Great New Book

I recently received Paradise Valley by Dale Cramer from Bethany House to review. It was one of the best books I have read in a while. I chose it as a book I would like to review because I really respect the Amish. This book is based on events in the 1920’s when the state of Ohio jailed some Amish dad’s for not sending their kids to the government run consolidated school. As a result, some of the Ohio Amish community seek freedom to raise their kids in the Amish way by moving to Mexico. Mr. Cramer shows how they stick to their beliefs and are willing to sacrifice for them. He shows their love of family and their willingness to work hard. After reading this book, I respect the Amish even more.


The story is focused on one family- The Benders. The Benders have been blessed with 13 children (one dead and one mentally challenged) but not all are equally fleshed out in the story. It focuses on the father, Caleb, and his 15-year-old daughter, Rachel. Though these two are the focus of the story you get glimpses in to the thoughts of many of the other characters.

One thing that I liked about the writing was Mr. Cramer’s truthful style. Strengths and weaknesses are given to all of the characters. He doesn’t sugar coat the harsh realities of the struggles the Benders face, yet this isn’t a heavy book that weighs down the soul. It is almost as though he has opened a window to Paradise Valley as it really was.

This is a first book in a new series about Caleb Bender’s daughters. I read the whole thing in a couple of days. I cared about the characters and wanted to see what happened to them. I also wanted to learn why they made the choices they made. I am really looking forward to the next one!

Swats

According to this article in the Telegraph, a study in the US has shown that swats (or as the British say "smacks") produce better citizens. The study was based on the answers of 179 teens.

Those who had been smacked up to the age of six performed better in almost all the positive categories and no worse in the negatives than those never punished physically.

I can't say that I am really surprised. Yet liberals and those who would shrink parental rights are only likely to be angered that the study didn't show what they wanted instead of rethinking their beliefs.

This is one of the reasons that I do not support the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and encourage you to look at ParentalRights.org.

Take a look at what is going on in Malta because of the UNCRC. According to the article, "Any provisions in the Maltese statute book that allowed corporal punishment and that could endorse child abuse had to be removed in order to come in line with international law, according to a British expert." Notice how (in the minds of these folks) international law takes precedence over the will and law of the Maltese people.

In Europe, there is a growing movement pushing for a ban in all countries. Nineteen European states have legally barred physical punishment in the home and another four are committed to doing so. Malta is one of the remaining four that has not taken any such steps.

Birmingham Planned Parenthood on One Year Probation

This news article made me glad/excited and sad/angry at the same time. It is an article about the video below (by Live Action) and the state of Alabama's reaction to it.





According to the article,

After the tape was released last year, state health inspectors reviewed clinic records and found that nine minors, ages 13-15, had received abortions without proper verification of parental consent since November 2008.

In one case, health officials said, a 15-year-old received an abortion even though the person claiming to be her mother did not appear to be and presented questionable records, including an expired Alabama driver's license. Inspectors said Alabama birth records show a different person as the girl's parent.

There were also concerns about reporting child abuse. One of the 13-year-olds who received an abortion reported starting having sex at age 12 and having three partners in the previous year. She was back at the clinic for another abortion four months later and said she had now had four sexual partners in her life.

"A reasonable person would suspect abuse or neglect of this 13-year-old child, based on the above," inspectors wrote. "Neither the Registered Nurse, the Medical Doctor, nor any other Center staff reported the suspected abuse or neglect to the authorities as required by law."

According to the Code of Alabama, minors must present clinics with a consent form and verify that the signature on the form is that of their parent or legal guardian. The code requires the minor to sign the form as verification, but the clinic's forms don't have a space for that.

I am glad that Live Action's Mona Lisa Project is making an impact. I am glad that the state of Alabama is taking action (though I think it should have been harsher than a 1 year probation).
But the thought of all these rapers of young girls not being brought to justice brings me to tears. The thought of a 13 year old having 2 abortions is so sad.

Please join me in praying prayers of confession and repentance for our nation.

ParentalRights.org Contest Winners

ParentalRights.org recently held a contest called PROclaim 2009. There were several winners. I am posting one, but I encourage you to go watch the rest of them here.

No-fault Divorce

Michael Craven of Center for Christ and Culture wrote a good article about the evil of no-fault divorce. I will share a few clips here, but encourage you to read the whole thing.

No-fault divorce is much more than just divorce; it is a legal tyranny that denies the fundamental right of due process to a defendant. Prior to no-fault divorce, the party seeking divorce (plaintiff) was required, by law, to demonstrate cause on the part of the other party (defendant) prior to dissolving the marriage, dividing the family’s assets, and destroying the two-parent structure essential for children. These measures provided strong legal protections—primarily to women and children who might otherwise find themselves abandoned by husbands and fathers who simply sought “greener pastures.” (You might think me overly hard on men here. Granted, both men and women can be guilty of abandoning marriages; however, statistically speaking, women and children are most often the victims.)

Under the system prior to no-fault divorce, the state was limited in its actions and intrusion into the private affairs of the family except in those cases in which one of the parties committed a legally recognized offense against the other. In the wake of no-fault divorce, the state has been given unprecedented access into and unconstitutional authority over what was previously sacrosanct: the family. Historically, the law regarded the family as a preserve of privacy that was largely off-limits to the government. It was what Supreme Court Justice Byron White (1962–1993) called the “realm of family life, which the state cannot enter.”



No-fault divorce is a social and legal atrocity that needs to be abolished both for the sake of families and children that have, for too long, been subjected to the tyrannical actions of family courts, and because it has encouraged, through law, radical selfishness on the part of narcissistic, self-indulgent spouses. What must be understood by Christians is that no-fault divorce functions as a direct enemy of the gospel of the kingdom by opposing the in-breaking reign of God and his desires for the family.

You can also learn about the myths surrounding no-fault divorce here.

Home Visitations

I am still very concerned about section 440 of the Health Care Reform Act before congress. All of this section is supposed to be voluntary, but it concerns me that the goal is to have all families that are expecting children or that have young children in these programs. From page 838. . .

the gaps in home visitation in the
17 State, including identification of communities
18 that are in high need of the services;

This is talking about States that want to get grant money from the federal government. Call me extreme, but of course there should be gaps. Should the government be trying to coach any new or expectant parents, let alone all of them? Communities. . . hmm. . . that could be poor communities or black communities or homeschool communities. Either way, do we really want certain "communities" being highly encouraged (I would probably feel pressured) to have these home visits? "High need of services". . . I assume that this means that this means something benign like past history of abuse or something, but could it eventually become (or already be intended) any group that doesn't parent as the state sees fit? Like "fundamentalist Christians" who condone swats or families that have "overly strict" dress standards for their kids.

in supporting home visitation pro11
grams using funds provided under this section,
12 the State will promote coordination and collabo13
ration with other home visitation programs (in14
cluding programs funded under title XIX) and
15 with other child and family services, health
16 services, income supports, and other related as17
sistance;
18

This section is talking about what is required of the State once it receives the funds. Again, call me an extremist if you must, but here I see the State including home visit recommendations as part of your regular doctor visits ("health services"). That would mean that if everyone is in the health services system, every new parent "should" be visited by the state. That just makes my skin crawl.

in supporting home visitation pro11
grams using funds provided under this section,
12 the State will promote coordination and collabo13
ration with other home visitation programs (in14
cluding programs funded under title XIX) and
15 with other child and family services, health
16 services, income supports, and other related as17
sistance;
18

And as if the government won't have enough fingers in your life, they want to use these visitations as ways to refer you to yet further government services and programs.

God has given parents the responsibility to raise children, not the State. If parents need help, it is the place of family and church and community to help them, not the State.

The government has it's place and this is not it.

More on Health Care Reform

I thought this cartoon from TownHall.com pretty much sums it up. Even the Democrats aren't on board with this thing.

I have found one more reason to be against it. The title of this article from Health Freedom pretty much sums it up: "Health Care Bill Will Fund State Vaccine Teams to Conduct 'Interventions' in Private Homes"

They quote directly from the proposed bill. Method E of Subtitle C call for "providing for home visits that promote immunization through education, assessments of need, referrals, provision of immunizations, or other services" Folks, regardless of how you feel about vaccines, do you really want government officials coming to your house to giving vaccines to your kids whether you want or agree with them or not. This a very bad idea if you believe in any kind of parental rights when it comes to vaccines.

UPDATE: OneMom claims in the comments that I am over the top on this. She may be right. This may simply be a way for senior citizens to get their flu shots at home instead of travelling to a clinic. If that is the case and it is an appointment type thing, I am fine with that. But I do stand by my principle: I don't want the government thinking they have the right to come into my house without a warrant or explicit permission by me.

Abusive

Apparently I would make a terrible judge in child abuse cases.

Let's take case number one.
Woman caught breastfeeding baby while drinking alcohol. I would have said this was unwise behavior. I might have the woman sign up with AA or rehab. But I wouldn't likely remove her child from her or charge her with a felony or send her to jail for 5 years.

Let's look at situation number two.
Parents raise child as genderless. They never tell the child whether he/she is a boy or girl. They never tell anyone else. The child is supposed to "decide". I would say that this is abuse because the few previous cases that exist where kids have been raised in whacky gender experiments messed the person up for life. Take the boy raised as a girl for example. I do think that the kid is likely to "figure it out" correctly if he/she goes to public school. Other kids are blunt enough to say show me your parts and I'll tell you. Though I doubt the parents would accept that decision based on what they would see as flimsy evidence. Good grief.

This is where parental rights get tricky. What is damaging or dangerous? And who gets to decide? I think even in this case I wouldn't take the kid away from the parents. I would just order them to tell the physical gender of the kid.

Gov. Perry Vetoes SB 1440

Governor Perry vetoed the Texas bill that would have allowed children to be taken from their homes for interviewing/interrogation without their parents knowledge and/or a court order or warrant. This is such good news. I just wonder what took him so long. To read more about it go here.

Danger on Every Side

This country is in danger on every side.

Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech
First I want to warn you that the Democrats are sneaking the hate crimes legislation in as an amendment to a tourism bill (Travel Promotion Act of 2009, SB 1023). This amendment will give all "sexual orientations" the same anti-discrimination rights as race and religion. There quite a few "sexual orientations" including homosexuality, pedophilia, transgenderism, etc. It is also likely make it illegal for pastors, ministers, etc. to preach against or speak against these things. The vote on this tourism bill is expected to take place today. So call your Senators. UPDATE: The video is of one of the supporting Senators saying that, yes, the bill will protect pedophiles every other sexual "orientation" you can imagine.




Freedom in Health
We may soon have to all resort to finding our own health solutions like 18-year-old Jessica Terry who diagnosed herself with the help of her AP science class. President Obama is trying to stuff his health plan down our throats via the "unbiased" MSM. Single payer (read mostly socialized) medicine is a terrible idea. I am probably far more of a health freedom person than most Americans. For example, I think you should be able to get an x-ray or sonogram without going to a doctor. I also think that our current system could use some overhaul. But has the government ever done anything better than the private sector could do it?

Freedom to Parent
As far as I know, Gov. Rick Perry has not vetoed the law that would allow CPS to take people's kids for interviewing/interrogation without warning or permission from something as questionable as a unanimous call. He only has so many days before the bill becomes law without his signature. Those days may already be up. I don't really know.
UPDATE: I found out that Gov. Perry still has time to veto this bill. If you live in TX, call 512-463-2000 and ask (politely) that Gov. Perry veto this bill.

Texas Proposed Legislation Gives CPS Free Reign

I encourage all Texans to read this post at Right in Texas. It brings to light something that got passed many of us because of the deceptive tactics of a few Democrats. (Read the post to see what I mean.) Now it has already been passed by the Texas House and Senate and is waiting for Governor Perry's approval.

The bill is SB 1440 and I urge all of you to ask the governor to veto this bill. This bill gives unprecedented power to CPS. With it, they would have the power to take your kids against your will without telling you or getting a court order. I know that CPS has a hard job and sees many sad and terrifying things. But this is way overstepping what authority they should have. This is a serious infringement of parental rights and I hope that Gov. Perry has the guts to stop it.

It saddens me that bills like this one that would have no popular support get squeaked in by deception when bills like the ultrasound bill never get to the final vote despite widespread approval because of a few punk Democrats.

UNCRC Linked to Anti-Second Amendment Rights

I got an article from ParentalRights.org that outlines how they believe that the UNCRC (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) may also lead to diminished gun ownership rights.

While I agree that children should not be used as soldiers (and the US already has laws stating that you must be 18 to join the armed forces), gun control is a dangerous thing. Restriction and confiscation of guns has proceeded genocide in various countries all over the world and throughout history. If you don't believe me, I recommend that you watch the movie Innocents Betrayed. In it they claim that 170,000,000 people have been killed by their own governments in the 20th century. According to UNICEF (the official UN agency charged with the worldwide advancement of children’s rights), world-wide deaths from fire arms ownership is hundreds of thousands. Lets say it is 400,000. (If it was more, I assume they would say half a million or almost a million.) In 10 years that would equal 4,000,000. Now which one seems the bigger problem. Not being able to defend yourself and your family (17 million in one decade) or firearms deaths (4 million in one decade).

In the official UNICEF brochure, this is how we should deal with firearms:

Efforts must be ongoing to overcome the destructive messages that small arms and light weapons are essential instruments for survival and protection in daily life. (Read who needs fire arms to protect themselves from criminals or the government.)

Governments must support communities in eliminating the insecurity, fear and instability that often lead people to acquire and keep guns. (Read never rely on yourself or you God. Only rely on the government. Trust the government to keep you safe from criminals. Trust the government to not get power hungry and decide that YOU are the criminal.)

Regulations are needed to ensure that small arms and light weapons are not easy to acquire and are never accessible to children. (Read only governments should have weapons never individuals and certainly never in homes.)

The UN and all of its branches are a dangerous thing. If I had my way, the US would get out of the UN. As I don't see this happening any time soon, I must support the Parental Rights Amendment.

Parental Rights Amendment Introduced

The Parental Rights Amendment has been introduced in the US House of Representatives as HJ Res 42 with 72 co-sponsors. Click here to see if your representative is one of them. My representative is not on the list. I plan on encouraging her to join the other 72. You can get information on who your representative is here. Just type your zip code into the search on the upper right side.

You can read my reasons for supporting the Parental Rights Amendment here. You can also go to ParentalRights.org for much more information.

This is part of Michael Farris' speech when the resolution was introduced:

. . . a post-election Zogby poll (sponsored by WorldNetDaily) makes it clear that virtually every sector of the American public agrees with this last proposition.When asked if they wanted American judges to use American law alone or to also consider international law in making decisions, by an overwhelming margin, the American public rejected the idea of using international law for these purposes.
The majority of Republican voters reject international law.
So do the majority of Democratic voters.
Those who voted for McCain reject international law.
A majority of those who voted for Obama reject it as well.
Union members reject international law.
NRA members reject international law.
Every region of the nation rejects international law.
Every age group rejects international law.
Every racial group rejects international law.
This is a bipartisan issue in America among voters, and I truly hope and believe that it will become a bipartisan issue on the Hill.

Homeschooled Kids Ordered to Public School

WorldNetDaily had an article yesterday about a mother being forced to send her kids to public school via some divorce proceedings. This case is in North Carolina and represents exactly why we need the Parental Rights Amendment. The judge's reasons for this decision are almost word for word what you see in the UNCRC. "Mangum said he made the determination on his guiding principle, 'What's in the best interest of the minor children,' and conceded it was putting his judgment in place of the mother's. " It is not the government's job to decide what is in the "best interest" of kids. This was done despite the fact that the kids were all at or above grade level on all subjects. According to this blog covering this case, this is a direct quote from the court order:

"The children have thrived in homeschool for the past four years, but need the broader focus and socialization available to them in public school."

I certainly hope and pray that this decision is overturned. But even if it is, what heart-break for the mother. An unfaithful husband wants a divorce and wants his child support payments to be lower so she is forced to dump her kids into public school. I really feel for her.

Well, I'm Back

We got back from Grandmomma's funeral late Wednesday night. It was good to celebrate a life well lived in Christ. She will leave a big gap in our extended family.

Waiting for me at home were 120 e-mails most of them warning me about the pork in the "stimulus" bill.

But to me even more concerning that the stimulus bill is parental rights in this country. Here are some things that stood out to me.

From ParentalRights.org, "The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which opponents say could destroy American sovereignty by imposing international rulings on American law, could reach the Senate within 60 days. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) says she wants a 60-day timeframe for the State Department to complete its review so the Senate can move toward ratification of the UNCRC. During the Senate Confirmation hearing between Boxer and UN Ambassador-designate Susan Rice held on January 15, 2009, Boxer told Rice the UNCRC would protect “the most vulnerable people of society.”

Opponents vehemently disagree. Under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI) of the U.S. Constitution, ratified treaties preempt state law. Since virtually all laws in the U.S. regarding children are state laws, this treaty would negate nearly 100% of existing American family law. Moreover, it would grant the government authority to override parental decisions by applying even to good parents a standard now only used against those convicted of abuse or neglect."

You can get more information about the UNCRC from the sidebar or this post from a year ago. This is a terrible law that basically gives children the authority to choose their own religion (i. e. the right to refuse to go to church or obey their parents moral standards), to choose their friends (be they gang bangers, drug dealers, or Satanists), and the right to leisure (i. e. no grounding from sports, camping trips, prom, etc.). There is more, but I better move on to the next item.

Vision Forum blog has an interesting post on what to share with your children on the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth. (Granted this was yesterday, but it is still worth the read.)

Then there is Al Gore encouraging children to be the new front line of green thinking because their parents just don't know and won't get it. (HT: Cornwall Alliance) That reminded me of Maria Trapp saying that the Nazi's had a similar pile of blather (parents aren't modern enough to get what we are telling you) in the newly taken over Austrian schools. You can read my post on the Trapp Family Singers here.

Here and There

I read several articles of interest this morning. We will start with the ones here in America.

First, according to WorldNetDaily columnist Bob Unruh, part of the recently passed "stimulus" bill has a section that would "demand that every American submit to a government program for electronic medical records without a choice to opt out, and it has privacy advocates more than a little alarmed. " I can see a nice little bridge from here to gov. mandated eugenics. Call me crazy, but I think this is bad news.

Second, my new friends at the Cornwall Alliance alerted me to this article by Paul Dressen at Townhall about energy and the economy. Here is a portion of it.

Many states have oil, gas, coal uranium and other energy and mineral resources, within their borders or off their coasts. Development would produce critically needed energy, reduce oil and gas imports, create millions of jobs, and generate trillions of dollars in lease bonus, rent, royalty and tax revenues, to help pay these bills.

California could nearly double its offshore oil production within 12-18 months, without installing a single new platform, by using directional drilling technology to bore more wells from existing platforms.

But environmentalists vigorously oppose development. Many states increasingly restrict exploration and production. The US Senate is considering bills that would place more energy prospects off limits. Many legislators want a permanent lock on billions of barrels of oil beneath Alaska’s North Slope and America’s Outer Continental Shelf – despite support for drilling by two-thirds of voters.

Third, across they ocean in Scotland we have a story that should serve as warning to us. LifeSiteNews has this article by Terry Vanderheyden.

According to the Daily Mail, the court found the grandparents, who are 46 and 59, to be too old to adequately raise the children. The grandparents could not afford to continue the expensive legal process, and therefore resolved to give the children up for adoption provided the new adoptive parents would be a loving mother and father.

Soon after the ruling, however, the couple was informed that their five year old grandson and four year old granddaughter, who had been living in a foster home during the custody battle because their mom was a heroine addict, were being put into the care of a homosexual couple.

“It breaks my heart to think that our grandchildren are being forced to grow up in an environment without a mother figure. We are not prejudiced, but I defy anyone to explain to us how this can be in their best interests," said the grandfather.

This article saddens me for both the children and the grandparents. If this woman had been artificially inseminated, most people in Scotland would have thought it fine for this couple to raise a child. But when she wants to care for her own grandchildren, the courts say no. And now these poor kids will never have a maternal influence. The whole thing is really sad.

White House Agenda

I have been reading over some of the Civil Rights agenda at www.WhiteHouse.gov. None of it is really surprising, but it is rather disturbing. Some quotes:

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.

This one is capable of bringing real persecution on the Church. Are we ready? (If you don't believe me read Janet Folger's Criminalization of Christianity or any other source about what happens when such laws have been passed in other countries.)

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

So much for the will of the people or the rule of law. How often are the people going to have to say, "We don't want this."

Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.

I feel so sorry for the poor kids that will be effected by this should it go through. God intended for kids to have a mom and a dad.

Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, President Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies.

OK, Mr. President. Here is a plan for you that will actually work. Promote abstinence outside of marriage and monogamy inside marriage. That is the most fool-proof way to not get HIV/AIDS.

And under the Women part of the agenda we have these tidbits:

Supports a Woman's Right to Choose: President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Administration. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.

Preventing Unintended Pregnancy: President Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

The first part is no surprise. Pres. Obama was against banning partial-birth abortions for goodness sake. Comprehensive sex education is one of the many reasons that my kids will not be attending gov. schools. The "discrimination against contraception" makes me wonder if he means to force companies to pay for abortions and morning after pills, etc.

Expanding Early Childhood Education: President Obama has been a champion of early childhood education since his years in the Illinois legislature, where he led the effort to create the Illinois Early Learning Council. He introduced a comprehensive "Zero to Five" plan to provide critical support to young children and their parents by investing $10 billion per year to create: Early Learning Challenge Grants to stimulate and help fund state "zero to five" efforts; quadruple the number of eligible children for Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding, and improve quality for both; work to ensure all children have access to pre-school; provide affordable and high-quality child care that will promote child development and ease the burden on working families; and create a Presidential Early Learning Council to increase collaboration and program coordination across federal, state, and local levels.

People, please don't hand your babies over to the State to be raised. Watch out for "zero to five" education to become compulsory like K-12. The earlier the gov. can get your kids the easier time they will have in transforming them into their likeness.

Of Conjoined Twins and Pink Iguanas

A couple in England is expecting a set of dicephalus conjoined twins. This means that they share at least part of their torso and their legs. In a quote from a LifeSiteNews article the mother, Lisa Chamberlain, said, "Some people might look at me and say 'You're going to give birth to a freak' but I don't care because I feel blessed." Mrs. Chamberlain and her husband are practising Catholics. I am glad that they have the courage to stand against their doctor and family and give these babies a chance at life. (OneMom also has a post about eugenics that shows how many different kinds of "abnormalities" we are willing to snuff out. I imagine that Rex's mom [see post below] would have recommended by many doctors for abortion. This issue hits close to home. My mom was advised to abort me because she had an x-ray when she was only a few weeks pregnant and didn't yet know it. I am vey glad that she told the doctor no way.)

And we have yet another animal that supposedly evolved millions of years before its island home existed: the pink iguanas on the Galapagos Islands. Once again ICR has the story in more detail.

Freedom and Liberals

I found Thomas Sowel's latest article interesting. Here is the link and a few clips.


Most people on the left are not opposed to freedom. They are just in favor of all sorts of things that are incompatible with freedom.



One of the most innocent-sounding examples of the left's many impositions of its vision on others is the widespread requirement by schools and by college admissions committees that students do "community service."



The arrogance of commandeering young people's time, instead of leaving them and their parents free to decide for themselves how to use that time, is exceeded only by the arrogance of imposing your own notions as to what is or is not a service to the community.



You can make anything an "entitlement" for individuals and groups but nothing is an entitlement for society as a whole, not even food or shelter, both of which have to be produced by somebody's work or they will not exist.


The most fundamental question is: What in the world qualifies teachers and members of college admissions committees to define what is good for society as a whole, or even for the students on whom they impose their arbitrary notions?



Supposedly students are to get a sense of compassion or noblesse oblige from serving others. But this all depends on who defines compassion. In practice, it means forcing students to undergo a propaganda experience to make them receptive to the left's vision of the world.



In other words, people on the left want the right to impose their idea of what is good for society on others-- a right that they vehemently deny to those whose idea of what is good for society differs from their own.
The essence of bigotry is refusing to others the rights that you demand for yourself. Such bigotry is inherently incompatible with freedom, even though many on the left would be shocked to be considered opposed to freedom.

Parental Rights in the State of Texas

Thanks to JR at A Keyboard and a .45 I have been alerted to a new parenting law introduced in Texas by Texas Rep. Alonzo that makes me cringe. The proposed law talks of ensuring that children are a priority and a good education, etc. Here are the things that popped out at me.

From Article 1-
The child has a right to live in a home where "the child is treated with respect". I agree with this, but I can see the government (or judges) twisting this to: It is disrespectful to the child to swat, ground from the prom, limit friendship choices, etc.

It even specifies later that "any form of discipline that humiliates or demeans the child" would be banned. I can see this being almost anything but time outs.

This phrase "access to a quality education" opens the door to homeschool regulation.

This one "receive appropriate medical, dental, vision, and mental health services" bodes of more regulation of people who oppose vaccinations or medical birth or Western medicine all together.

Article Two largely deals with "Family Education Centers". Somehow I can't really imagine that these will be based on God-centered biblical parenting. One of the things new parents are supposed to learn is to "develop short- and long-term family goals". Now I can only imagine that these would be more in line with the State's goals and less in line with God's goals.

Needless to say, I will do my part in fighting this rubbish. Parents are responsible for the character molding, health, education, and training of their children. The State needs to get the c*** out. (The stars are for OneMom's benefit.)