In the current political climate most Americans believe fiscal liberalism, i.e. massive government spending, is the main menace to our nation; however, the threat of social liberalism can't be dismissed. It's still there, devouring our families and traditional moral order. And here's the proof.
On tonight's edition of The O'Reilly Factor host Bill O'Reilly revealed that the school board in Provincetown, MA has decided not only to give condoms to any student who asks but to deny parents the right to object. This would be outrageous even if we were talking about high school students, but the liberal educators in Provincetown have ok'd giving condoms to elementary school kids! And Mom and Dad can't say no. The arrogance of social liberals is mind boggling.
And just what justification did the Provincetown educational progressives have for distributing prophylactics to kids and trampling parental rights? I don't know; none of them could be reached for comment by the time the show aired. I think I know what these "concerned" school officials would say, though. They'd say that they're just trying to protect children from STDs and pregnancy, and I'd say, yeah, right.
Here's the deal.
Social liberals HATE the traditional, Bible-based morality that has guided America since its founding and even before. They particularly despise traditionalism's sexual ethic which defines moral sexual relations as only those that occur between a married man and woman. Liberals blame traditional sexual morality for everything from homophobia to wife beating. Only by replacing traditionalism with an anti-Biblical, free sex ethic, they believe, can we ensure an enlightened and egalitarian society. And traditionalism, liberals have found, can be quite easily replaced by teaching children their free sex ethic in public schools.
That's what Provincetown's condom give away,like all condom give aways, is really about: defeating Bible-based, traditional values, NOT protecting kids from pregnancy and disease. For social liberals it's a quasi-religious belief that defeating traditional values is necessary to create a just society. Consequently, they feel justified in using whatever means they can to ensure said defeat. Violating parental rights and authority comes naturally to social progressives since such rights and authority are part of the value system they're working to eliminate.
But what about dissenters from the progressive socio-sexual vision? Social liberals will respond to them the same way they responded to dissenters from health care "reform", namely, with contempt and arrogant paternalism. Unshakeably convinced that they alone know what's best for society, social liberals believe people will embrace their free sex ethic once it's been forced on them and they experience the resulting utopia. Until then, those who object to a sexualized childhood and anti-parent policies will be demonized as religious nuts, bigots, and/or ignorant defenders of outmoded thinking. And liberal educators' indoctrination of the nation's children will continue unabated.
As stated at the beginning of this post, massive fiscal irresponsibility IS a threat to the nation; I'm not trying to down play that. However, those of us who are conservative, who are traditionalist, must understand that progressives are waging a two front war on America. Their fight is fiscal AND social. Conservatives are gallantly fighting the fiscal war but too many seem to have surrendered in the social war. We can't do that. There's more at stake than the size of government or what happens to our money.
What good is a balanced budget if parents can't raise their children as they see fit?
What good are lower taxes if our history is rewritten and our heritage is smeared?
What good is smaller government if it can still undermine traditional values through the schools?
The actions of the Provincetown, MA school board show that progressives are determined to impose their Godless worldview on the whole of society. They will never stand down and neither should we. We must fight them on the social issues as tenaciously as we fight them on the fiscal issues. Our children and nation deserve nothing less.
Showing posts with label Parental Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parental Rights. Show all posts
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Saturday, May 8, 2010
No "Rescue Plan" Necessary
When I was standing in the checkout line at the store last Sunday I noticed a blurb on the cover of the Black magazine Essence. It read, "Is Your Child Obese? Michelle Obama Has a Rescue Plan" (or something close to that). When I saw that I was angered and saddened at the same time. I couldn't believe how much dependence on government had become an unquestioned part of reality for many Americans, especially Blacks. Like I said, it made me both angry and sad.
I admit I didn't read the actual article; the cover blurb totally turned me off. The very idea that obese children and their parents need a rescue plan from the government is just so offensive. It presupposes that parents just aren't smart enough to raise their children on their own and need input from government to succeed. What nonsense!
Yes, there are parents who really are incompetent, abusive, or negligent, but those parents are in a very small minorty. And yes, there are parents who are just too wimpy to impose anything, like better eating habits, on their kids. But those parents, too, are most likely in the minority. If their child is obese most parents can see that and know what to do about it. The equation is simple. Too much inactivity plus too much food equals too much fat. Most parents get that. And they know what to do about it. Governmental intervention is NOT necessary.
If Michelle Obama wants to use her position as First Lady to simply encourage parents to practice better nutrition with their children, that's ok. That would be no different from, say, a Hollywood celebrity using his prominence to raise awareness of an issue. Prominent people using their position for good is good. But if Michelle Obama is using the problem of childhood obesity as an excuse to get more government regulation into our lives, that's unacceptable.
Parents don't need government telling them how to parent. They don't need government to teach them how to feed their children or get them away from the tv and out to play. Parents already know how to do that. Sure, many of them aren't doing that but it's not because they don't know how. In this age of stressed out, dual income families, it's often much easier to buy McDonald's for dinner than prepare a healthy meal at home. There are solutions to that quandry and if Michelle Obama just wants to give parents some helpful information, that's fine. Anything beyond that, though, is suspect.
Michelle Obama needs to remember who she is. She's the First Lady NOT the First Mother. More control by the state is NOT what America's families need. Mom and Dad are raising the kids and need to be pretty much left alone to do that job as they see fit. If that means many parents will make choices for their children that Michelle Obama wouldn't make for hers, so be it. That's called freedom and most Americans think it's pretty cool. Michelle Obama should get a clue.
I admit I didn't read the actual article; the cover blurb totally turned me off. The very idea that obese children and their parents need a rescue plan from the government is just so offensive. It presupposes that parents just aren't smart enough to raise their children on their own and need input from government to succeed. What nonsense!
Yes, there are parents who really are incompetent, abusive, or negligent, but those parents are in a very small minorty. And yes, there are parents who are just too wimpy to impose anything, like better eating habits, on their kids. But those parents, too, are most likely in the minority. If their child is obese most parents can see that and know what to do about it. The equation is simple. Too much inactivity plus too much food equals too much fat. Most parents get that. And they know what to do about it. Governmental intervention is NOT necessary.
If Michelle Obama wants to use her position as First Lady to simply encourage parents to practice better nutrition with their children, that's ok. That would be no different from, say, a Hollywood celebrity using his prominence to raise awareness of an issue. Prominent people using their position for good is good. But if Michelle Obama is using the problem of childhood obesity as an excuse to get more government regulation into our lives, that's unacceptable.
Parents don't need government telling them how to parent. They don't need government to teach them how to feed their children or get them away from the tv and out to play. Parents already know how to do that. Sure, many of them aren't doing that but it's not because they don't know how. In this age of stressed out, dual income families, it's often much easier to buy McDonald's for dinner than prepare a healthy meal at home. There are solutions to that quandry and if Michelle Obama just wants to give parents some helpful information, that's fine. Anything beyond that, though, is suspect.
Michelle Obama needs to remember who she is. She's the First Lady NOT the First Mother. More control by the state is NOT what America's families need. Mom and Dad are raising the kids and need to be pretty much left alone to do that job as they see fit. If that means many parents will make choices for their children that Michelle Obama wouldn't make for hers, so be it. That's called freedom and most Americans think it's pretty cool. Michelle Obama should get a clue.
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, April 16, 2008
Injustice In The Lone Star State
I'm beginning to believe I'm the only person in America who has a problem with the ongoing crackdown on that polygamist sect in Texas. I want to make it clear that I oppose any abuse of children and I'm not defending this sect's beliefs or marital practices. However, I feel the state of Texas has committed a grave injustice by removing over 400 sect children from their parents.
As you know this sect, called the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, practices plural marriage and, apparently, routinely marries underage girls to older men. It was a claim of spousal abuse from one such girl that triggered the removal of the group's children. Rather than deal with that one case in the normal fashion Texas authorities are using it as a pretext to shut down this sect. I strongly suspect it's our mainstream culture's visceral dislike of polygamy, and not concern about child abuse, that's really driving this crackdown. The FLDS parents are being punished for daring to live a lifestyle society doesn't like. That's what is most disturbing about this case.
Think about it. Why are Texas authorities so eager to terminate the parental rights of the FLDS parents? Because they're desperate to save the children from abuse? Not hardly. A few months ago a Texas mother threw her two sons off a freeway overpass then jumped herself. Fortunately they all survived, but the children had been in state custody at least once before this ordeal. If the state of Texas was so concerned about protecting children from abuse why did it give those two boys back to an abusive mother? Why have child protective services all over America given children back to unfit parents who later killed them? Government has a dismal record of protecting children from abuse.
But, you might say, the government had to do something with the FLDS. These people weren't just polygamists, they were child sexual abusers. Why, they gave underage girls in marriage to men old enough to be their grandfathers! That sounds horrible I know, but just what is it that people don't like about these May-December marriages? It certainly isn't the sex part. For all the sanctimonious outrage at the FLDS's marital/sexual practices the truth is our mainstream culture loves underage sex. Our popular entertainment is saturated with it; our schools aid and abet it.
For example, virtually every teen horror flick of the last 30 years has included sexual intercourse between the teen characters. Popular teen tv shows are also full of underage sexual activity. Music constantly pumps pro-promiscuity messages into the hearts and minds of our kids. And the original version of The Vagina Monologues, a very popular feminist play, positively portrayed the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl by a grown woman.
Public schools continue the sexual evangelizing of our kids. Most teach an amoral sexual ethic where anything goes so long as you don't get pregnant or get a disease. Last year a Maine public school began dispensing contraceptives to 11-year-olds without parental knowledge let alone consent. No provision was included in the policy to ascertain the age of the preteens' sexual partners. Other schools were reported to be considering the same policy. All to keep the kiddies safe, they claimed. Of course, such policies make a mockery out of age of consent laws and loudly proclaimed committments to childhood innocence. Yes, we mainstreamers love kiddie sex even as we stand in pious condemnation of those child marrying polygamists.
If I had a daughter I wouldn't marry her to an older man, but is that really the worst thing that could happen to her? And if polygamy is so awful why isn't the state of Texas investigating it in the Muslim community? Why isn't the state of Texas investigating honor killing, where girls are murdered for "shaming" their families? Two young Muslim sisters were victims of an apparent honor killing back in January. Texas authorities didn't respond by taking other Muslim girls from their families on the grounds that they, too, might be killed. Yet the mere potential for abuse--abuse, not murder--was deemed justifiable grounds to snatch hundreds of Mormon kids from their parents.
I smell a rat. Something is really, really wrong here. The removal of the FLDS kids was a virtual kidnapping by the state of Texas. If it is allowed to stand it will bode ill for all families whose lifestyles are remotely unconventional. Families whose beliefs strongly contradict the prevailing secular, PC orthodoxy will be especially vulnerable. Homeschoolers in California recently got a preview of that.
I ask all people who believe in freedom, family autonomy and parental rights to pray that the FLDS parents get their children back. Yes, their beliefs may be starkly different from yours; you may even find them repulsive. But if the state can take those fundamentalists' kids, it can take yours. Whose to say when your lifestyle will be judged unacceptable. So I think you'd better pray for those "weird" Mormons because the family and children you save may be your own.
As you know this sect, called the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, practices plural marriage and, apparently, routinely marries underage girls to older men. It was a claim of spousal abuse from one such girl that triggered the removal of the group's children. Rather than deal with that one case in the normal fashion Texas authorities are using it as a pretext to shut down this sect. I strongly suspect it's our mainstream culture's visceral dislike of polygamy, and not concern about child abuse, that's really driving this crackdown. The FLDS parents are being punished for daring to live a lifestyle society doesn't like. That's what is most disturbing about this case.
Think about it. Why are Texas authorities so eager to terminate the parental rights of the FLDS parents? Because they're desperate to save the children from abuse? Not hardly. A few months ago a Texas mother threw her two sons off a freeway overpass then jumped herself. Fortunately they all survived, but the children had been in state custody at least once before this ordeal. If the state of Texas was so concerned about protecting children from abuse why did it give those two boys back to an abusive mother? Why have child protective services all over America given children back to unfit parents who later killed them? Government has a dismal record of protecting children from abuse.
But, you might say, the government had to do something with the FLDS. These people weren't just polygamists, they were child sexual abusers. Why, they gave underage girls in marriage to men old enough to be their grandfathers! That sounds horrible I know, but just what is it that people don't like about these May-December marriages? It certainly isn't the sex part. For all the sanctimonious outrage at the FLDS's marital/sexual practices the truth is our mainstream culture loves underage sex. Our popular entertainment is saturated with it; our schools aid and abet it.
For example, virtually every teen horror flick of the last 30 years has included sexual intercourse between the teen characters. Popular teen tv shows are also full of underage sexual activity. Music constantly pumps pro-promiscuity messages into the hearts and minds of our kids. And the original version of The Vagina Monologues, a very popular feminist play, positively portrayed the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl by a grown woman.
Public schools continue the sexual evangelizing of our kids. Most teach an amoral sexual ethic where anything goes so long as you don't get pregnant or get a disease. Last year a Maine public school began dispensing contraceptives to 11-year-olds without parental knowledge let alone consent. No provision was included in the policy to ascertain the age of the preteens' sexual partners. Other schools were reported to be considering the same policy. All to keep the kiddies safe, they claimed. Of course, such policies make a mockery out of age of consent laws and loudly proclaimed committments to childhood innocence. Yes, we mainstreamers love kiddie sex even as we stand in pious condemnation of those child marrying polygamists.
If I had a daughter I wouldn't marry her to an older man, but is that really the worst thing that could happen to her? And if polygamy is so awful why isn't the state of Texas investigating it in the Muslim community? Why isn't the state of Texas investigating honor killing, where girls are murdered for "shaming" their families? Two young Muslim sisters were victims of an apparent honor killing back in January. Texas authorities didn't respond by taking other Muslim girls from their families on the grounds that they, too, might be killed. Yet the mere potential for abuse--abuse, not murder--was deemed justifiable grounds to snatch hundreds of Mormon kids from their parents.
I smell a rat. Something is really, really wrong here. The removal of the FLDS kids was a virtual kidnapping by the state of Texas. If it is allowed to stand it will bode ill for all families whose lifestyles are remotely unconventional. Families whose beliefs strongly contradict the prevailing secular, PC orthodoxy will be especially vulnerable. Homeschoolers in California recently got a preview of that.
I ask all people who believe in freedom, family autonomy and parental rights to pray that the FLDS parents get their children back. Yes, their beliefs may be starkly different from yours; you may even find them repulsive. But if the state can take those fundamentalists' kids, it can take yours. Whose to say when your lifestyle will be judged unacceptable. So I think you'd better pray for those "weird" Mormons because the family and children you save may be your own.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Attack on Homeschooling
A couple of days ago a court in California issued a ruling that could end the majority of homeschooling taking place in that state. The Second District Court of Appeals (SDCA) ruled that parents don't have a constitutional right to homeschool their children and that education should be done only by credentialed teachers. How arrogant!
So, the SDCA thinks that only credentialed, i.e. approved by the state, teachers can educate children? Does it mean credentialed teachers who routinely turn out kids who can't read, can't think, and can't even find their own country on a map? Does it mean credentialed teachers who oversee a dropout rate of 30 per cent? Does it mean credentialed teachers who can't stop having affairs with their students? Does the SDCA mean those credentialed teachers? Give me a break! This ruling is a naked attempt to crush parental rights and keep children in the hands of the state so they can be indoctrinated in it's left-wing ideology. This has NOTHING to do with concern for kids' welfare or educational excellence.
If the Second District Court of Appeals was truly concerned with the educational well being of California's children it would be urging and facilitating more, not less, homeschooling. Study after study shows that, in all subjects, homeschooled kids regularly outperform their publicly educated counterparts. You'd think the state would consider that a good thing, but you'd be dead wrong. The liberal state of California wants control over the minds of the state's children. It wants to make sure they're taught a liberal worldview. Parents, particularly homeschooling ones, can't be trusted to do that, hence the SDCA's ruling.
Hopefully California's homeschooling parents, and those in other states, will rise up against this tyrannical decision. They have right and conscience on their side. In one way the court's ruling is correct. Parents' right to raise their children as they see fit, including educating them at home, doesn't come from any constitution. It is a DIVINE right. The Declaration of Independence clearly instructs us that this is so. Perhaps this is a truth that California's left-wing public schools want to eradicate all knowledge of and substitute the "truth" that rights come from government. The only way to have a citizenry that will believe that is to make sure education is state controlled. Are you now seeing the reasons for this attack on homeschooling? I hope so, and I hope you won't let it stand.
So, the SDCA thinks that only credentialed, i.e. approved by the state, teachers can educate children? Does it mean credentialed teachers who routinely turn out kids who can't read, can't think, and can't even find their own country on a map? Does it mean credentialed teachers who oversee a dropout rate of 30 per cent? Does it mean credentialed teachers who can't stop having affairs with their students? Does the SDCA mean those credentialed teachers? Give me a break! This ruling is a naked attempt to crush parental rights and keep children in the hands of the state so they can be indoctrinated in it's left-wing ideology. This has NOTHING to do with concern for kids' welfare or educational excellence.
If the Second District Court of Appeals was truly concerned with the educational well being of California's children it would be urging and facilitating more, not less, homeschooling. Study after study shows that, in all subjects, homeschooled kids regularly outperform their publicly educated counterparts. You'd think the state would consider that a good thing, but you'd be dead wrong. The liberal state of California wants control over the minds of the state's children. It wants to make sure they're taught a liberal worldview. Parents, particularly homeschooling ones, can't be trusted to do that, hence the SDCA's ruling.
Hopefully California's homeschooling parents, and those in other states, will rise up against this tyrannical decision. They have right and conscience on their side. In one way the court's ruling is correct. Parents' right to raise their children as they see fit, including educating them at home, doesn't come from any constitution. It is a DIVINE right. The Declaration of Independence clearly instructs us that this is so. Perhaps this is a truth that California's left-wing public schools want to eradicate all knowledge of and substitute the "truth" that rights come from government. The only way to have a citizenry that will believe that is to make sure education is state controlled. Are you now seeing the reasons for this attack on homeschooling? I hope so, and I hope you won't let it stand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
