condone war, I do not wish for it, but I realize that it is the price of peace. It always has been. Unfortunately, so too is it the price of freedom and, here in America, we want both. What do you think might be the price of that?

Guard your children. Teach them reason. Inform them to be suspicious of anyone who's teachings are not open to discussion or debate. Teach them the difference between education and indoctrination. Be the driving influence in their lives while they are impressionable, because if not you....then who?

It's no "MAGNUM OPUS"....but it ain't that bad either!

So THIS is what all the fuss was about? You gotta be kidding me! This is the Opus Cartoon that might have ...(here's that word again)..."offended" some Muslims. Well, imagine that....Muslim's offended! Berkely Breathed is an Athiest and has also been known to fry up some Christians in his cartoons from time to time. The Washington Post, of course, has never had a moment's pause about "offending" those Christians whenever a cartoon lends itself to do so but, amazingly enough, their "testicular fortitude" fails them when it comes time to be "fair" and "balanced". Along with some 25 other newspapers, they chose not to carry this particular strip.

Well, let it never be said that I didn't have the balls to "offend" a few Muslims because I was afraid of getting bombed. This cartoon isn't that bad. But like many of Berkeley Breathed's cartoons, it isn't all that good either...(sigh). Whatever. Here it is.

(shamelessly lifted from Eugene Volokh)

Shock and Awe! (It worked for the Air Force.)

Sorry, but I made it as small as I could. If you dare, you should click it for the larger picture and let your "scientific mind" study it for a while. Ask yourself if this 10 week old fetus, which already has fingernails, is....sorry, was a HUMAN BEING. Ask yourself if it felt pain. Ask yourself if it suffered. Ask yourself if we executed prisoners convicted of murder in a similar manner, (by dismemberment), "Would it be considered 'humane'?" Why then, would anyone consider such a heinous act as a matter of mere convenience?

I have not made it a practice to regularly include disturbing images such as this on my site. Nor does it stand the chance of becoming commonplace, so don't be afraid to visit again. But I noticed, in my daily reads, that such images must be searched for and even then they hide behind disclaimers. Why? Because it might offend someone? Who? Who should be offended by this photo? YOU SHOULD! And that's the point. I AM OFFENDED BY THIS PHOTO, but I choose not to bury my head in the sand and pretend that it all amounts to some sterile form of euthanasia which causes no pain or suffering nor carries with it eternal consequences.

Look at it. If you believe that this is just some chance evolution of nature born of primordial slime, then I guess you should just continue on because the value of human life to which I appeal in you just isn't there, not to the level that one appreciates when confronted with the realization that this is the design of a Divine Creator. But if you believe, not only in the value but also in the SANCTITY of human life, then you should be moved to never, ever support politicians or legislation which protects the process by which this photo was achieved.

Don't just feel.....REASON. Reason with yourself and your convictions. Is this right, or wrong? Almost everything on the planet can be sorted into those two categories. If you arrive at the conclusion that it is neither, but rather a "necessary evil" then you have indeed missed the point and your blessed theory of evolution should bother you greatly because this would indicate that it is a backwards process and we are naturally contributing to the destruction of our species. I don't believe in such a process. I believe in right and wrong. I believe that there exists in this world both good and evil. And I believe that THIS....this abomination to God and man alike is indeed EVIL.

What do you believe? Don't be fooled. This is not some overly complicated situation which, because of endless variables, cannot be easily sorted into the simplicity of mere right and wrong. Conversely, this IS the simplest example of right and wrong. It IS the most elementary illustration of good vs. evil. There will come a day when you too will be sorted and though your stance on this particular issue won't be the factor which decides whether you're placed with the sheep or the goats, the fact remains that your stance on this issue is a clear indication of which flock you dwell among today.