How To Boil A Live Frog
By Tom Barrett
http://www.americandaily.com/
(08/07/03)
Please do not try this at home. I want to make it clear from the outset that I do not advocate frog boiling. I am simply describing a science experiment which I learned about roughly a hundred years ago when I was in high school. I want to make this very clear, because otherwise I'll have liberals demonstrating on my front lawn about my insensitivity to frogs. (Isn't it interesting that the same people who advocate killing babies in the womb are so concerned about animals? Kind of twisted, isn't it?)
In the experiment a frog was dropped into a pot of hot (not boiling) water. It immediately jumped out, as would any sensible frog. Then it was placed in a pot of cool water sitting on a stove. This was more to its liking, so it swam about and lounged comfortably. The heat was turned on and raised very gradually. Soon it was hotter than the water in the first experiment, but the frog didn't jump out. This was because there was no dramatic difference, as there had been when it was taken from room temperature and dropped into hot water. The frog became accustomed to the increased temperature as it was raised little by little. Before long the temperature was so high that the frog was unable to jump out of the pot, and it died.
Thinking about some of the radical changes in our society over the last several decades made me remember that frog. Here are a few things that would have been unthinkable when I graduated from high school in 1966. A homosexual U.S. Congressman is caught having sex with a male Congressional page, and is allowed to stay in office. Schools suspend high school students for quietly praying together during lunch, but teach classes on witchcraft and Satan worship. Little children are sexually abused by trusted day care workers. Illiterate teenagers receive High School diplomas. The President of the United States commits perjury before a Grand Jury, and beats impeachment. High school girls are ashamed to admit that they are virgins. When I was in high school they would have been ashamed to admit that they weren't! Irresponsible adults use abortion as birth control; over half of the babies conceived in this nation are killed in their mothers' wombs.
These changes didn't take place overnight. Just like the frog, our nation has been assaulted gradually, so that we didn't realize what was happening to us. It wasn't easy to turn a mostly moral nation into an amoral morass. But the liberals, secular humanists, God-haters and perverts who have systematically engineered this cultural revolution had strong allies in their campaign. Over the years they have targeted and gained control of four of the most powerful influences on American thought: the public schools, the judges and justices on the benches of our appeals courts, the entertainment industry, and the media. Here are just a few examples:
I often tune in to C-Span's live coverage of the Senate and the House of Representatives. I once saw a bunch of Hollywood stars and two hundred young diabetics testify before a Senate sub-committee. They were supposedly there to request additional funding for juvenile diabetes research. Instead they used the television exposure to lobby for embryonic research. I saw deliberate, repeated use of the term "embryonic stem cell research." No mention was made of the fact that there are many other sources of stem cells for research that do not involve killing an embryo. For instance, literally tons of stem-cell-rich human fat from liposuction are discarded every week. They are desperate to link the use of the word "embryonic" to the phrase "stem cells" so that no one will realize that you can have stem cell research without using embryos. They know that most Americans are in favor of stem cell research, and that if they can tie these two concepts together, they can get America to approve of killing human embryos.
Mary Tyler Moore disgraced herself by repeating the lie that all human embryos will be destroyed. No mention was made of the fact that millions of infertile couples could adopt those embryos, and that human embryo adoption has already resulted in many healthy babies being born. They put ten-year-old children in front of the microphones to parrot scripts written by PR hacks. One little girl talked about "...legislators playing politics to stop the embryonic stem cell research that could save children like me." Come on - does that sound like a ten-year-old speaking from her heart? She had obviously memorized her lines. Liberals seem to have no compunctions about using ill children to push their agenda.
The heat is being turned up in the area of morality. School children are told by their teachers, "We know you're going to fornicate, so here are some free condoms." TV sitcoms show happy homosexual and lesbian couples living "normal" lives. Anyone who has studied the statistics knows that heterosexual couples stay together far longer on average than same-sex couples. A national radio ad has a dentist advising listeners to "Ask your lover if you grind your teeth at night." Not your spouse; your "lover." Not too long ago most radio stations would have refused such an ad; now few people take notice.
It's getting very difficult to find any family-safe programming on television or at the movies. It used to be the filthy words, sex and violence were reserved for the R-rated programs. Now PG programs are like the former R's, and the R's are frankly pornographic. Even some G-rated programs contain sexual innuendos. Many times we have tuned in to or rented a movie that we thought was safe, only to have to cover our daughter's eyes and hurriedly turn off the tube.
Am I hopelessly old-fashioned, or am I right when I say that we are in serious danger of becoming a completely perverted, amoral nation? Only you can decide whether you will idly stand by and watch as the heat gets turned up, or whether you will take action.
What action? Please don't say, "What can I do? I'm just one person." There are many things each of us can do to stop this slide. Start with talking to other people. Don't be afraid of controversy. During Election 2000 two men from my church were on a job with another man who described himself as a Christian. When he said he planned to vote for Gore, they asked him if he was aware that Gore was in favor of abortion on demand, and was an advocate of homosexual marriage. The man was shocked. He said he had no idea that was where his candidate stood, and that as a Christian he could not vote for him after finding out Gore?s views on these moral issues. These men made a difference by being willing to speak the truth in love.
Talk. Discuss. Vote. Write letters. Get involved! Evil can only prevail when good people fail to act.
I'D BE LOST WITHOUT OUR EDITORIAL BOARD. These volunteers review each issue before it is published, and their corrections, comments and suggestions are incorporated in the final version. In response to this issue, Editor Michael Carr made me laugh with his comment, "And may we dinosaurs continue to roam the earth."
Editor Ed Mitchell sent back some very insightful comments. I couldn't send this issue out without including them: "When alchemists were in their heyday, frogs were considered to be excellent catalysts, and were used for all kinds of experiments. In his search for gold, one alchemist took a tub of urine (because of its gold color) added a frog (as a catalyst) and boiled the pot. The point is that all this "embryonic stem cell research" is simply modern day alchemist's medieval philosophy, using newer tools. The frog still dies, only in this case it is a human embryo. True scientists try to expand man's knowledge and condition by understanding the mind of God through researching his creation. As you said, fat cells, bone marrow and umbilical cord blood are full of stem cells, and they are discarded every day. Federal funding and private research should be involved for the good of mankind. The assault on the human embryo is consistent with Satan's big lie and the liberals parrot it constantly. If evolution is true, then human life (or any life for that matter) is of concern only to the family or state as long as it is a productive life. Thus a donkey has more value than a baby because a donkey can do work." (NOTE: Most of these "researchers" are medical doctors. They have forgotten their Hippocratic Oath, which says, in part, "First, do no harm.")
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Laws Killing Refineries and Jobs in U.S.
Our Thorny Oil Patch
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY, 3/13/08
Energy Policy: When America’s biggest oil refiner contemplates putting almost a third of its refineries on the market, Congress should sit up and take notice. The business climate it has created is hurting our economy.
Valero Energy Corp. is an industry leader that refines more oil than any other in the U.S. The San Antonio, Texas, company had a good run in the stock market this decade, rising 1,400% before earnings topped last year. But it’s no longer so easy for the company or any refiner.
Valero will probably sell three of its 17 refineries this year and maybe two more later to focus on its core operations amid what CEO Bill Klesse acknowledged on Tuesday is a weak economy.
But maybe that’s because the environment for the energy business in the U.S. has turned downright hostile.
Upstream, oil drilling is off-limits, crimping supply and driving prices ever higher. Downstream, refiners are hit by not only high energy prices, but also bureaucratic regulations, environmental lobbies and special interests that make moving to Asia, where economic growth is still valued, more attractive.
The sorry fact that no new refinery has been built in America since 1983 has been cited so many times that we would have thought someone in Washington would have done something about it by now. But no — it just keeps getting worse.
In 1982, the U.S. economy was served by 301 refineries. By 2007, the number had dwindled to 149. Productivity has kept output steady over the years at 17 million barrels a day. But the U.S. economy has grown by 125%.
"Valero believes there will never be another refinery built in the U.S.," spokesman Bill Day told IBD. He cited costs, environmental regulations, neighborhood activism and lawsuits.
"For a new refinery, it would take five years for a permit and five years for construction, and it’s very expensive. A company would have to know it would pay off."
Congress has been of no help whatsoever. Mandates requiring certain ethanol percentages in gasoline composition are chopping down refiners’ market share at the pump.
Refiners are undercut by the subsidies ethanol producers get that refiners don’t. Ethanol producers are also protected by high tariffs on overseas ethanol, while imported gasoline comes in duty-free. This brings in a lot of competition for refiners.
Given these conditions, is it any wonder companies such as Valero are looking for friendlier climes?
The laws by which Congress hamstrings energy producers have had the lethal effect of slowing down the economy while driving up prices. It’s high time for measures that do just the opposite.
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY, 3/13/08
Energy Policy: When America’s biggest oil refiner contemplates putting almost a third of its refineries on the market, Congress should sit up and take notice. The business climate it has created is hurting our economy.
Valero Energy Corp. is an industry leader that refines more oil than any other in the U.S. The San Antonio, Texas, company had a good run in the stock market this decade, rising 1,400% before earnings topped last year. But it’s no longer so easy for the company or any refiner.
Valero will probably sell three of its 17 refineries this year and maybe two more later to focus on its core operations amid what CEO Bill Klesse acknowledged on Tuesday is a weak economy.
But maybe that’s because the environment for the energy business in the U.S. has turned downright hostile.
Upstream, oil drilling is off-limits, crimping supply and driving prices ever higher. Downstream, refiners are hit by not only high energy prices, but also bureaucratic regulations, environmental lobbies and special interests that make moving to Asia, where economic growth is still valued, more attractive.
The sorry fact that no new refinery has been built in America since 1983 has been cited so many times that we would have thought someone in Washington would have done something about it by now. But no — it just keeps getting worse.
In 1982, the U.S. economy was served by 301 refineries. By 2007, the number had dwindled to 149. Productivity has kept output steady over the years at 17 million barrels a day. But the U.S. economy has grown by 125%.
"Valero believes there will never be another refinery built in the U.S.," spokesman Bill Day told IBD. He cited costs, environmental regulations, neighborhood activism and lawsuits.
"For a new refinery, it would take five years for a permit and five years for construction, and it’s very expensive. A company would have to know it would pay off."
Congress has been of no help whatsoever. Mandates requiring certain ethanol percentages in gasoline composition are chopping down refiners’ market share at the pump.
Refiners are undercut by the subsidies ethanol producers get that refiners don’t. Ethanol producers are also protected by high tariffs on overseas ethanol, while imported gasoline comes in duty-free. This brings in a lot of competition for refiners.
Given these conditions, is it any wonder companies such as Valero are looking for friendlier climes?
The laws by which Congress hamstrings energy producers have had the lethal effect of slowing down the economy while driving up prices. It’s high time for measures that do just the opposite.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Jurisprudence?
From the Latin term juris prudentia, which means "the study, knowledge, or science of law"; in the United States, more broadly associated with the philosophy of law.
What is law? How does a trial or appellate court judge decide a case? Is a judge similar to a mathematician or a scientist applying autonomous and determinate rules and principles? Or is a judge more like a legislator who simply decides a case in favor of the most politically preferable outcome? Must a judge base a decision only on the written rules and regulations that have been enacted by the government? Or may a judge also be influenced by unwritten principles derived from theology, moral philosophy, and historical practice?
What is law? How does a trial or appellate court judge decide a case? Is a judge similar to a mathematician or a scientist applying autonomous and determinate rules and principles? Or is a judge more like a legislator who simply decides a case in favor of the most politically preferable outcome? Must a judge base a decision only on the written rules and regulations that have been enacted by the government? Or may a judge also be influenced by unwritten principles derived from theology, moral philosophy, and historical practice?
Thursday, March 6, 2008
WHY MOST VOTERS SHOULDN'T VOTE
"GET-OUT-THE-DOPE DRIVES"
By: Selwyn Duke
Often the most fanciful ideas become the least questioned assumptions. In this election season a few have made themselves apparent, such as the notion that “change” is good by definition and “experience” is definitely good. Yet an even better example is the oft-repeated platitude that greater voter participation yields a healthier republic.
Ah, I’ve transgressed against dogma, but let’s be logical. Most of us agree that having an educated populace is a prerequisite for a sound democratic republic. We also know that not everyone is well-educated. Thus, it cannot be a good thing for everyone to vote. For those of you who had trouble following that line of reasoning, please remember that Election Day is November 5.
And one needn’t be disenchanted with universal suffrage to agree. It’s one thing to have one man, one vote; it’s quite another to have one man, one obligation to vote. Yet we still hear that it’s our “civic duty” to go to the polls. Well, no, actually, it’s a civic duty to make ourselves worthy to do so.
This “vote first, ask questions later” idea reaches the very nadir of inanity when it manifests itself in get-out-the-vote drives, which can quite correctly be defined as an effort to rally the idiot vote disguised as a noble exercise in democracy. Yet whether the call to the polls is organized or incidental, I would always make the same point: If people don’t have the initiative to get out and vote without prodding, it follows that they don’t have the greater initiative necessary to inform themselves on the issues; thus, they shouldn’t vote. As I said years ago in “Get-out-the-dopes Drives”:
“. . . this is a problem that takes care of itself when we let nature take its course. Those who don’t care may not inform themselves, but more often than not a result of that will be that they won’t vote, so no harm done. The problem arises when we put the cart before the horse and encourage those who can’t yet drive to take the wheel.”
This is no minor point. When people don’t vote, it’s for the same reason why they don’t repair cars, fly planes or perform brain surgery.
They’re not interested in those things.
This is important because, generally speaking, interest is a prerequisite for competency. How often have you met someone who became adept at something through disinterest? “You know, I don’t like playing the piano, but one day someone convinced me to tickle the ivories and my fingers started playing Mozart’s Concerto No. 9.” When you hear that, let me know.
Really, we delude ourselves. We see a lot of posturing about getting people “engaged in the process,” but it’s all talk. A process is just that, a process, “a systematic series of actions directed to some end” [1], while voting is simply an action. Or perhaps we could say it’s a reaction – catalyzed by one’s own knowledge and passion.
If people really were interested in the health of the “process,” they would start at the beginning of that “systematic series of actions” – which is the step whereby you encourage people to care, study and inform themselves – not at the end with voting. They would understand that once this step was tended to, people would naturally cast ballots, as it is merely a by-product of personal political health.
Yet we entertain the folly that for some mysterious, inexplicable reason everyone should participate, that it’s a good thing, regardless of how ignorant or ill-informed he may be. Well, why don’t we apply this to others matters? We might as well say that if everyone flies a jumbo jet, air travel will somehow be better; we should assume that if everyone performs brain surgery, medical care will somehow improve. Why? Well . . . participation is the answer! That is enough.
Does it sound ridiculous? It’s no more so than asserting that having everyone vote will yield a healthier nation. What we should do is take the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm.” This applies not just to those too ill-informed to vote but also those ill-informed enough to encourage them to do so.
You can call me an elitist, but it’s getting easier to achieve that designation all the time. Study after study after study has revealed an appalling lack of historical knowledge among American youth – which carries over to adulthood – and our grasp of significant current events is no better. Quoting author of The Age of American Unreason, Susan Jacoby, The Wall Street Journal writes,
“(One poll that [sic] found more than three years into the Iraq war, only 23 percent of those with some college could locate Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel on a map . . . .)”
Moreover, many aren’t any better at navigating the political map – some people don’t even know the name of our vice president (hard to believe, but true). Despite this, there still are those who would convince the uninformed to vote, even though when pulling the lever at a polling place, the latter have no more grasp of the consequences of their actions than if they were to pull one in a casino.
Yet, when some encourage the ignorant to vote, there is method to their madness. The people I speak of do in fact care about the “process,” it’s just that their process – that “systematic series of actions directed to some end” – probably isn’t the same as yours. This is because they seek a very different end: The attainment of power.
The people I refer to are liberals.
It’s well known that the greater the voter turn-out, the more likely it is that liberal politicians will prevail. Thus, liberals reason that low turn-out is bad because it’s bad for them. This, of course, means it’s good for America.
Many will bristle at what I’ve said, but just take a look at how liberals plumb the depths of the barrel for votes. They want convicts and the homeless (many of whom are mentally ill, a perfect leftist constituency) to vote; they aggressively get out the vote in urban wastelands, their strongholds, which are plagued by crime, drug use and high abortion rates; and their constituencies are people such as homosexuals and others with aberrant lifestyles. Liberals in California were even advocating pubescents’ suffrage: Giving 14-year-olds the right to cast ballots. So, it’s funny. It used to be said that the Democrats were the party of the common man. The truth is that they’re the party of the uncommon man.
And there is an irony here, one I’d like to ask our liberal friends about. I know you believe you’re much smarter than we traditionalists, as you often attribute the embrace of our ideology to stupidity. I was, in fact, once told by a certain bit-part, liberal actor (forgive the redundancy) that I just wasn’t as “evolved” as he was.
Thus, I wonder about something. How is it that, with few exceptions, the more degraded, immoral, criminally inclined, immature, and ignorant voters are, the better it is for liberal candidates? If these normally apathetic people are in fact voting correctly, as you liberals assert, to what do you attribute it? Beginner’s luck? And does this make you liberals question your ideology at all? Does it make you think, even for a moment, that maybe you’re on the wrong side?
I won’t hold my breath waiting for a good answer, but I will mention another irony. Liberals are completely taken with gun control; some of them even say that no one but the police should own firearms. Yet they believe that people too irresponsible to have their finger on the trigger should influence the choice of who will have his finger on the button.
1. Dictionary.com
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
By: Selwyn Duke
Often the most fanciful ideas become the least questioned assumptions. In this election season a few have made themselves apparent, such as the notion that “change” is good by definition and “experience” is definitely good. Yet an even better example is the oft-repeated platitude that greater voter participation yields a healthier republic.
Ah, I’ve transgressed against dogma, but let’s be logical. Most of us agree that having an educated populace is a prerequisite for a sound democratic republic. We also know that not everyone is well-educated. Thus, it cannot be a good thing for everyone to vote. For those of you who had trouble following that line of reasoning, please remember that Election Day is November 5.
And one needn’t be disenchanted with universal suffrage to agree. It’s one thing to have one man, one vote; it’s quite another to have one man, one obligation to vote. Yet we still hear that it’s our “civic duty” to go to the polls. Well, no, actually, it’s a civic duty to make ourselves worthy to do so.
This “vote first, ask questions later” idea reaches the very nadir of inanity when it manifests itself in get-out-the-vote drives, which can quite correctly be defined as an effort to rally the idiot vote disguised as a noble exercise in democracy. Yet whether the call to the polls is organized or incidental, I would always make the same point: If people don’t have the initiative to get out and vote without prodding, it follows that they don’t have the greater initiative necessary to inform themselves on the issues; thus, they shouldn’t vote. As I said years ago in “Get-out-the-dopes Drives”:
“. . . this is a problem that takes care of itself when we let nature take its course. Those who don’t care may not inform themselves, but more often than not a result of that will be that they won’t vote, so no harm done. The problem arises when we put the cart before the horse and encourage those who can’t yet drive to take the wheel.”
This is no minor point. When people don’t vote, it’s for the same reason why they don’t repair cars, fly planes or perform brain surgery.
They’re not interested in those things.
This is important because, generally speaking, interest is a prerequisite for competency. How often have you met someone who became adept at something through disinterest? “You know, I don’t like playing the piano, but one day someone convinced me to tickle the ivories and my fingers started playing Mozart’s Concerto No. 9.” When you hear that, let me know.
Really, we delude ourselves. We see a lot of posturing about getting people “engaged in the process,” but it’s all talk. A process is just that, a process, “a systematic series of actions directed to some end” [1], while voting is simply an action. Or perhaps we could say it’s a reaction – catalyzed by one’s own knowledge and passion.
If people really were interested in the health of the “process,” they would start at the beginning of that “systematic series of actions” – which is the step whereby you encourage people to care, study and inform themselves – not at the end with voting. They would understand that once this step was tended to, people would naturally cast ballots, as it is merely a by-product of personal political health.
Yet we entertain the folly that for some mysterious, inexplicable reason everyone should participate, that it’s a good thing, regardless of how ignorant or ill-informed he may be. Well, why don’t we apply this to others matters? We might as well say that if everyone flies a jumbo jet, air travel will somehow be better; we should assume that if everyone performs brain surgery, medical care will somehow improve. Why? Well . . . participation is the answer! That is enough.
Does it sound ridiculous? It’s no more so than asserting that having everyone vote will yield a healthier nation. What we should do is take the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm.” This applies not just to those too ill-informed to vote but also those ill-informed enough to encourage them to do so.
You can call me an elitist, but it’s getting easier to achieve that designation all the time. Study after study after study has revealed an appalling lack of historical knowledge among American youth – which carries over to adulthood – and our grasp of significant current events is no better. Quoting author of The Age of American Unreason, Susan Jacoby, The Wall Street Journal writes,
“(One poll that [sic] found more than three years into the Iraq war, only 23 percent of those with some college could locate Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel on a map . . . .)”
Moreover, many aren’t any better at navigating the political map – some people don’t even know the name of our vice president (hard to believe, but true). Despite this, there still are those who would convince the uninformed to vote, even though when pulling the lever at a polling place, the latter have no more grasp of the consequences of their actions than if they were to pull one in a casino.
Yet, when some encourage the ignorant to vote, there is method to their madness. The people I speak of do in fact care about the “process,” it’s just that their process – that “systematic series of actions directed to some end” – probably isn’t the same as yours. This is because they seek a very different end: The attainment of power.
The people I refer to are liberals.
It’s well known that the greater the voter turn-out, the more likely it is that liberal politicians will prevail. Thus, liberals reason that low turn-out is bad because it’s bad for them. This, of course, means it’s good for America.
Many will bristle at what I’ve said, but just take a look at how liberals plumb the depths of the barrel for votes. They want convicts and the homeless (many of whom are mentally ill, a perfect leftist constituency) to vote; they aggressively get out the vote in urban wastelands, their strongholds, which are plagued by crime, drug use and high abortion rates; and their constituencies are people such as homosexuals and others with aberrant lifestyles. Liberals in California were even advocating pubescents’ suffrage: Giving 14-year-olds the right to cast ballots. So, it’s funny. It used to be said that the Democrats were the party of the common man. The truth is that they’re the party of the uncommon man.
And there is an irony here, one I’d like to ask our liberal friends about. I know you believe you’re much smarter than we traditionalists, as you often attribute the embrace of our ideology to stupidity. I was, in fact, once told by a certain bit-part, liberal actor (forgive the redundancy) that I just wasn’t as “evolved” as he was.
Thus, I wonder about something. How is it that, with few exceptions, the more degraded, immoral, criminally inclined, immature, and ignorant voters are, the better it is for liberal candidates? If these normally apathetic people are in fact voting correctly, as you liberals assert, to what do you attribute it? Beginner’s luck? And does this make you liberals question your ideology at all? Does it make you think, even for a moment, that maybe you’re on the wrong side?
I won’t hold my breath waiting for a good answer, but I will mention another irony. Liberals are completely taken with gun control; some of them even say that no one but the police should own firearms. Yet they believe that people too irresponsible to have their finger on the trigger should influence the choice of who will have his finger on the button.
1. Dictionary.com
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Judge orders homeschoolers into government education
Family's religious beliefs 'no evidence' of 1st Amendment violation.
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A California court has ruled that several children in one homeschool family must be enrolled in a public school or "legally qualified" private school, and must attend, sending ripples of shock into the nation's homeschooling advocates as the family reviews its options for appeal.
The ruling came in a case brought against Phillip and Mary Long over the education being provided to two of their eight children. They are considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court, because they have homeschooled all of their children, the oldest now 29, because of various anti-Christian influences in California's public schools.
The decision from the 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles granted a special petition brought by lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children after the family's homeschooling was brought to the attention of child advocates.
"We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence,'" the court said in the case. "We agree … 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"
The words echo the ideas of officials from Germany, where homeschooling has been outlawed since 1938 under a law adopted when Adolf Hitler decided he wanted the state, and no one else, to control the minds of the nation's youth.
Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has said "school teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct, encourages dialogue among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens."
Specifically, the appeals court said, the trial court had found that "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting."
The appeals ruling said California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions being allowed for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."
The judges ruled in the case involving the Longs the family failed to demonstrate "that mother has a teaching credential such that the children can be said to be receiving an education from a credentialed tutor," and that their involvement and supervision by Sunland Christian School's independent study programs was of no value.
Nor did the family's religious beliefs matter to the court.
Their "sincerely held religious beliefs" are "not the quality of evidence that permits us to say that application of California's compulsory public school education law to them violates their First Amendment rights."
"Such sparse representations are too easily asserted by any parent who wishes to homeschool his or her child," the court concluded.
The father, Phillip Long, said the family is working on ways to appeal to the state Supreme Court, because he won't allow the pro-homosexual, pro-bisexual, pro-transgender agenda of California's public schools, on which WND previously has reported, to indoctrinate his children.
"We just don't want them teaching our children," he told WND. "They teach things that are totally contrary to what we believe. They put questions in our children's minds we don't feel they're ready for.
"When they are much more mature, they can deal with these issues, alternative lifestyles, and such, or whether they came from primordial slop. At the present time it's my job to teach them the correct way of thinking," he said.
"We're going to appeal. We have to. I don't want to put my children in a public school system that teaches ideologies I don't believe in," he said.
A spokesman for the Home School Legal Defense Association, one of the world's premiere homeschooling advocacy organizations, said the group's experts were analyzing the impact of the decision.
"It's a very unfortunate decision," he said.
Randy Thomasson, of Campaign for Children and Families, said under California law parents have the legal right to create a private school in their home and enroll their own children.
"Children belong to the parents, not to the state," he said. But he acknowledged that there's a great deal of misinformation about the status of homeschooling in California.
"For years the government school establishment has been lying to parents about the law. Just this week, a Los Angeles Unified school district employee lied to a mother who wanted to homeschool, telling her you must have a license, you must be credentialed and you must follow all the state curriculum. That's three lies in one sentence."
"Now we have judges going crazy and actively separating children from their parents."
A legal outline for parents' homeschool rights in California, published by Family Protection Ministries, confirmed Thomasson's description.
The state's legal options for home educators include establishing a private school in their home by filing a private school affidavit with state regulators or enrolling in private school satellite instruction programs or independent study programs, it said.
The Long family had been involved in such a program with Sunland Christian School, but the appeals court took the extraordinary step of banning the family from being involved in that organization any longer, since it was "willing to participate in the deprivation of the children's right to a legal education."
A number of groups already have assembled in California under the Rescue Your Child slogan to encourage parents to withdraw their children from the state's public school system.
It's because the California Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger worked together to establish Senate Bill 777 and Assembly Bill 394 as law, plans that institutionalize the promotion of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and other alternative lifestyle choices.
"First, [California] law allowed public schools to voluntarily promote homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality. Then, the law required public schools to accept homosexual, bisexual and transsexual teachers as role models for impressionable children. Now, the law has been changed to effectively require the positive portrayal of homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality to 6 million children in California government-controlled schools," said Thomasson.
Even insiders joined in the call for an abandonment of California's public districts. Veteran public school teacher Nadine Williams of Torrance said the sexual indoctrination laws have motivated her to keep her grandchildren out of the very public schools she used to support.
The Discover Christian Schools website reports getting thousands of hits daily from parents and others seeking information about alternatives to California's public schools.
WND reported leaders of the campaign called California Exodus say they hope to encourage parents of 600,000 children to withdraw them from the public districts this year.
The new law itself technically bans in any school texts, events, class or activities any discriminatory bias against those who have chosen alternative sexual lifestyles, said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute.
There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however. Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.
"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values. These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured," she said.
Karen England, chief of CRI, told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology.
"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."
The California plan still is facing a court challenge on its constitutionality and a possible vote of the people of California if an initiative effort succeeds.
One more Nail in the coffin of Freedom!
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A California court has ruled that several children in one homeschool family must be enrolled in a public school or "legally qualified" private school, and must attend, sending ripples of shock into the nation's homeschooling advocates as the family reviews its options for appeal.
The ruling came in a case brought against Phillip and Mary Long over the education being provided to two of their eight children. They are considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court, because they have homeschooled all of their children, the oldest now 29, because of various anti-Christian influences in California's public schools.
The decision from the 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles granted a special petition brought by lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children after the family's homeschooling was brought to the attention of child advocates.
"We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence,'" the court said in the case. "We agree … 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"
The words echo the ideas of officials from Germany, where homeschooling has been outlawed since 1938 under a law adopted when Adolf Hitler decided he wanted the state, and no one else, to control the minds of the nation's youth.
Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has said "school teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct, encourages dialogue among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens."
Specifically, the appeals court said, the trial court had found that "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting."
The appeals ruling said California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions being allowed for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."
The judges ruled in the case involving the Longs the family failed to demonstrate "that mother has a teaching credential such that the children can be said to be receiving an education from a credentialed tutor," and that their involvement and supervision by Sunland Christian School's independent study programs was of no value.
Nor did the family's religious beliefs matter to the court.
Their "sincerely held religious beliefs" are "not the quality of evidence that permits us to say that application of California's compulsory public school education law to them violates their First Amendment rights."
"Such sparse representations are too easily asserted by any parent who wishes to homeschool his or her child," the court concluded.
The father, Phillip Long, said the family is working on ways to appeal to the state Supreme Court, because he won't allow the pro-homosexual, pro-bisexual, pro-transgender agenda of California's public schools, on which WND previously has reported, to indoctrinate his children.
"We just don't want them teaching our children," he told WND. "They teach things that are totally contrary to what we believe. They put questions in our children's minds we don't feel they're ready for.
"When they are much more mature, they can deal with these issues, alternative lifestyles, and such, or whether they came from primordial slop. At the present time it's my job to teach them the correct way of thinking," he said.
"We're going to appeal. We have to. I don't want to put my children in a public school system that teaches ideologies I don't believe in," he said.
A spokesman for the Home School Legal Defense Association, one of the world's premiere homeschooling advocacy organizations, said the group's experts were analyzing the impact of the decision.
"It's a very unfortunate decision," he said.
Randy Thomasson, of Campaign for Children and Families, said under California law parents have the legal right to create a private school in their home and enroll their own children.
"Children belong to the parents, not to the state," he said. But he acknowledged that there's a great deal of misinformation about the status of homeschooling in California.
"For years the government school establishment has been lying to parents about the law. Just this week, a Los Angeles Unified school district employee lied to a mother who wanted to homeschool, telling her you must have a license, you must be credentialed and you must follow all the state curriculum. That's three lies in one sentence."
"Now we have judges going crazy and actively separating children from their parents."
A legal outline for parents' homeschool rights in California, published by Family Protection Ministries, confirmed Thomasson's description.
The state's legal options for home educators include establishing a private school in their home by filing a private school affidavit with state regulators or enrolling in private school satellite instruction programs or independent study programs, it said.
The Long family had been involved in such a program with Sunland Christian School, but the appeals court took the extraordinary step of banning the family from being involved in that organization any longer, since it was "willing to participate in the deprivation of the children's right to a legal education."
A number of groups already have assembled in California under the Rescue Your Child slogan to encourage parents to withdraw their children from the state's public school system.
It's because the California Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger worked together to establish Senate Bill 777 and Assembly Bill 394 as law, plans that institutionalize the promotion of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and other alternative lifestyle choices.
"First, [California] law allowed public schools to voluntarily promote homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality. Then, the law required public schools to accept homosexual, bisexual and transsexual teachers as role models for impressionable children. Now, the law has been changed to effectively require the positive portrayal of homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality to 6 million children in California government-controlled schools," said Thomasson.
Even insiders joined in the call for an abandonment of California's public districts. Veteran public school teacher Nadine Williams of Torrance said the sexual indoctrination laws have motivated her to keep her grandchildren out of the very public schools she used to support.
The Discover Christian Schools website reports getting thousands of hits daily from parents and others seeking information about alternatives to California's public schools.
WND reported leaders of the campaign called California Exodus say they hope to encourage parents of 600,000 children to withdraw them from the public districts this year.
The new law itself technically bans in any school texts, events, class or activities any discriminatory bias against those who have chosen alternative sexual lifestyles, said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute.
There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however. Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.
"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values. These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured," she said.
Karen England, chief of CRI, told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology.
"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."
The California plan still is facing a court challenge on its constitutionality and a possible vote of the people of California if an initiative effort succeeds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One more Nail in the coffin of Freedom!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)