Destry and TeenPact, Take Two

One of the highlights of the year for Destry was his second trip to TeenPact back in March.  As a member of the alumni track, he had more homework to do in preparation and got to participate in a higher level of thinking in his classes.

He ran for senator again, and won again.

I think this is a really good opportunity for teens to practice public speaking, to learn to "put themselves out there", and to learn how to stand up for something and try to persuade others to believe as they do about an issue.

In addition to everything he learns in the classes, Destry also loves the time at camp getting to know people, playing sports, and especially the "rendezvous" at the end of the day focusing on how the Lord is working in each person's life, their struggles, and their growth.  

Destry was recommended to be a staff member after his first year, and he is seriously considering serving as a staffer next year.  I think this would be a good leadership opportunity for him.

The 2015 Iowa TeenPact class with the reflection of the state capitol

Briana's Campaigning Experience

I wanted my children to have more awareness of government than I had, and I wanted them to be prepared to influence in a positive way.  Somehow I never quite expected that this bug would bite Briana quite as hard as it has, however.

Last year when we went to Iowa Homeschool Day at the Capitol we got to meet our representative, Greg Heartsill.  We enjoyed getting to meet this conservative man, who just happens to also be a homeschooling father, and whose values and political views are similar to our own.

When he was up for re-election this year, Briana offered to help him campaign (and dragged the rest of the family along with her).

We walked in several small-town parades, passing out literature, popsicles, candy and hand sanitizer (because the government doesn't just need cleaned up, it needs sanitized).

Briana spent several hours and many evenings knocking on constituents' doors passing them literature, asking them open-ended questions about their political beliefs, and placing signs in yards.  She really enjoyed stepping out of her comfort zone and engaging the people on his behalf, although she was disappointed to learn how many people take our legal system for granted and don't exercise their right to vote.  This experience has made her want to encourage others to do their part to preserve our freedoms by letting their voice be heard.

Thankfully, Representative Heartsill won his campaign and will be representing us again for another term.

Animal Farm

Animal Farm by George Orwell

Brilliant, of course!

It's no wonder this classic stands the test of time.  While it's an obvious satire of the Russian revolution, it's also a timeless commentary on the corruptibility of power.  Certainly there are still those who desire to control others and limit their freedom.  Even while it has a deep message, it is written in a way that is easy to understand.

I especially enjoyed reading this with Briana and Destry (yes, I realize it is summer, but we love reading and discussing great works together!).   I want them to be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves" and I think reading books like this will help them not be the Boxers of the world who ignorantly and blindly follow leaders without examining their motives.

And we all agreed that it made us angry--on so many levels.

Life-Changing Week

Destry described his week at TeenPact as life-changing.  It was his first TeenPact experience and Briana's third.  Both came home bubbling over with enthusiasm, dreams and goals, and new friendships.

TeenPact's mission is to train youth to understand the political process, value their liberty, defend their Christian faith and engage the culture at a time in their lives when, typically, they do not care about such things.

The truth is, both Destry and his friend Jarret (pictured above) were pretty much dragged to this government and leadership four-day camp.  They were appalled that they had to do several homework assignments and help pay for the cost.  They were further appalled at the idea of wearing a tie every single day!

I had considered not having my kids go this year, but after much prayer and discussion with my husband, we made a late decision that Destry needed to go this year for reasons that I'll not go into here.  I just love it when the Lord works things out like this.  Not only did they learn a great deal about government, but they also grew in their relationships with other teenagers who love the Lord and are seeking Him.  A more sober-minded and humble son came home to me Thursday than the one I dropped off on Monday.

Both of my teens enjoyed honors this week.  Briana ran for the position of governor and did not win, but she was recognized as the highest-scoring alumnus in homework, tests and quizzes.  Destry was elected as one of the three senators and as such gave a speech at the graduation ceremony.  I was, of course, quite proud of them both for these accomplishments.

What I was most proud of, however, took place during the speech of another of the elected senators.  He asked Destry to stand and then commended him for being a person who always has an encouraging word and knows just the right thing to say when you need it.

I'm curious to see how this experience continues to affect their daily lives and future.  I record these details not to brag on them (well, not too much anyway! ha!) but mostly so they won't forget these moments and the impact TeenPact has had on them.  I record them now, anticipating one day looking back on their experience and seeing how it shaped their choices.

Leadership and Crisis

I have thirty-six little flags sticking out the sides of the book from my recent reading of  Leadership and Crisis by Bobby Jindal, former congressman and governor of Louisiana (with his writers, of course).  I thoroughly enjoyed this book which highlighted Jindal's experience as a son of Indian immigrants and his conversion from Hinduism to Catholicism and focused primarily on summarizing his political views.  When I closed the book, I told my husband I wish I could vote for him this November if he really believes and would implement what he says in the book.

I guess many people expect Jindal to someday run for president, but I'm afraid he's too conservative to appeal to enough voters to get elected.  I appreciate his view toward smaller government and his common sense approach to liberty, economics, education, and healthcare.

My favorite quote:

"The biggest threat to our freedom comes from within our borders, not beyond them.  It comes when we are tempted to bargain away, little by little, the liberties other Americans have fought and died to place in our hands" (158).

On the government's role in the economy:

In my view, the government's role should be ensuring a robust marketplace that is competitive (so consumers have choice), transparent (so consumers can make informed decisions), accountable (so resources are leveraged to reward good clinical outcomes rather than simply paying for the process of care), effective (by engaging consumers in making good health choices for themselves and their families), and accessible (so healthcare is affordable).  Moreover, the system has to be based on sound, proven economic principles--the government simply cannot suspend the law of supply and demand" (189).


Today we have the federal government in Washington trying to run car companies, banks, and our entire health care system--rather than sticking to its core job of protecting America from all enemies foreign and domestic, protecting the life, liberty, and property of the American people.  What we really need is for the federal government to do those things it should be doing with excellence, and stop trying to take over pieces of the private sector that it has no business in and no reasonable chance of running well (4).

The book was very easy to read and sometimes his voice conveyed just a touch of sarcasm, which I have to admit made me smile.

Examples of his humor that made me smile:

When Congress meets, a lot of bad things happen.  Astronomical amounts of money get spent; the government takes over banks and car companies; people try to re-engineer entire sectors of the economy.  Elected officials inevitably feel the need to do something, and they crave the media coverage that accompanies big proposals, no matter how wasteful or destructive.  As Mark Twain observed, 'No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session. . .Why not pay members of Congress to stay out of Washington?  For decades we have paid farmers not to grow crops.  We should pay congressmen a decent salary and then deduct money for every day Congress meets in session" (102).

"I would go so far as to say that a society that does not defend the defenseless and consider all human life to be both sacred and precious is really not a civilized society, at least not in my book.  And this is after all. . .my book" (216).

I think this book is well-worth reading and would recommend it whether you are politically-minded or not terribly concerned with politics; whether you are conservative or not; whether you have ever considered what freedoms you are preserving for your children and grandchildren or not.  It will make you think and it just might challenge your stance on several issues.  While he spends considerable time criticizing current policies and practices, he also shares some solutions including a "Seven Step Recovery Program".

I most appreciated his reminder that our leadership reflects who we are as a nation and the need for us to retain (or recover!) the christian principles upon which this country was founded.  If we as individuals are not hard working, moral, self-governing people, what can we really expect of our government and nation at large?

"Our republic rests on self-government.  That requires people to share a common commitment to virtue, to mutual respect, to core values, to doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, to selflessness, and to 'peace, patience, kindness, and self-control'" (268).

What defines us (Americans) are our values and ideals, our commitments to individualism, a spirit of independence, limited government, and the American spirit. . .Our political system has worked brilliantly for more than two centuries because it could rely on a culture in which people share a common commitment to doing the right thing.  As John Adams warned, 'Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.'  Without that, even a democracy could simply become the will of the mob" (271).

Brave New World

It kept appearing over and over again. People talked about Brave New World, it was referenced in Bush's Decision Points, and it's even alluded to in a book I'm currently reading called Parenting by the Book. It was my turn to pick the classic for our book club to read during the month of April, so I dragged some friends into my first reading of this classic that has made such an impact on so many.

Fascinating, depressing, scary, strange. . .these are just a few reactions I had to the book. I tend to find dystopian stories interesting and thought-provoking, and this one did not disappoint in that regard. I could hardly put it down in the beginning, but as the storyline progressed I was less intrigued, perhaps because it was just so hopeless--and a little too familiar.

How does one describe this book? Huxley wrote it after World War I (eerily foretelling the coming atrocities of a centralized government to take place in his own lifetime) and described a society in which technology would drastically change and imagined the effects those changes would have on the people. There would no longer be emotions like love nor committed, monogamous relationships so there would be no jealousy or anger ("every one belongs to every one else"), promiscuity would rule the day, and children would no longer be conceived in families but would be mass produced in test tubes. Not only would they be mass produced, but they would be genetically manipulated to determine their function (value?) in society--smart and gorgeous or limited mental faculties and stunted stature. After birth, the babies and children were conditioned (brainwashed? tortured?) to love their position in life for "that is the secret of happiness and virtue--liking what you've got to do. All conditioning aims at that: making people like their unescapable social destiny" (10). . ."Till at last the child's mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child's mind. And not the child's mind only. The adult's mind too--all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides--made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions! Suggestions from the State!" (19).

Part of the conditioning included a propensity toward consumerism. Use and discard. Keep the factories busy. New is better. "Ending is better than mending" (33). "You can't consume much if you sit still and read books" (33) so children's behavior was modified to dislike books. They were also trained in how to view one another in the proper socio-economic roles, to be desensitized from death or caring about others dying, and to ruthlessly pursue the drugging of their minds and emotions through entertainment, sex, or drugs. They had no individuality, no need to think for themselves, and the State provided for them. "Stability. The primal and ultimate need" (28).

"Everybody's happy now" (50). They were brainwashed into believing it. There was no longer any guilt or shame or need for redemption. They thought they were independent of God and in the absence of law, there is no sin. "What you ought to do is on the whole so pleasant, so many of the natural impulses are allowed free play, that there really aren't any temptations to resist" (161). "Anybody can be virtuous now. You can carry at least half your mortality about in a bottle. Christianity without tears--that's what soma (their drug) is" (162).

Consumerism. . .sex. . .entertainment. . .God replaced by the worship of technology. . .all is acceptable. . .subsidization of drug research to sooth and pacify the masses (36). . .

Yet some were able to understand the difference between this State-controlled existence and living in freedom. "Can you say something about nothing?" (47) asked one writer. "You can't make tragedies without social instability. The world's stable now. People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can't get. They're well off; they're safe; they're never ill; they're not afraid of death; they're blissfully ignorant of passion and old age; they're plagued with no mothers or fathers; they've got no wives, or children, or lovers to feel strongly about; they're so conditioned that they practically can't help behaving as they ought to behave. And if anything should go wrong, there's soma" (149).

"I'd rather be unhappy than have the sort of false, lying happiness you were having here" (120).
"What you need is something with tears for a change. Nothing costs enough here" (162).
"I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin" (163).
"I'm claiming the right to be unhappy" (163).

Brave New World really made me think and prompted me to take a hard look at our current society with its focus and values. Ironically, our book for May is The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was executed for his role in a plan to assassinate Hitler. In the last week, I've enjoyed listening to an audio biography of Bonhoeffer with my children and have been reading the new biography Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy in preparation for this christian classic. It's going to be a fun month of continuing education!

All Roads Lead to Rome

It's been a really good week at our house and the two things I'll highlight this week are Briana's preparations for TeenPact and our study of Ancient Rome.

As I've previously mentioned, Briana is heading to a four-day government class at the state capital on Monday. In preparation for this she has spent hours on homework, including several pages of vocabulary terms, becoming familiar with our state's vital statistics, analyzing bills, writing a proposed bill, reading the constitution and writing a few paragraphs explaining the Bill of Rights. She also read the book "Real Citizenship", wrote letters to her representatives, and memorized I Timothy 2:1-3 and Romans 13:1-2.
She is so excited for this opportunity and had all her homework completed, printed, and organized in page protectors in a three-ring binder by Wednesday. I'm really proud of her for being so responsible and organized--especially considering if *I* were the one going, Sunday night would be a crazy, stressful night of getting everything ready at the last possible minute!

Our study of Rome this week has been both fun and challenging. We studied Rome's many scientific and architectural accomplishments including bridges, roads and aqueducts. Briana found it especially interesting that they borrowed many of their ideas from the Greeks and Egyptians, yet were so practical and physical that they implemented their ideas and technologies in order to improve their lives. She insightfully observed that the Greeks were thinkers and the Romans were doers.
Destry was fascinated with the 53million miles of roads the Romans built, many of which are still in use today. My plan was to make a small-scale model in a pie plate to demonstrate how the Roman roads were fashioned . Alan and the kids had a better idea. Since we have worn a path through the yard going around the deck to get to our back porch, they decided we could make a "Roman road sidewalk" (I'm rather inclined to make a road sign labeled "Appian Way" giggle).
So they dug a hole to make the foundation of the road, then broke bricks into large gravel to partially fill the hole. By turning bricks vertically they created curbstones, then filled the rest of the hole in with small gravel and sand until the depth was just right for laying the cobblestones (for which they used bricks laid flat). This was their application of the description of the road-building process given by first-century poet Statius.

The first task here is to trace furrows, ripping up the maze of paths, and then excavate a deep trench in the ground. The second comprises refilling the trench with other material to make a foundation for the road build-up. The ground must not give way nor must bedrock or base be at all unreliable when the paving stones are trodden. Next the road metalling is held in place on both sides by kerbing and numerous wedges. How numerous the squads working together! Some are cutting down woodland and clearing the higher ground, others are using tools to smooth outcrops of rock and plane great beams. There are those binding stones and consolidating the material with burnt lime and volcanic tufa. Others again are working hard to dry up hollows that keep filling with water or are diverting the smaller streams.

They completed just this small section, and then it snowed again. They have the ambitious plan to finish all the way around the deck and I think it will be really neat when they are finished. This sort of learning project is just perfect for Destry, who much prefers physical labor to bookwork!
We have also thoroughly enjoyed our continued reading of Whatever Happened to Justice. As we've examined the governmental systems used by the Romans, we've learned about the rule of law--when a society realizes they must be ruled by a written law instead of by an imperfect human who is selfish and inconsistent. We've also learned the value of a limited government and the principles of common law: do all you have agreed to do and do not encroach on other persons or their property. It has been fascinating to read and discuss this book, and I just love the way it worked out for us to study this right before Briana goes to TeenPact! I'll close this post with a few quotes my children have highlighted from this book.

• Always beware of anyone who tells you a topic is above you or better left to experts. This person may be trying to shut you out. You can understand anything.
  
• In my opinion, in America today we place far too much emphasis on intelligence and too little on character. Intelligence is great, but only if used in honorable ways.
  
• If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was, and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
  
• If once they (the people) become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors shall all become wolves. --Thomas Jefferson
  
• The abortion question is terrifying to me. The eventual resolution will very likely come through a constitutional amendment. And, pro or con, the answer will be important, but not half as important as the method of answering--through political means. A right-to-life question will have been decided by majority rule. Could anything be more dangerous? Once a right-to-life question has been decided democratically, then fourteen centuries of common law reasoning will be swept away. The right to life--yours, mine, and everyone else's--will be regarded not as a given, not as a gift from the Creator, but as a gift from the voters. The victory of political law will be complete. Nuremberg will be gone, and no one's life will be safe. Our legal system will be sitting squarely on the same foundations as that of Nazi Germany.
  
• Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one. They seem to have an insatiable desire for leaders who will tell them how to think and act. Individualism is rare.
  
• The America I love is the America of principle, not of geography, and not of politics.
  
• If you want to understand what is happening in your world today, study the difference between the French Revolution and the American Revolution. The French went after democracy; the Americans went after liberty. The French got mob rule and the Reign of Terror; the Americans got the most free and prosperous nation ever seen on earth.
  
• Man cannot make principles, he can only discover them. --Thomas Paine Common law was our way of discovering legal principles. Now it is gone, but our high-tech civilization continues moving forward without its guidance. We are left without a rational way to answer legal questions about abortion, animal rights, artificial intelligence, assisted suicide, child theory, euthanasia, fathers' rights to children born out of wedlock, surrogate motherhood, etc.
  

Following the Rules

I have all sorts of thoughts swirling around in my head as a result of some of the books I've read recently.

I'm a rule-follower. That's what I've decided after some serious introspection. I am a "rules are made for following" type of person, not a "rules are made for breaking" type of person. I tend to think authority should be respected, and can get really frustrated and irritated when I perceive that someone isn't following the rules.

I wonder why I am this way. Is it my particular personality? Is it the way I was raised (for surely, I was expected to obey my parents--period--no questions asked)? As I read on another blog, could it be that I'm a product of a public school system with an unspoken agenda?
"I think it was John Taylor Gatto's book "Dumbing Us Down" that talked about what the schools really teach us and what the unspoken agenda reveals. A must read. Didn't you learn to be subordinate in school? To talk only when spoken to? To not disrupt the schedule or lesson with your own ideas or train of thought? To do the same thing everyone else was doing? To follow the leader? Hmmm....something to think about."

I recently finished The Hunger Games trilogy by Suzanne Collins (thanks for the tip, Amanda! smile). This was a thought-provoking series (not to mention just an enjoyable read), and the first book triggered memories of "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson and "The Most Dangerous Game" by Richard Connell, short stories I read back in high school. It also made me think of Lois Lowry's The Giver and The Messenger. Do you remember these books and short stories? Do you remember a society in which people lose all freedom, even to the point they don't know freedom exists? Do you remember that freaky story in which everyone gathers for the annual lottery, and then the reader is shocked to find the villagers don't even question the tradition of stoning someone to death and begin throwing stones at their neighbor, mother, wife?

Interestingly, I find my son is more willing to question the rules. For example, you may remember the knife he made and wears on his belt.
He really sees no reason he can't wear it everywhere he goes. The store, church, Walmart. . .he thinks it's quite dumb when his dad or I tell him to take it off. I remember we went to a church meeting in Kansas City over Memorial Day weekend, and he was wearing it and was asked to take it off. He questioned us as to why this was necessary, and Alan discovered it was because of an insurance policy the church had.
Frankly, my first instinct is irritation with him at moments like these. What's the big deal, just take it off, I think. They just want to make sure no one gets hurt and they don't know you are responsible with it. You won't be needing it in the meeting anyway. All the senseless acts of violence have skewed our perceptions in our current society. Just go with the flow, don't make a big deal, let it go.

But then I wonder. Is this how we lose our freedoms--when we just go with the flow? When we don't stand up and say "this is a stupid law."

As I think about it, I'm reminded how irritated I got at the over-regulation at a skating rink recently. I wasn't allowed to hold my daughter while skating (okay, I submitted, knowing people are sue-happy and their insurance company probably mandates such rules), but then when I set her on a ledge and let my arms hang on either side of her so she could watch her dad, brothers and sisters, I was told that she couldn't sit on that ledge. That was an extra straw and tipped my scales toward irritation. This is my daughter, I am right here, and if she falls, it's my responsibility--don't tell me what to do. Obviously, I didn't say anything, but that's what I was thinking. And then I think of stupid laws that infringe on our freedoms--like car seats and seat belts (anyone else noticing a common theme here--that of insurance companies? hmmm)--and I'm reminded of Patrick Henry asserting "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

This brings me to the possibility of the Supreme Court declaring protests at military funerals to be unconstitutional. Now don't get me wrong, I don't support these self-righteous protesters in any way, and think what they're doing is rude, classless, and grossly disrespectful. But to declare such protests unconstitutional? Wow. The fact that it's a possibility, and that Americans support such a decision scares me. We have become a society that expects the government to take care of us, and will cheerfully hand over our freedoms without even thinking of long-term effects and the doors that we are opening (or closing).

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. Thomas Jefferson

I want to submit to the authorities that are placed over me, as God commands. I do wonder sometimes what will become of our country as we continue to rebel against God. History shows He is more than capable of using the rise and fall of governments to discipline His people and draw them back to Him. I think about these books and observe what goes on around me, and I wonder. . .to follow the rules, or not to follow the rules. . .

Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves. Ronald Reagan

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. Ronald Reagan

More on Socialism

Thursday, July 16, 2009

I know I talk about this a lot, but I think we need to be educated and realize what our worldview is. If we don't know what socialism is, how can we avoid it? My sister sent me this and it's too good not to share. Contrast socialism (which, in its economic application, is living off the 'government' who "redistributes wealth" because it's not "fair" for someone to have something you don't have when you "deserve" to have the same stuff/opportunities/privileges so all can be 'equal') with the verse "If any would not work, neither should he eat" (II Thes. 3:10) and other similar verses which clearly teach if you haven't EARNED it, don't take it. In economic terms "TANSTAAFL" or "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"--what the government gives as "free" (food, housing, medical care, excess tax 'return', schooling, etc.) is being paid for by SOMEONE--that's socialism. As the late Adrian Rogers said, "you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." Professor is a Genius An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. -------------------------------------------- That class had insisted that Obama's socialism would work and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that.

A Great Quote

"Our leaders, instead of challenging us to our highest and best, are happily accommodating us to our lowest and least because it makes us more dependent on them."--Rick Boyer
Think about that for a minute!

A Dearth of Dignity

Friday, June 19, 2009

As I told you in my last post, I recently finished the book “Education of a Wandering Man.” Now, I find the best books are the ones that challenge me to think, examine my own life, and make changes. I really enjoy those books which prompt me to evaluate choices, both my own and those of my society. This was one of those books. Interestingly, it was written by Louis L’Amour, most famous for his western novels. He spent a lot of time studying the pioneers who explored and settled our country, both by interviewing those who had lived that life and by reading their journals. I think citizens today could learn a lot from their example, especially their fierce independence and self-government, which lead to a certain dignity of life. In the book, he said the one quality that distinguished the men and women who lived the pioneer life was dignity. “They all had dignity, a certain serenity and pride that was theirs completely. They might be poor, they might be eking out at the last a precarious living, but they had dignity. They knew where they had been and what they had seen and done, and were content. Something was theirs, something within themselves that neither time passing nor man nor hard times could take from them” pg 44. I think it is quite a compliment to be described as a person with dignity. Webster describes dignity as having to do with honor, nobleness, and elevation of mind, a high sense of propriety, justice and truth, and even moral rectitude (a foreign concept in our modern view of moral relativism). I wonder if we were more independent, determined to make our own way and stand on our own two feet, if we would also see more dignity in our country and world today. L’Amour continues to observe “The western pioneers were select people, selected by themselves. They chose to break the mold, to leave all they knew behind and venture into a new country, with new problems, new standards. Each one was expected to stand on his own feet. He was moving of his own volition, on his own support system. Nobody was paying his way or showing him the way; nobody had told him to go, or where to go” (pg. 165). I wonder what these western pioneers would think of the socialistic mindset of their descendants today. Instead of people standing on their own two feet, people want to ride another’s shirttails. Instead of breaking the mold, people are afraid to be different. Instead of being his own support system, people expect others to pay their way and do it for them. After all, we deserve it, right? And if we had to be responsible by governing ourselves and paying our own way, that wouldn’t be fair, wouldn’t you say? L’Amour says of himself “Times were often very rough for me but I can honestly say I never felt abused or put-upon. I never felt, as some have, that I deserved special treatment from life, and I do not recall ever complaining that things were not better. . .I was never helped by anyone, aside from an occasional encouraging word—and those I valued. I never expected it to be easy” (pg 180). And that, it seems to me, is how to earn dignity. It’s not something that can be given. Unlike food, housing, schooling or medical coverage, dignity is still something that must be earned in our increasingly socialistic country. Dignity comes from within, from knowing you stood on your own two feet, never expecting someone to provide something for you because others have it and you deserve it too. Dignity comes from the desire to govern oneself rather than turning the reins over to someone else to do it for you. Dignity is yet another casualty of the war on independence and self-government called socialism.

What do you think?

Monday, April 06, 2009

I am copying the following post written by Voddie Baucham. I wish everyone could read it, and everyone could be challenged to actually think and not just be sucked into the whirlwind of our illogical and immoral culture. I wish I could think like this; I wish I could write like this. I am challenging myself to apply a higher level of thinking and reasoning, but I have a long way to go. In a shocking unanimous decision, Iowa’s Supreme Court joined the ranks of states like California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut in declaring that homosexuals have a Constitutional “right” to marry. While the cases on the coast are alarming enough, the idea of a state in America’s heartland falling prey to the sodomy lobby is almost unthinkable. That is, until you understand the philosophical underpinnings of such decisions and the cultural trajectory we are currently witnessing. Remember, Iowa was the first state to signal to the rest of America that Barack Obama (among the most radically pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, neo-Marxist candidates ever to run for the office of President) really had a shot to win it all. The judges who made this decision are products of the same culture that produced President Obama. A closer look at their decision reveals the kind of reasoning they employed. Their decision is rife with emotion, question-begging logic, and legal precedents that will leave the polygamists, polyamorists, and pedophiles jumping for joy. I know there are those who consider such arguments “red herrings” that have nothing to do with the case at hand, but Elizabeth F. Emens of the University of Chicago School of Law would beg to differ. Read her paper, “MONOGAMY’S LAW: COMPULSORY MONOGAMY AND POLYAMOROUS EXISTENCE” and try to convince yourself that we are not on a slippery slope (one Emens embraces gladly). You may also want to read Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas. Though I am not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), I do read the law. I read briefs, decisions, dissenting opinions, and I have been known to refer to my copy of “Blackstone” now and again. Nevertheless, the law was never meant to be mysterious. It doesn’t take a lawyer to read and understand the decision these seven men and women made in Iowa. Moreover, it does not take a law degree to know that their philosophical presuppositions are not only erroneous, but dangerous. (*Note: There is far too much in the decision to cover in a blog. Please read the decision here) ERROR #1 HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE Right off the bat the Iowa decision jumps on the “Gay is the New Black” bandwagon. They followed the logic of leading homosexual advocates who argue that homosexuality is not only a “Civil Rights” issue; it is morally equivalent to blackness. As a black man, I am insulted by this line of reasoning. As a thinking man, I am amused. However, as an Constitution-loving American, I am frightened when I see it in legal decisions. The Iowa Supreme Court argued: In the first reported case of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Iowa, In re Ralph, 1 Morris 1 (Iowa 1839), we refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions. 1 Morris at 9. This decision was seventeen years before the United States Supreme Court infamously decided Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 15 L. Ed. 691 (1856), which upheld the rights of a slave owner to treat a person as property. Similarly, in Clark v. Board of Directors, 24 Iowa 266 (1868), and Coger v. North West. Union Packet Co., 37 Iowa 145 (1873), we struck blows to the concept of segregation long before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954). Iowa was also the first state in the nation to admit a woman to the practice of law, doing so in 1869. Admission of Women to the Bar, 1 Chicago Law Times 76, 76 (1887). Her admission occurred three years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the State of Illinois’ decision to deny women admission to the practice of law. Notice all the references to “Civil Rights” cases. Notice also that their argument begs the question! They do not ‘prove’ that homosexuality is a Civil Rights issue; they assume it. There is no Constitutional Right to sodomy. Moreover, homosexuals are not deprived of their Civil Rights in marriage, because they have the same rights in that regard as every American. That’s right... HOMOSEXUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY! What they don’t have the right to is same-sex marriage. This, however, is not a right, but a definition. Hence, the court addressed the wrong issue. Listen to the emotion and philosophical presupposition in the argument: It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Incredible! The Supreme Court of Iowa is basing its opinion on what is “unappealing to a gay or lesbian person.” This is not jurisprudence; this is social engineering. Unfortunately, the court knows that most people will never read their decision, and those who do are so awash in the relativism of the culture that they will not recognize the overreach. What’s worse, most people will view the court’s action as heroic and liberating. But wait... there’s more: Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class—their sexual orientation. In other words, a right that you cannot enjoy is no right at all. Imagine this phrase applied to other sexual deviants. “Thus, the right of a [pedophile] under the marriage statute to enter a civil marriage only with a person [of legal age] is no right at all.” This is utterly absurd. However, we have been so inundated with the “Gay=Black” mantra that most people don’t even blink. What happens when the polyamorists wear us down? This is a hallmark of the homosexual lobby. Just say it enough and people will begin to believe it. We have judges in Iowa who have said that a persons behavior (homosexual sodomy) is equivalent to a person’s ethnicity. By the way, Michael Steele, the new head of the RNC, made the same argument in his interview with GQ Magazine. This is an echo of the statement of Julian Bond, former head of the NAACP, who said: “African Americans... were the only Americans who were enslaved for two centuries, but we were far from the only Americans suffering discrimination then and now,” Bond said. “Sexual disposition parallels race. I was born this way. I have no choice. I wouldn’t change it if I could. Sexuality is unchangeable.” (Ertha Melzer, “NAACP chair says ‘gay rights are civil rights’, ”Washington Blade, Apr. 08, 2005) The justices have clearly been influenced by this type of thinking. They even refer to “sexual orientation” as an “immutable characteristic” later in the decision. I am sure there are thousands of “Ex-Gays” who would be glad to testify on this point. However, I would venture to say the ‘verdict’ was in on this issue long before there was any testimony. The Justices are making law based on the assumption that homosexual sodomy is a Civil Right. My blackness is an immutable characteristic; homosexual sodomy is not. There is no established, irrefutable evidence that people are born homosexual. Even if such evidence existed, it would no more make homosexual sodomy acceptable than a domestic violence gene would make brutality against women acceptable. Additionally, comparing homosexual marriage to so-called inter-racial marriage (a term I reject since though there are many ethnicities, there is but one race finding its origin in Adam) is an absolute farce. Loving v. Virginia, for example, was not about a re-definition of marriage. Instead, it was a recognition of the fact that black men and white men (like black women and white women) are essentially the same. Therefore, denying a black man and a white woman (or vise versa) the right to marry is truly denying a god-given, unalienable. This was a recognition of the manhood of black men and the womanhood of black women as image-bearers of the Most High God. Marriage itself did not have to change as a result of the Loving decision. ERROR #2 HOMOSEXUALS ARE AN OPPRESSED CLASS OF PEOPLE One of the most sinister arguments in the homosexual activists arsenal is the idea that homosexuals are an oppressed “class” of people. In essence, the homosexual lobby has convinced seemingly intelligent people that the revulsion some people feel when confronted with unnatural, demeaning, health-destroying sexual acts (God calls it an abomination) makes the performers of those acts an oppressed minority. Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen planted the seeds for this strategy in their 1989 book, After the Ball. They wrote: AIDS, though a loose cannon, is a cannon indeed. As cynical as it may seem, AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority legitimately deserving of America’s special protection and care. (Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ‘90s, New York: Doubleday, 1989. p. xxv) It appears the After the Ball strategy has worked like a charm. The homosexual activists campaign for “victimized minority” status appears to be the blueprint for the Iowa decision. The decision reads: So, today, this court again faces an important issue that hinges on our definition of equal protection. This issue comes to us with the same importance as our landmark cases of the past. The same-sex-marriage debate waged in this case is part of a strong national dialogue centered on a fundamental, deep-seated, traditional institution that has excluded, by state action, a particular class of Iowans. This class of people asks a simple and direct question: How can a state premised on the constitutional principle of equal protection justify exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage? Note again the question-begging logic. How did homosexual sodomy get “class” status? I wonder if the Justices consider the members of NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Association... Motto: Eight is Too Late) a “class of people” whose grievances need to be addressed under the equal protection clause. How is homosexual sodomy different from other forms of aberrant sexual behavior? Where does the logic of this argument end? The decision reads the Iowa Constitution in a manner that strains credulity: The foundational principle of equal protection is expressed in article I, section 6 of the Iowa Constitution, which provides: “All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.” Somehow I don’t think the framers of the Iowa Constitution who wrote, “WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and establish a free and independent government, by the name of the State of Iowa”, ever envisioned those with a predilection for deviant sexual acts when they penned the equal protection clause. Moreover, Iowa had anti sodomy laws at its founding, and a statute in 1892 that read, “Any person who shall commit sodomy, shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not more than ten years nor less than one year.” (Laws of Iowa 1892, page 66, ch. 39, enacted Mar. 26, 1892) How then do the current Justices find room to redefine marriage in this statute? They don’t! They simply made it up. ERROR #3 HOMOSEXUALS ARE ALREADY ‘BEING’ MARRIED... WE’RE JUST MAKING IT LEGAL The third major error in the Iowa decision is their unfortunate assumption that the existence of quasi-marital relationships among homosexuals serves to support the idea of legitimizing such relationships. Therefore, with respect to the subject and purposes of Iowa’s marriage laws, we find that the plaintiffs are similarly situated compared to heterosexual persons. Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships, many raising families, just like heterosexual couples. Moreover, official recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for heterosexual couples. Society benefits, for example, from providing same- sex couples a stable framework within which to raise their children and the power to make health care and end-of-life decisions for loved ones, just as it does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples. This statement raises a number of important questions. How do the Justices know that the plaintiffs’ relationships were committed and loving? How does a same-sex couple raise children “just like heterosexual couples” if they do not have the same male/female makeup? Can a mother function ‘exactly’ like a father? Can a father fulfill all the roles of a mother? Is the law in the business of defining love? What legal standard did the Justices use to define commitment? If one of these couples experienced adultery, separation, or divorce, would that have change the decision? If so, then the law is purely situational and there is no longer an objective standard. If not, then the statement is superfluous and has no place in a legal decision. I’m amazed at how far the Justices have moved away from the practice of law. These men and women are engaging in social engineering from the bench. And, as with the aforementioned errors, this point would have catastrophic implications if applied to other sexual deviants. For example, wouldn’t legalizing polyamory go a long way toward “provid[ing] an institutional basis for defining their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for [monogamous] couples”? Unfortunately, most Christians have no idea how to think about, let along reason through and respond to these things. Moreover, the legal profession has been duped most people into believing that the law is so beyond the average person that we need not try to understand it. However, these statements are crystal clear. They are also not law. This is a clear overreach. The Homosexual lobby has co-opted the print and television media, universities, law schools, legislatures, and the courts. This was the plan Kirk and Madsen laid out in After the Ball: The campaign we outline in this book, though complex depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising. (Kirk & Madsen) It appears their campaign has been successful not only on the coasts, but throughout the country. Who would have thought the midwest would fall like this? Even if Kirk and Madsen envisioned this happening, it was only in their wildest dreams.

Better Than Being Bailed-out

Thursday, January 15, 2009

I have to admit the current economic situation and the lines of people standing with their hands out are starting to get to me. I'm even getting on my soap box when commenting on *other people's* blogs! So I'll try not to go too crazy here, even though the lack of integrity and personal responsibility I see around me seriously makes my fingers itch. I've decided to try to just focus on preventive measures within my own family. Thus, Easton is learning how to pay bills! You write on the stub how much you are sending. . . then you carefully stuff it into an envelope. . . and begin affixing your stamps/stickers (at the age of two, these words are synonymous!) Apparently, this bill has to travel a long, long way! Taking personal responsibility feels good. It makes one beam with pride in a job well done, knowing you did it and you did it "all by yourself". It also gives you confidence to set more goals and tackle the next job. Would you believe the victim mentality people have in respect to debt? I've had a couple people use this line on me lately. Some people, you know, are just in debt because they don't know any better--no one taught them any differently. It's not THEIR FAULT they don't know how to keep a budget or deny instant gratification. And about the banks getting federal money? Well, that's a necessary step because a lot of people borrowed more money than they could afford for their houses and it's all the bankers' faults. Afterall, how can individuals be expected to assess their own financial situation and determine how much they can afford for a house and still be living within their means? If they bought 'too much of a house' for their income, well, it's not their fault. We can't attribute it to selfishness or greed or instant gratification or pride or any other character flaws. It's just the banker's fault, because he shouldn't have loaned me so much money when I couldn't afford the monthly (re)payment! With freedom comes responsibility. I think if we pay attention, we'll notice that as we Americans are shirking our personal responsibilities, we are progressively losing our freedoms. Will our children have the personal responsibility to regain the freedoms we are forfeiting, I wonder?

Post-Election Thoughts

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

I just can't say it better than Jasmine Baucham said it on her blog. She very eloquently expressed some thoughts I've been having. I woke up this morning, not filled with dread or disappointment at Barack Obama's election; no, I woke up feeling refreshed and ready to face a new day. I woke up, unsurprised to find that God is still on His throne, holy, just, righteous, omnipotent, sovereign, and loving, and that we are His children, bought with a price, sealed for that marvelous day when the King of Kings will come to reign here on earth as He reigns in our lives, and sovereignly over all things. America has fallen for Obama's promises of change... and change I'm sure we'll receive; President Obama is sure to provide us with ample opportunity for change, sliding on a downhill slope towards Marxist socialism. As one friend joked via email this morning, New Zealand's looking better and better to me each day. Reflect, however, on Romans 13:1-7... is Barack Obama's administration as unsavory as the administration that the Apostle Paul was submitting to when the Lord inspired him to write those words? The Lord gave me peace this morning as I was able to reflect on a different type of change that can occur over the next four years under our new administration. I don't mean the change that means our troops perhaps coming home to soon, abortions being easier and easier to come by, taxes raising painfully high, and welfare spreading our money painfully thin... I mean the change that could come within the lives of God's people. As we are forced to transfer our hope from a fallen human candidate, and into the hands of our all-wise God, perhaps He will quicken our hearts, soften our consciences, and give us a renewed passion for His Kingdom; He will sanctify us, He will strengthen us, and through that sanctification process, He will make us more and more able to carry out His glorious plan. More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. (Romans 5:3-5) Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. (James 1:2-3) In light of our present circumstances, I do have hope that a change will come; a revival, starting in the hearts of the children of God as they learn to trust and revere their mighty Maker. And I have a hope that this change will inspire us to do great and wonderful things for the Kingdom of God, through our submission to Him in all things. We weren't promised an easy or enjoyable life here on earth--we were told we would be hated for Christ's sake and that we would suffer. I think these upcoming years will give us an opportunity to grow closer to our Savior. I just pray that we will take that route, one of growth, rather than despair or blending in with the socialistic culture around us.

Chuckle or Cry?

Thursday, October 30, 2008

We've been out of town with Alan on another business trip (more on that later), so I have a lot of 'blabbing' waiting to spew forth, but for now, I just wanted to share something that was emailed to me. I can't decide whether it's funny or really, really sad. More on my soapbox regarding socialism--sorry if you're tired of it, I'm sharing a lot less than I'm thinking. Notice to All Employees As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama is officially elected into office, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness: 1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are underachieving a "fair shake." 2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst yourselves. This will help those who are "too busy for overtime" to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours. 3. All top management will now be referred to as "the government." We will not participate in this "pooling" experience because the law doesn't apply to us. 4. The "government" will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging its workers to continue to work hard "for the good of all." 5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's "good to spread the wealth." Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more "patriotic." 6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't feel bad though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our democratic congress, you might even get a free flat screen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?) !!! If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies, you may want to rethink your vote on November 4th.

Feminism and Socialism

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

I happened across a review of the book I am currently reading on a blog. I haven't yet read the part that talks about the relationship between the 'isms', but this review makes me want to read faster! This whole concept of socialism being present (and quietly, meekly accepted, even embraced by Christians????) has been on my mind a lot here lately. Here is an excerpt from the review: Touched on in this book is the scariest thing I have learned in the past 16 years: that socialism is partially premised on these feminist ideas. Early in the 20th century, the socialists wrote that what was needed was to get children from their earliest ages into the government education system and to get women out of the homes. A breakdown of family ties and education would prevent the transfer of Christian heritage and thought to the next generation, opening the way for socialistic thought. That battle wasn’t won on the battlefields of WW I or II, but it has been won since as we acquiesced of our own accord. A quick read of the Communist Manifesto is not shocking; it reads like a report on the United States. We now demand the government provide daycare, preschool education, medical benefits, salary if we are unemployed, and the list goes on. A woman may no longer depend on her man, but she certainly depends on Uncle Sam… Chalk one up for socialism; it appears that our soldiers may have died in vain. But we are oblivious. What the socialists could not win militarily, they have won by patience and dogma. We’ve been the slowly boiling frog. I challenge women to get out of the boiling pot long enough to actually study their history. Take an honest look at the other side. Don’t jump to conclusions based on ignorance.

The More I Learn. . .

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

the more I realize how little I know! Does anyone else ever feel this way?! As I read and research about the upcoming election, I feel my ignorance more strongly. Articles such as these below examine and critique propaganda with an insight I just don't possess, and use words like Neocons, Socialist (Gramscian) Neo-Marxism, pragmatism, and cultural hegemony. I keep having to pause to look words up and just try to process what I'm reading. http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2008/8/30_Did_McCain_Make_a_Pro-Family_Pick____.html http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2008/9/11_How_Evangelicals_Could_Win_an_Election_and_Lose_the_Culture.html http://visionarydaughters.com/2008/09/the-miraculous-sanctification-of-the-republican-party-by-geoffrey-botkin I love to think and learn, don't get me wrong, but it's rather funny how I'm getting dumber as life goes on instead of smarter. When I graduated from high school, now. . .I was SMART back then! I had my nice little ACT score and headed off to Truman. . .where I promptly realized 'so what, lots of people are smart.' It went downhill from there! Now I'm to the point that I come home from Bible studies with evangelists wondering 'how do they know all that?!' I don't know how to study effectively--I don't know if I'm even able to think as deeply as they do! I'm reading a book called 'Whatever Happened to Penny Candy' by Richard J. Maybury. If you're like me, and aren't even quite sure what 'economics' entails, it's a great book to read. I'm learning about inflation, recession, and federal debt--what they really mean, what causes it, and how it affects me. It's sort of scary to learn. . .I remember when ignorance was bliss! But how did/do I not know this stuff?! This is real stuff--far more important than reciting 26 prepositions, is it not???! I have learned so much in eight years of home educating. The worst of it is, these last eight years have shown me how much I don't know--how much I have to learn. As we studied about ancient Greece, I read: "The state controlled the system of education to ensure uniformity of doctrine and thought. . .The driving religious philosophy behind the Greek system was the worship of man. Their system did produce great knowledge, but it also produced pride, immorality, nakedness, institutionalism, dependence on government, a militaristic philosophy, and a destruction of family cohesiveness and love. . .The role of the family was replaced by the state, and each person lived his life clamoring selfishly for his share of government services and rights." (from 'The Heart of Wisdom' by Robin Sampson, pg 78.) Now, I'm not trying to say that everyone should homeschool, so don't get sidetracked or hung up on that. I do, however, think we have a responsibility to learn all this stuff I don't know (and pass it on to our children). Socialism is here, in our country. Do we even know what it is??? I think most of us don't know it's here because we don't know what it is, and we certainly don't recognize it for what it is. Perhaps it's not something to fear, but rather what we, as Christians, need in order to force us to our knees in service to our Savior rather than getting caught up in materialism, feminism, ecumenicalism. . .all those other isms. I don't know. That's about all I know--that I need to learn. (Next book on my list of books to read: 1984. I've never read it. Has anyone read it?? Thoughts?)