What's up with Vermont? I saw on "The O'Reilly Factor" a few days ago that this VERY liberal state is considering legalizing "sexting" among teens as young as thirteen. For those who don't know sexting is the practice of taking sexually explicit pictures on a cell phone and text messaging them to another person.
Over the last couple of years I've heard of more and more instances of kids sexting each other. In a few cases kids have been arrested and labelled sexual predators for sending and/or receiving sexually explicit photos of themselves or others. The state of Vermont wants to legalize sexting supposedly to protect kids who just might be doing something stupid from getting slapped with the predator label. Sounds good, but it's not. There's something else going on here.
If Vermont doesn't want teens to be designated sexual predators for sexting it could simply lower the legal penalty for the act. But no, Vermont wants to completely legalize sexting for kids. Kids! Oh, there are stipulations. The sexting must be by kids 13-18 years old and sent only to other 13-18 year olds with whom they have a "committed relationship". Did you get that? A committed relationship. For 13 year olds! What is going on here? I think Bill O'Reilly hit the proverbial nail at least partially on the head.
O'Reilly opined that Vermont's move reflects the progressives' goal of eliminating all sexual boundaries for everyone, including children. I would take this further and say that Vermont's action is also part of a progressive plan to legitimize adult-child sex. Hear me out.
As I stated above, the proposal to legalize sexting by kids stipulates that the act must occur between kids in a committed relationship. The notion of a committed relationship among teens as young as 13 presupposes that said teens can consent to sex. And if 13-18 year olds can consent to sex among themselves why not with older people, i.e. adults? Thus, legalizing sexting could be the opening salvo against age of consent laws which, in turn, could be a precursor to normalizing sex between adults and kids. Why would progressives want to normalizing such sexual deviancy?
Progressives despise America's traditional, Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. They regard it as repressive and the source of misogyny and anti-gay bigotry. Eradicating this ethic is a prime goal of the progressive movement. For progs, unfettered sexual expression is the panacea for society, and they believe it should include children. The effort to legalize sexting is just the latest instance of that belief run amok.
Vermont is corrupt. Progressives appear to have almost total control there. From opposing Jessica's Law to legalizing sexting this state is a lost cause. And it's a portent of what lies ahead for all of America if we traditionalists fail. We can't lose heart. We can't give up. We can't be afraid. An "anything goes" philosophy is guaranteed to put our kids at risk. We need to shout, from the bottom of our hearts, NO! NO to sexting! NO to anything goes! NO to Vermont! The future and well-being of our children depend on that.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Everyone Against Abortion Please Raise Your Hand
I saw this video on a friend's blog and was so moved by it that I had to post it here. It is short but powerful. If, after viewing this video, you still cling to the canard that unborn babies aren't human and abortion isn't murder, then you have a hole in your soul. God help you. The rest of us will cry...for the babies, not you.
Suffer the little children to come unto Me.
Suffer the little children to come unto Me.
Friday, January 23, 2009
What's In A Name?
If your name is Adolf Hitler Campbell, a lot.
Little Adolf Hitler Campbell shot to notoriety in December when a grocery store refused his parents' request to put his full name on his birthday cake. Heath and Deborah Campbell, Adolf's parents, denied they were racist even though their two other children, both girls, have Nazi inspired names. Now the state of New Jersey, where the Campbells live, has removed Adolf and his sisters, JoyceLynn Aryan Nations and Honszlynn Hinnler Jeannie, from their parents. Most people seem to think that was a good move; I don't.
The New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services seized the Campbell children supposedly because a neighbor accused their parents of abuse and their father of domestic violence. The child welfare agency insists that it would never remove children from their homes just because of their names, but Deborah Campbell believes her children's names are the real problem. I agree.
I've heard the Campbells called unfit and abusive parents for naming their son Adolf Hitler. I believe that naming your child after someone is a way to honor that person. I believe that Heath and Deborah Campbell intended to honor Der Fuhrer with their son's name. I believe they are racists, in spite of their denial. And I believe that giving a child a badly stigmatized name is a socially disasterous move; socially disasterous, though, is NOT the same thing as abusive. And being a racist doesn't automatically make anyone an unfit parent. But the state of New Jersey apparently believes that it does. Whatever their neighbor's accusations, I believe Heath and Deborah Campbell lost custody of their kids because they have beliefs that the state doesn't approve of. Their children's names tipped off the state to those beliefs. This is chilling.
The state has an obligation to protect children from abuse but under no circumstances should the definition of abuse be political. If that happens children become powerful tools the state can use to punish politically incorrect adults. And when child abuse is politicized its prosecution can become highly selective. Does anyone believe, for instance, that the state of New Jersey would dare remove a child named Osama ben Laden from radical Muslim parents? Does anyone believe, even for a second, that the state of New Jersey would dare remove a child named Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, or Pol Pot from Communist parents? We know that would never happen. Muslim civil rights groups and the ACLU would be screaming in the streets and the courts. In the current politically correct climate it's ok to be a radical Muslim or a Communist; it's not ok to be a White racist, supremacist, or separatist. That's why the Campbell children were taken from their parents. And that should terrify everyone because the next "wrong" beliefs could be yours and child protective services could come calling.
Little Adolf Hitler Campbell shot to notoriety in December when a grocery store refused his parents' request to put his full name on his birthday cake. Heath and Deborah Campbell, Adolf's parents, denied they were racist even though their two other children, both girls, have Nazi inspired names. Now the state of New Jersey, where the Campbells live, has removed Adolf and his sisters, JoyceLynn Aryan Nations and Honszlynn Hinnler Jeannie, from their parents. Most people seem to think that was a good move; I don't.
The New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services seized the Campbell children supposedly because a neighbor accused their parents of abuse and their father of domestic violence. The child welfare agency insists that it would never remove children from their homes just because of their names, but Deborah Campbell believes her children's names are the real problem. I agree.
I've heard the Campbells called unfit and abusive parents for naming their son Adolf Hitler. I believe that naming your child after someone is a way to honor that person. I believe that Heath and Deborah Campbell intended to honor Der Fuhrer with their son's name. I believe they are racists, in spite of their denial. And I believe that giving a child a badly stigmatized name is a socially disasterous move; socially disasterous, though, is NOT the same thing as abusive. And being a racist doesn't automatically make anyone an unfit parent. But the state of New Jersey apparently believes that it does. Whatever their neighbor's accusations, I believe Heath and Deborah Campbell lost custody of their kids because they have beliefs that the state doesn't approve of. Their children's names tipped off the state to those beliefs. This is chilling.
The state has an obligation to protect children from abuse but under no circumstances should the definition of abuse be political. If that happens children become powerful tools the state can use to punish politically incorrect adults. And when child abuse is politicized its prosecution can become highly selective. Does anyone believe, for instance, that the state of New Jersey would dare remove a child named Osama ben Laden from radical Muslim parents? Does anyone believe, even for a second, that the state of New Jersey would dare remove a child named Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, or Pol Pot from Communist parents? We know that would never happen. Muslim civil rights groups and the ACLU would be screaming in the streets and the courts. In the current politically correct climate it's ok to be a radical Muslim or a Communist; it's not ok to be a White racist, supremacist, or separatist. That's why the Campbell children were taken from their parents. And that should terrify everyone because the next "wrong" beliefs could be yours and child protective services could come calling.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Here's One For Solomon
Who should get baby Manji? That's the question facing India's Supreme Court as it tries to decide the fate of a baby girl born to a Japanese father and an Indian surrogate mother. This case reveals not only problems with practice of surrogacy but also what happens when law trumps common sense. For those of you who don't know, here's baby Manji's story.
In November of last year Ikuyumi Yamada and his then wife Yuki went to India and contracted with a surrogate mother to carry a baby for them. The baby was conceived using Mr. Yamada's sperm and the surrogate's egg. Shortly before the baby's birth Mr. Yamada and his wife divorced and Yuki Yamada decided she no longer wanted the child. Well then, baby Manji should just go home to Japan with her father, right? Wrong.
India has no laws governing the practice of surrogacy, so baby Manji was born as an Indian citizen. In order to take his daughter home Ikuyumi Yamada would have to adopt her. But there's a catch. Indian adoption law forbids the adoption of a girl by a single man. But what a minute, you say. Ikuyumi Yamada isn't just any old single man, he's Manji's FATHER! Exactly, and you'd think that would be enough for India to allow Manji to go home with him. And you'd be dead wrong. The letter of the law has common sense by the throat in this case. And things are getting more complicated.
An Indian child welfare group has now stepped forward asking the Supreme Court for custody of Manji. What this group wants with Manji is unclear. If it were truly committed to her welfare, though, it would demand that India let her father take her home. If nothing else India should give custody of Manji to her paternal grandmother, who's in India looking after her, and let the baby leave the country. Once in Japan it would not be India's business who Manji lived with, and she could then be placed with her father where she belongs.
This case should give pause to anyone considering the use of a surrogate mother, especially one from India. I can understand how obsessed some childless couples can get to have a child biologically related to at least one of them. But there are hundreds of thousands of orphans in this world desperately in need of parents. If all someone wants to do is raise a child it shouldn't matter much, if at all, if that child is or isn't "my own". When I see people going to the extreme of surrogacy or in vitro fertilization I suspect that there's more going on with them than a simple desire to be a parent.
Ikuyumi Yamada and his now ex-wife did chose surrogacy, however, and this man deserves to have the child that resulted from it. Yes, Mr. Yamada is now a single man, but he's also Manji's father. It is a violation of justice and common sense to keep Mr. Yamada, who has never been proven in any way unfit, from his baby. India ought to be ecstatic that Manji, unlike so many female children in that country, has a parent who desperately wants her. India, it's time to do the right thing. Let Manji go home.
In November of last year Ikuyumi Yamada and his then wife Yuki went to India and contracted with a surrogate mother to carry a baby for them. The baby was conceived using Mr. Yamada's sperm and the surrogate's egg. Shortly before the baby's birth Mr. Yamada and his wife divorced and Yuki Yamada decided she no longer wanted the child. Well then, baby Manji should just go home to Japan with her father, right? Wrong.
India has no laws governing the practice of surrogacy, so baby Manji was born as an Indian citizen. In order to take his daughter home Ikuyumi Yamada would have to adopt her. But there's a catch. Indian adoption law forbids the adoption of a girl by a single man. But what a minute, you say. Ikuyumi Yamada isn't just any old single man, he's Manji's FATHER! Exactly, and you'd think that would be enough for India to allow Manji to go home with him. And you'd be dead wrong. The letter of the law has common sense by the throat in this case. And things are getting more complicated.
An Indian child welfare group has now stepped forward asking the Supreme Court for custody of Manji. What this group wants with Manji is unclear. If it were truly committed to her welfare, though, it would demand that India let her father take her home. If nothing else India should give custody of Manji to her paternal grandmother, who's in India looking after her, and let the baby leave the country. Once in Japan it would not be India's business who Manji lived with, and she could then be placed with her father where she belongs.
This case should give pause to anyone considering the use of a surrogate mother, especially one from India. I can understand how obsessed some childless couples can get to have a child biologically related to at least one of them. But there are hundreds of thousands of orphans in this world desperately in need of parents. If all someone wants to do is raise a child it shouldn't matter much, if at all, if that child is or isn't "my own". When I see people going to the extreme of surrogacy or in vitro fertilization I suspect that there's more going on with them than a simple desire to be a parent.
Ikuyumi Yamada and his now ex-wife did chose surrogacy, however, and this man deserves to have the child that resulted from it. Yes, Mr. Yamada is now a single man, but he's also Manji's father. It is a violation of justice and common sense to keep Mr. Yamada, who has never been proven in any way unfit, from his baby. India ought to be ecstatic that Manji, unlike so many female children in that country, has a parent who desperately wants her. India, it's time to do the right thing. Let Manji go home.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
God Bless You, Mama
Today is a very special day. Today marks the second anniversary of my mother being cancer free.
Mama was diagnosed with cancer in 2006, only 18 months after my father died of the disease. My sister and I were panic stricken. Mama, though, was calm and displayed a remarkable level of confidence that she would be alright. She was...and is.
I don't have the best relationship with my mother. Often our interactions are difficult and fraught with tension. Good days are that way usually because we both choose not to go beyond the superficial in our conversation. Still, I love my mother dearly and I'm so grateful that she is still here. Every day that she wakes up is another chance that we can make our relationship better. So I happily and thankfully celebrate this special day, and prayerfully look forward to many more.
God bless you, Mama. I love you.
Mama was diagnosed with cancer in 2006, only 18 months after my father died of the disease. My sister and I were panic stricken. Mama, though, was calm and displayed a remarkable level of confidence that she would be alright. She was...and is.
I don't have the best relationship with my mother. Often our interactions are difficult and fraught with tension. Good days are that way usually because we both choose not to go beyond the superficial in our conversation. Still, I love my mother dearly and I'm so grateful that she is still here. Every day that she wakes up is another chance that we can make our relationship better. So I happily and thankfully celebrate this special day, and prayerfully look forward to many more.
God bless you, Mama. I love you.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Straight Out Of "Home Alone"
I read this on Yahoo! News this morning.
In a mad dash to board a plane to Paris, an ultra-Orthodox Israeli couple forgot one of their five children at Ben Gurion airport. The child, a three-year-old girl, was found by airport personnel wandering around and crying for her mother. She was later flown to Paris, accompanied by airport staff, and reunited with her parents. The parents, whose names haven't been released, didn't know they were missing a child until they were informed in flight that their daughter had been found at Ben Gurion. They will be investigated for parental negligence when the family returns from their vacation.
Wow! I'm not quite sure what to make of this. On the surface it's easy to accuse those parents of neglect. How could they possibly not know their little girl was not with the family? Then again, airports are big, crowded, busy places and when you're trying to shuffle five little ones plus luggage through them it's easy to see how children and parents could get separated. This is especially true if they are running late and rushing to make it to the plane, as this family was. So I can cut the parents some slack on losing sight of their child in the airport. What gets me is how they didn't notice the three-year-old was missing once they got on the plane.
Airplanes, in sharp contrast to airports, are small, contained spaces where it should be fairly easy to do a head count. Why didn't the parents do such a head count? That's the first thing I would've done. What did they do to make sure each child was accounted for? Who did they think had their daughter, since she obviously wasn't with them? Were they depending on one of the older kids to look after the three-year-old? And if so, why didn't that child tell the parents that his/her little sister was missing? Was the older child scared of the parents? These are the questions that keep running through my mind.
I don't want to condemn these parents. It's not like they left their child in a hot car or some other life threatening place. And I understand how hard it can be to keep up with one child, let alone five. On the other hand, I also know that if you're supervising more than one child you must constantly count, count, count! Doing head counts and name checks, where each child says "Here!" when his name is called, is crucial to prevent losing a child or discovering early that a child has wandered off. I learned that trick from working in day care and I will always follow it because it works. This family should've tried it.
In the end I suppose we should just be thankful that the little Ben Gurion Girl was found unharmed and safely reunited with her family. I hope Israeli authorities won't be too hard on her parents. Everyone involved has, I'm sure, been through enough trauma.
Home Alone, indeed.
In a mad dash to board a plane to Paris, an ultra-Orthodox Israeli couple forgot one of their five children at Ben Gurion airport. The child, a three-year-old girl, was found by airport personnel wandering around and crying for her mother. She was later flown to Paris, accompanied by airport staff, and reunited with her parents. The parents, whose names haven't been released, didn't know they were missing a child until they were informed in flight that their daughter had been found at Ben Gurion. They will be investigated for parental negligence when the family returns from their vacation.
Wow! I'm not quite sure what to make of this. On the surface it's easy to accuse those parents of neglect. How could they possibly not know their little girl was not with the family? Then again, airports are big, crowded, busy places and when you're trying to shuffle five little ones plus luggage through them it's easy to see how children and parents could get separated. This is especially true if they are running late and rushing to make it to the plane, as this family was. So I can cut the parents some slack on losing sight of their child in the airport. What gets me is how they didn't notice the three-year-old was missing once they got on the plane.
Airplanes, in sharp contrast to airports, are small, contained spaces where it should be fairly easy to do a head count. Why didn't the parents do such a head count? That's the first thing I would've done. What did they do to make sure each child was accounted for? Who did they think had their daughter, since she obviously wasn't with them? Were they depending on one of the older kids to look after the three-year-old? And if so, why didn't that child tell the parents that his/her little sister was missing? Was the older child scared of the parents? These are the questions that keep running through my mind.
I don't want to condemn these parents. It's not like they left their child in a hot car or some other life threatening place. And I understand how hard it can be to keep up with one child, let alone five. On the other hand, I also know that if you're supervising more than one child you must constantly count, count, count! Doing head counts and name checks, where each child says "Here!" when his name is called, is crucial to prevent losing a child or discovering early that a child has wandered off. I learned that trick from working in day care and I will always follow it because it works. This family should've tried it.
In the end I suppose we should just be thankful that the little Ben Gurion Girl was found unharmed and safely reunited with her family. I hope Israeli authorities won't be too hard on her parents. Everyone involved has, I'm sure, been through enough trauma.
Home Alone, indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
