This little tidbit was passed on to me by a good friend…a friend who lives in Canada of all places.  It goes to show you that even Canadians can see the horror that is taking place in America, and especially in places like California.

I have written many times about the loss of personal freedom being forced on naïve Americans by the far left.  For example, December 31, 2005, January 21, 2006, July 5, 2006, and December 3, 2007.  The list of vanishing individual freedoms is growing very long, including the right to smoke in your own home or outdoors, the right to light a city after dark, the right to express traditional Judeo-Christian views, the right to control your own property, the right to eat what you want, and the right to choose whether or not to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. (Watch out bicyclists, you are next.)

The current horror was reported by Randy Hall, CNSNews.com (March 10, 2008).  He wrote that:

“A ruling by a California appeals court that parents "do not have a constitutional right to home-school their children" drew harsh criticism from religious conservatives on Friday.

"‘The court is guilty of an imperious assault on the rights of parents,’ James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, said in a press release responding to a three-judge panel from the 2nd District Court of Appeals, which ruled on Feb. 28 that parents without teaching credentials cannot home-school their children.

‘How dare these judges have the audacity to label tens of thousands of parents as criminals - the equivalent to drug dealers or pick-pockets - because they want to raise and educate their children according to their deeply held values?’ Dobson asked.”

This case stemmed from the fact that the father in one family…one family…which was home schooling its eight children was accused of child abuse.  Those of you who read the commentaries on this site know that I am an advocate for children who have been abused.  In that case, the juvenile court ordered the children to be placed in a public or private school for their own safety.  If the allegations of abuse were accurate, then this seems to be a reasonable intervention…along with the punishment of the abuser.  In the ruling however, the decision was much more far reaching than that.  ALL parents in California who are not licensed as teachers may not home school. 

According to the CNSNews.com report, “parents who fail to comply with school enrollment laws ‘may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program,’”   The decision was written by Justice H. Walter Croskey…and was joined by the other two members of the panel.

Dobson stated that the case "‘involved one couple - the ruling should have been confined to that one couple, not used to punish an entire class of people, the vast majority of them religious conservatives.’”

"‘The scope of this decision by the appellate court is breathtaking,’ said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which describes itself as ‘a legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights and other civil liberties.’"

"‘It not only attacks traditional home-schooling, but also calls into question home- schooling through charter schools and teaching children at home via independent study through public and private schools,’ Dacus noted in a press release Friday.

“If the Feb. 28 decision is not reversed, ‘the parents of the more than 166,000 students currently receiving an education at home will be subject to criminal sanctions’ if they continue to live in California, he added.

“Until now, the state allowed home schooling if parents filed paperwork to establish themselves as small, private schools, hired a credentialed tutor or enrolled their child in an independent study program run by an established school while teaching him or her at home. Enforcement was left up to local school districts with little oversight.  To receive a five-year preliminary teaching credential in California, one must have a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university and pass a number of examinations.

“Such requirements are supported by a number of unions - including the California Teachers Association (CTA), the state's largest teacher's union.  Another supporter of certification for home school teachers is the National Education Association (NEA).”

No kidding.  Teacher’s unions have been opposed to home schooling forever, despite the fact that the test scores of home school children are generally equal to or better than those of children in public schools. 

“The NEA has posted on its web site (www.nea.org) an article written by Dave Arnold from the group's Illinois chapter entitled, ‘Home Schools Run by Well-Meaning Amateurs.’  In his opinion, many home schools are run by ‘well-meaning but gullible parents,’ including those who educate their children according to their ‘religious convictions’ and see home-schooling as the best way to combat our nation's ‘ungodly’ public schools.  Those parents ‘would be wise to help their children and themselves by leaving the responsibility of teaching math, science, art, writing, history, geography and other subjects to those who are knowledgeable, trained and motivated to do the best job possible,’ Arnold added.”

I don’t believe I have ever heard a more arrogant, authoritarian statement about education in my life…and I spend 14 years as a student in our institutions of higher education …where arrogance is an every day experience.  This arrogance is offensive on two counts…first because it belittles parents who wish to teach their children and second because it focuses on the fact that some people might actually want their children to be educated “according to their religious convictions”.  God Forbid!!!!

And herein lays the heart of the issue.  Leftist secularists do not want our children to be trained in any aspect of Judeo-Christian ethics, theology, values, or morals.  Why, you say?  The answer is very clear:  because a nation that is made up of people who have religious values will never become a socialist or communist state.  The left is clear in its goal and has been since Senator Joseph McCarthy fought so hard, even to his own death, to rid the nation’s government of communists.

According to the CNSNews.com report, James “Dobson noted that he views the court's decision ‘an all-out assault on the family, and it must be met with a concerted effort to defend parents and their children.  We will team with key allies and use every means at our disposal to make sure that not just every Californian, but every American, is aware of this miscarriage of justice, …and we're hopeful that, in the end, common sense and legal sanity will prevail.’”

I am more pessimistic than Mr. Dobson.  I do not believe that there are enough Americans left who really understand what is happening.  The “hypnosis of the left” is overpowering and will lead to the end of America.  When we are all speaking French or Arabic or both, we can look back to this generation as the one that brought about the demise of the greatest nation on earth.  I believe it is that serious.

At the very least, we all need to speak up for parental rights.  I have included a link that will direct you to a site dedicated to that cause.  www.parentalrights.org

It will also give you a chance to sign a petition that calls for a constitutional amendment that protects the parent-child relationship from unreasonable government interference.  We HAVE to keep the left from furthering its efforts to control the education of our kids. 

Democrats know that the only way they can win is to continue to promote the view that all of us are victims…victims of big business, the health care industry, the rich, racism…the list goes on and on.  That strategy was laid out very clearly in a “survey” that I received from the Democratic National Committee.  In fact it was from Howard Dean himself (wink, wink).  Of course, the “survey” was a fund raising effort…I was urged to give as much as I can to support the DNC in its quest for victory in November. 

First off, I had to laugh, since I am a lifelong Republican.  Second of all, I had to laugh because the tone and wording of the questions was so blatantly geared toward those who believe that the world has victimized us all.  Here are a few examples. 

“Do you believe that John McCain’s pledge to keep troops in Iraq for another 100 years will be a liability in the General Election?”

(Translate:  McCain never pledged to keep troop in Iraq for 100 years.  He said he would do that if that is what it takes.  This is a blatant lie.)

“How likely do you think it is that John McCain and his Republican allies will launch a ‘Swift Boat’ style smear campaign against our presidential candidate?”

(Translate “smear campaign” to a successful truth initiative that showed the world the REAL John Kerry.)

“How concerned are you that Republican voter suppression schemes will disenfranchise Democrats and impact the outcome of the election?”

(Translate “voter suppression schemes” to attempts to make sure that illegal immigrants don’t vote and that Democrat supporters only vote once and in their rightful precinct.)

The last question was open-ended:  “If you could offer one piece of advice to the Democratic presidential nominee, what would it be?”

I didn’t send the survey back.  My response would have been:  Grow up, stop whining, stop playing the victim, gender, and race cards, tell your constituents to stand up and be accountable, join forces with real Americans to end illegal immigration, and, did I mention, grow up?

By the way, I send the prepaid business envelope back to Mr. Dean…empty.  At least I took a few cents away from these morons. 

Democrats have no real agenda except to raise taxes and increase the dependency of the people on big government.  The only way these people can win is by enabling those who won’t assume accountability over their lives and by lying, cheating, exaggerating, stuffing ballot boxes and allowing as many illegal immigrants as possible to vote. 

What a sad commentary on a once proud party…the party of John F. Kennedy. Howard Dean and his far left friends should be ashamed.

 Jeremiah Wright scorns America…castigates Americans…tells his congregation that we caused 9/11 and that we should be saying “God Damn America” instead of “God Bless America”.  He is able to say all of that because he lives IN America.  He is not taken before a government sanctioned court, found guilty and imprisoned or killed.  No, he can go into that church week after week…telling his congregation that America is evil…and no one does anything to him.  In fact, a Presidential candidate supports him…allowing this moronic discourse to continue without any retribution whatsoever…all of this in the name of earlier injustice.

Yes, there have been terrible injustices to African Americans in America and across the globe (e.g., in North African where Arabs enslaved thousands of native Africans).  Progress has been made and more needs to be made.  Condemning America won’t make that progress happen faster.

Here is an example of another injustice…being a woman in Pakistan.  One such woman took another approach to the injustice she faced.  She got an education and took control of her life. She didn’t rail on about injustice or condemn her country.  She became a leader.  And, as a result, she was killed by her adversaries.  She was killed by men who REALLY know how to mete out injustice. 

The woman to whom I refer is Benazir Bhutto.  She was a Phi Beta Kappa graduate (Harvard).  Here are her words (The Key Reporter, Phi Beta Kappa, spring, 2008):

“I was a very shy girl who led an insulated life.  It was only when I came to Oxford and to Harvard before that, that suddenly I saw the power of people.  I didn’t know such a power existed.

“I saw people criticizing their own president.  You couldn’t do that in Pakistan – you’d be thrown in prison.  I saw the press take on the government.

“I was determined to go back home and to give to my people the freedoms and the choices – the individual dignity which I saw my college mates and everyone else in the West have.

“That early educational influence has profoundly affected my outlook on life.”

The life of Ms. Bhutto has profoundly affected the lives of millions.  And she learned that she could exercise that power as a result of her education in England and in America.  She has died because she took that freedom to her own nation.  Jeremiah Wright has gone on to condemn America…a “victim” who attempts to bring others to join him in his adolescent condemnation of the nation that gave birth to the very freedom that Ms. Bhutto tried to take to Pakistan.  I know which one I stand with…as should the Presidential candidate who continues to support Wright.  A candidacy based on the foundation of victimization plays to the worst characteristics of human beings, regardless of color.  When compared with the words and actions of Benazir Bhutto, it is also shameful.

Soon, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide on the Constitutionality of the Washington D.C. ban on guns.  The District has made it illegal to own a handgun, even when kept in the home.  Rifles and shotguns may be owned but dissembled or locked, meaning that they can not be functional when needed for self-defense (for more see Stephen Manning, Associated Press, 3/16/08).  The law was enacted in 1976.  Clearly it has been a complete failure since the District is often called the “nation’s murder capital”. 

While the D.C. law is the strictest in the nation, other jurisdictions have attempted to regulate gun ownership and use far beyond what is constitutional.  According to Clark Neily, a lawyer representing individuals challenging the D.C. ban (Minneapolis StarTribune, 3/17/08), “the Centers for Disease Control and the National Academy of Sciences conducted exhaustive studies and could not identify a single gun-control provision that had a meaningful impact on gun violence”.  He further notes that “Vermont, which has no gun laws to speak of, is among the least-violent states in the nation”.

Hand gun bans do not work I modern day America for a very simple reason.  Such bans only impact those citizens who wish to acquire a gun legally.  Criminals have no hesitation to steal or buy guns illegally.  They are the ones that are armed and they know that they really have little competition when they break into a home or store, or when they mug a law-abiding citizen on the street.

There are really only two solutions to gun violence.  And only one of those can actually work in the real world of the 21^st Century.

The Wild West Solution:

In the early days of the west, some towns actually banned guns in town.  ALL guns were confiscated when people entered town.  The law applied to everyone:  ranchers, cowhands, drifters, city folk, and gunmen.  Law enforcement, in the form of the marshal or sheriff ensured that the law was upheld.  Consequences for breaking the law were serious.  It took a great deal of vigilance, and at times it required a great deal of force.  One version of this approach was implemented in 1878 by William Barclay (Bat) Masterson in Dodge City.  Called his “no gunplay” law, he dealt severely with anyone firing a gun in town and enforced a 9:00 curfew.  Bat Masterson took gunplay seriously, since his brother; Ed (a deputy marshal) was killed in a shootout with two cowboys in town.

(http://hometown.aol.com/gibson0817/bat.htm)

The Wild West solution and its variants were successful in the early days of the west when they were fully enforced.  But, that is the key: full enforcement.  This solution is not workable in modern day America because it cannot be fully enforced.  Towns in the old west were small and relatively easy to police.  Those towns were also distant from other towns, making it harder for gun smugglers to easily move weapons into any given town.  In addition, “mass transportation” was limited to trains and stagecoaches which could easily be controlled.  Our world is much bigger, much more complex, and much more populated.  The Wild West solution will not work today.  However, this is what D.C. has attempted to do without any means to do so.  The D.C. law just makes it impossible for the good guys to get a gun legally and leaves the “town folk” at the mercy of the “gunmen”.  Even Bat Masterson would not approve of the Wild West solution in modern day America.

The Real Solution:

The only workable solution to gun violence in America just based in good old common sense; the same common sense that is written into the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  That kind of common sense is a rarity in most of the bureaucracies of the world today. 

In order to take away the power of the bad guys, all qualified citizens (ruling out felons, the mentally ill and developmentally delayed) should be allowed to own functional rifles, shotguns, and handguns.  Handgun owners should have no restrictions when the gun is kept in the home.  In order to carry a handgun outside the home, citizens should be required to pass a qualifying exam as we do now in many states.  No other restrictions should apply.  In fact, states with laws preventing legal self-defense with a hand gun (i.e., states requiring people to run away instead of defend themselves) need to eliminate such restrictions.  Finally, people who use guns in the commission of a felony crime against person or property should receive a life sentence without the chance for parole. 

I believe this solution is the only one that is even close to having a chance of success. If the bad guys know that they have competition when entering a home or business illegally in order to commit a crime, they will think twice.  It won’t eliminate all crime, but it will give the “town folk” a chance.  And that is all we ask for…a chance!

In Black Jack and Pai Gow Poker, a “push” means the player neither wins nor loses the hand.  Depending on the dealer’s cards, a player can push on a very bad hand.  The same holds true in politics.  The problem is, however, that the stakes are much larger in politics.

Over the years, most politicians get one or two pushes.  In America, those pushes usually do not come as a response to words, actions, or affiliations that suggest a bias against country.  During the current campaign, however, one candidate for the Democrat nomination for President has received two pushes in a very short period of time for very bad hands, BOTH of which relate to anti-American sentiment.  That candidate is, of course, the “messiah”, Barack Obama.

First, as you will recall, Obama’s wife made the statement that:  “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am proud of my country.”

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/19/what-michelle-obama-said/

Of course, she is referring to the fact that an African American is a strong candidate for the nomination for the presidency of the United States.  For his wife’s ethnocentric and race-baiting statement, Obama received a push from the media and from the people.  No win, no loss. 

This week we found that Obama has been attending a church for twenty years led by a preacher, Jeremiah Wright, who has said repeatedly in sermons that instead of saying “God Bless America”, we should be saying “God Damn America”.  Although he has been very close to Wright, Obama is now trying to put some distance between himself and his pastor by saying he did not agree with some of those statements.  But, how many of us would sit in the pew for that many years, listening to things that we find to be completely opposed to our worldview…especially that kind of anti-American rhetoric?  As of the time of this writing, Obama has once again received a push from the media and from the people.  I am not expecting anything different.

Obama brings something to the world of politics that has been necessary for some time.  Having an African America President would be a good thing in many ways.  But what Obama has brought into the mix is a lack of experience, a pacifist worldview, and a total lack of understanding of what it will take over the next half century to keep America strong.  Obama as President would be a disaster for our nation…not because he is black but because he is not qualified.  The problem is that African Americans and leftists of all colors can’t see beyond Obama’s skin color.  They only see the chance to right past wrongs and/or to assuage white liberal guilt.  That is why Obama will continue to receive pushes, regardless of his hand.  No win, no loss…except for America.

One of the differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are guided by feeling and fantasy while conservatives are guided by fact and experience.  Liberals would like the words of John Lennon’s anthem, “Imagine” to be true and attainable.  Conservatives believe in a higher power and in the fact that good only comes when we fight for it.  Liberals believe that if we are just nice to each other, everyone will get along.  Conservatives realize the truth that some people will not try to get along, song people are evil, and sometimes to do right we have to be tough and make others angry.  We realize that when we stand tough, the good will move toward us and the evil will either continue to fight or, if we are successful, they will be killed.

Most of the media, most of the entertainment world,  and most of those teaching our children in elementary, secondary and higher education are liberal and are teaching the masses that we should all just be nice and the bad guys will become good guys.  Conservatives know that this is a fallacy, and worse, the path toward the destruction of America.  Conservatives also understand that the far left understands this and promotes this false belief system since they truly do want the destruction of America as we know it.

Currently, the two leftist candidates for the Democrat nomination for President are clear in their view that if we are just nice to everyone around the world, we will be popular and if we are popular we will gain influence.  The “messiah”, Barack Obama, and the Stepford Wife, Hillary Clinton, believe that we if we can suck up enough to Old Europe, the Middle East, and most of the rest of the world, we will all be safe and happy.  They may or may not understand the scam being promulgated by the far left, but either way, they are spearheading its cause. 

One media writer, Michael Gerson (Washington Post, 3/8/08), seems to understand the real world.  He wrote the following:

“The one goal that unites and explains the Democratic approach to foreign policy is this: America must try -- urgently and desperately -- to be more popular in the world.

‘The world was with us after 9/11,’ explains Hillary Clinton. ‘We have so squandered that good will and we've got to rebuild it.’ Barack Obama has said that the ‘single most important issue’ of the current election is picking a leader who can ‘repair all the damage that's been done to America's reputation overseas.’

“This argument depends on three premises -- all of which are questionable. First, listening to the Democrats, one would assume that America in the Bush era is universally despised. The reality is more complicated.  According to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, the United States is very popular in sub-Saharan Africa…. India and Japan are strongly pro-American. America remains popular in parts of ‘new Europe,’ as well as in Mexico, Peru and even Venezuela…

“The second premise of this Democratic argument is that American popularity in these regions could be increased, easily and permanently, by overturning Bush policies.

It is worth noting that American relations with European governments have rebounded strongly in the last few years with the elections of Angela Merkel in Germany and Nicolas Sarkozy in France. And the next president, Republican or Democrat, is likely to close Guantanamo and sign legislation to restrict American carbon emissions, mollifying two justified European criticisms. Yet the tensions between American and European worldviews ultimately have little to do with specific policies. Europe is an increasingly pacifist continent -- which is an improvement upon its bloody history, but a source of inevitable tension with a superpower that must occasionally enforce world order…And the broader Middle East is an even more difficult case. A close look at the Pew poll shows that appeasing public opinion in this region would require not merely leaving Iraq but also leaving Afghanistan, abandoning the war on terror and ending our support for Israel.

“The third premise of the Democratic argument is that global popularity translates directly into global influence. Here the historical evidence is thin.  Few American presidents have enjoyed a warmer embrace than John Kennedy visiting France in June 1961…But President Charles de Gaulle remained more interested in the cultivation of French self-esteem than in trans-Atlantic unity. Having withdrawn the French Mediterranean fleet from NATO in 1959, he later ordered the removal of NATO troops from French soil. President Lyndon Johnson (in one of his finest hours) instructed his secretary of state to ask de Gaulle: ‘Does your order include the bodies of American soldiers in France's cemeteries?’

“Few American presidents have been more reviled in Europe than Ronald Reagan, who responded to the Soviet deployment of SS-20 nuclear missiles by deploying Pershing II nuclear missiles. In West Germany, millions of people marched in protest. American soldiers were surrounded by hostile demonstrators…But Reagan's unpopular ‘cowboy’ determination helped end the Cold War and lift the nuclear threat from Europe.

“And we have seen a good example in our time. The January 2007 decision to surge American troops in Iraq was clearly at odds with world opinion. But retreating from Iraq in failure would have earned global contempt for American weakness instead of global popularity. And the turnaround in Iraq has restored at least some of our standing and leverage in the Middle East.

“The real lesson in the years since 9/11 is different from what the Democratic candidates imagine: It is easy to be loved when you are a victim. It is harder to be popular when you act decisively to protect yourself and others.

“A successful president should strive for America to be liked -- and expect, on occasion, for America to be resented in a good cause.”

The truth is, no one gains influence among oblivions and evil people by being nice.  We gain influence by standing tough.  Just as with our children, to be a good parent we have to do the hard things…we have to say the truth, we have to stand strong, even when others think we are being mean.  If we want our children to learn right from wrong and to take the right steps in life…steps that will help them gain success…we have to be harsh, touch, and strong.  All too often, parents no longer are willing to take the hard stand, and our children are showing the results. 

It is no different for a nation.  If we stand strong, we will win for what is right.  If we try to be nice, we will fail…our children will be controlled by evil nations, and our nation will collapse.  It really IS that simple.

Euphemism and exaggeration are remarkable tools. 

According to the Encarta Dictionary, a euphemism is “a word or phrase used in place of a term that might be considered too direct, harsh, unpleasant, or offensive”.  An exaggeration is an “overstatement” or “embellishment” of fact.  I believe it is obvious, that linguistic accuracy or lack of accuracy both hold a great deal of power over our thoughts as well as those of others we are attempting to influence.  To exaggerate an insignificant piece of information heightens the perceived relevance of that information.  To minimize an important concept through euphemism removes some of the relevance, power and sting of the truth.  For those trying to control our thoughts and actions, exaggeration and euphemism are powerful tools.

Not surprisingly, the use of exaggeration and euphemism are key ploys used by the left to further its cause.  By labeling minor issues with harsh terminology, the left is able to bring millions to a cause such as ‘global warming’ that is really not a significant human issue at all.  And by labeling harsh truths with weak terms, the left keeps many people oblivious of the real disasters that are facing us all (e.g., islamofascism and loss of constitutionally guaranteed individual freedoms).

Here is an example of what I mean regarding the use of euphemism to further an ideology.  According to the Associated Press (2/28/08), “U.N. Secretary-General Ban Kimoon supports a special session of the General Assembly on suicide terror, which he calls ‘an unacceptable political weapon’”.

I can think of many things to call “suicide terror”, none of which include the terms “suicide terror” or “unacceptable”. I would start with defining these actions as horrendous, murderous, and cowardly acts committed by morally and intellectually defective morons who do not deserve to live.  As U.N. Secretary-General I would act like a man whose goal it is to rid the planet of evil.  I would convene a special session…oh yes I would…but the goal would be to bring together all the right-minded nations of the world, to assist them in gaining needed arms, and to let them rid the world of every islamofascist that chooses show his or her face.  Call that vigilante justice?  When carried out on a national basis to rid the world of evil that sounds good to me.

By the way, according to the Encarta Dictionary, a vigilante is “somebody who punishes lawbreakers personally”.  I think it is time that we stop relying on our weak-minded liberal world leaders and begin to bring America and other right-minded nations together to solve the problem of islamofascism.  I am guessing that with resolve, we can mount a crusade that will solve the issue quickly and cleanly.  Now we just need a federal government that is ready to give up focus on exaggerated insignificances and that is ready for the real battle.  I can only hope that Americans take this into account and choose wisely in the next election.