Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

Reclaim Christmas

Many of us have fond childhood memories of Christmas. That, above all, seems to be the reason Western culture continues in the typical Christmas traditions such as gift giving and tree decoration.

But these traditions are becoming somewhat of an oddity. It is increasingly common to see the word Christmas replaced with any number of substitutes, such as festivus party, holiday tree, seasons greetings, and more. That’s in addition to the retail worship Westerners engage in and the obsession with Santa Claus – really, why is Santa garb EVERYWHERE? With the leftward march toward a more pluralistic society we curiously find “pluralism” to mean religiously neutral rather than tolerant. Believing in Santa is okay, but believing in God is just too much for our enlightened society. But that is an oddity in itself: a religiously neutral push in a society that is not religiously neutral.

I’m not talking about the growing theophobic animus (though that is an issue worth discussing – check out what religious plurality looks like in Hong Kong, for example). I’m talking about those who want to practice Christmas traditions in a way that is honoring to the real “reason for the season” rather than fall prey to consumerism. I’m talking to those who want to focus on the true meaning of Christmas – Jesus, the Christ.

And that brings us to the rub. While most people say Christmas is about something noble like spending time with family, they act like Christmas is really about gifts. And that’s not the only contradiction involved here. On the one hand we hear about greedy businesses staying open at odd hours (even intruding into Thanksgiving day); on the other hand many completely ignore the fact that PEOPLE WILL SPEND THEIR MONEY AT THOSE TIMES! Businesses are open for business because they know people will shop.

No one is forcing people to go out and spend their money. But many people pretend the “evil corporations” are making them do it (probably because blaming corporations is easier than being honest). In my family we refuse to shop on Thanksgiving day. It’s not difficult at all. Some of us don’t go shopping on Black Friday either. If you can’t stop yourself from shopping on Thanksgiving day it’s you who has a problem, not “capitalism”.

The mass hysteria that happens in the Christmas shopping season is a problem. The tragic stories of greedy shoppers should be eye opening. Greed is a part of the Christmas experience, especially in the United States. But so is giving. (What could be more Christian than giving?) If we want to redeem Christmas how do we get away from the greed but keep the giving? After all, every year I hear someone say it is better to give than to receive. And that’s true. And a mentality of giving is much better for society than a mentality of getting.

A friend of mine had a great idea about this, one which you could try next year. It’s a different tack on giving, but we still get to give. Imagine instead of being gift-based, the giving can be service-based. Here’s how it works.

Everyone in the household (or extended family, or other type of group) take a few strips of paper. On each strip, write one request you would like someone to help you with. A one-time gift of service can be of almost anything – within tasteful limitations of course. It could be helping to rake the yard, or learning how to cook a special dish, or learning how to change the oil in your car, cleaning out the garage/basement, setting up that annoying tech thing you can’t get to work, or anything you would like someone to help you with. You choose, it’s your request – a one-time gift of service written so anyone around the house during this time of year could serve you.

We all have varying skill sets. So keep than in mind when writing your requests. Chances are at least one of them can be met by someone in the household. Instead of putting gifts under the tree you can decorate the tree with acts of service that others could give to you. Imagine colorful service requests adorning the tree, where the “gifts” you receive have meaning specifically for you, and avoiding the stress of the commercial cattle run of shopping. On Christmas day you search the tree for acts of service you can give to others – and you don’t have guess about what they might want.

And you can modify this idea to your liking. One physical gift plus the gifts of service might work for you and your family, or what ever variation you want. Keep in mind, though, the purpose of this idea is to move away from the “getting” or shopping frenzy and move into a “serving” frame of mind.

Remember when I said many of us have fond memories of Christmas? If you’re capable of reading this chances are you’re aware the Christmas season can be a painful time of year for many people. If you can make the time, think of gifts of service you could offer to others outside your home. The neighbor who lives alone, or that person dealing with a stressful situation, or the retirement home you never visit, or the soup kitchen.

Imagine how Western culture could be different with adults who grew up with a mindset of service rather than a mindset of presents. You can start a new tradition, one which builds a stronger community. Think about it over the next 12 months. You might find next year’s Christmas has more “Christ” in it than you ever imagined.

culture, family, ideology, philosophy, religion

Filed under: culture, family, ideology, philosophy, religion

The Kids Are Not Alright: A Lesbian’s Daughter Speaks Out

original article: The Kids Are Not Alright: A Lesbian’s Daughter Speaks Out
April 21, 2015 by Brandi Walton

Dear LGBT Community,

I am not your daughter. I never carried a flag in one of your gay pride parades. I have never written a letter on your behalf to a congressman or anyone else, and I have never felt the need to make people accept the fact I am the daughter of a lesbian. Perhaps it’s because she never felt the need to force people to accept her for being one.

No, I would never align myself to a community as intolerant and self-absorbed as the LGBT community, a community that demands tolerance with fervor and passion, yet does not give it in return, even to its own members at times. In fact, this community attacks anyone who does not agree with them, no matter how lovingly any difference of opinion is expressed.

I myself am a product of the Lesbian Revolution of the 1980s. My mother always knew she liked girls, but tried hard to be a good, straight, southern Baptist girl. When I was a year old, she left my dad for another man, whom we lived with until I was somewhere around four years old. After the divorce, she told my father to leave, which he did, and in his own words, “I did because I knew I couldn’t fight the entire family to see you.” I cannot remember the man she left him for very well, but I can remember being happy living with him. It did not last, however, and when she left him, she left him for a woman.

Silencing People about Homosexuality Won’t Change What Kids Can See

I knew from a young age that living with two women was not natural. I could especially see it in the homes of my friends who had a mom and a dad. I spent as much time with those friends as I possibly could. I yearned for the affection that my friends received from their dads. I wanted to know what it was like to be held and cherished by a man, what it was like to live with one from day to day.

As far as I was concerned, I already had one mother; I did not need another. My dream was that my mother would decide she wanted to be with men again, but obviously that dream did not come true. My grandfathers and uncles did the best they could when it came to spending time with me and doing all the daddy-daughter stuff, but it was not the same as having a full-time father, and I knew it. It always felt secondhand.

Growing up without the presence of a man in my home damaged me personally. All I wanted from the time I was a little girl was a normal family. When I graduated high school, my thoughts were not entirely where they needed to be. While my friends were excited about college, a piece of me was missing, and I knew I would never feel whole until I found it.

Men Need Women Need Men

I had a desire unlike any other to create my own family and have stability, and this led to two extremely unhealthy relationships. Luckily, I found my way out of both, but after being hurt and used so badly, I decided happiness just was not meant for me. Shortly afterwards, I met my husband, and everything clicked. For the first time, I felt alive and complete. Having children and seeing a man parent a child for the first time was beautiful and awe-inspiring. It only reinforced my belief that a child needs a mother and a father, and that same-sex parenting and single parenting are far inferior to heterosexual parenting when done correctly.

Knowing next to nothing about males is hardly all that was hard about being raised by two women. It probably comes as no surprise that growing up in Podunk, Oklahoma, was not a walk in the park. Unlike other kids who were apparently raised in gay utopias, I grew up very alone and isolated. I was an only child and there weren’t other kids around like me to talk with and relate to. No one I knew understood what I struggled with each day, and I had no option but to keep it all inside.

As an adult, I have tried to talk to my mom about how difficult my life was, but she simply cannot relate because she was raised by a mom and a dad. As a child, I would not have spoken out about the way I was being raised, either. I love my mom. She was the center of my universe and the thought of saying something to outsiders that would have hurt her devastated me. Writing this letter right this very moment is devastating me.

Gay People and Their Children Don’t All Think Alike

But I am doing it anyway. I am doing it because people need to know that it is not all roses. The effects of growing up the way I did still plays a part in my life today. I was beyond self-conscious as a child, and constantly worried about what others thought of me. I was always terrified of someone finding out my mom was a lesbian and then wanting nothing to do with me. For most of my life, the perceived opinions of others have dominated, and only recently have I been able to let that go.

That is only the tip of the iceberg. The studies claiming we are just as well or better off than our peers raised by straight parents are hardly scientific in most cases, and do not represent us all. People need to know that some children of gay parents do not agree with gay adoption and marriage, just like some gay people themselves don’t agree with it, either! But you will notice that fact is not making headlines.

The Huffington Post published two responses to Heather Barwick’s recent letter here at The Federalist, and both were written by people who were raised with members of the opposite sex in the home—a male raised by women, and a female who had brothers present. It makes total sense that their experiences were not like mine and Heather’s, since we were both raised by women.

And just because one product of artificial insemination does not feel she was robbed does not mean others don’t. I am aware there are kids out there who disagree with my point of view, just like there are gays out there who disagree with the LGBT community’s point of view. But to suggest this is not a reason to validate and listen to a handful of children raised by gays, and who are against it, is ridiculous. After all, it is but a handful of people demanding we redefine marriage and parenting, and we all see how well that’s going.

Not Yours,

Brandi Walton

Brandi Walton grew up in southern Oklahoma as the only child in a lesbian household. She has decided to come forward at this time to discuss the issues surrounding children of homosexuals in hopes of educating the general public. She is married and is the mother of four children.

bias, children, culture, diversity, family, homosexuality, ideology, tragedy

Filed under: bias, children, culture, diversity, family, homosexuality, ideology, tragedy

Say Goodbye to Bride and Groom in Florida

original article: Say Goodbye to Bride and Groom in Florida
September 28, 2015 by Michael Brown

N. T. Wright is one of the most world’s foremost New Testament scholars, a sober-minded man not given to extreme rhetoric. Yet when it came to the question of redefining marriage, Wright did not hold back, explaining how dangerous it is to change the fundamental meaning of words:

“When anybody—pressure groups, governments, civilizations—suddenly change the meaning of key words, you really should watch out. If you go to a German dictionary and just open at random, you may well see several German words which have a little square bracket saying ‘N.S.,’ meaning National Socialist or Nazi. The Nazis gave those words a certain meaning. In post-1917 Russia, there were whole categories of people who were called “former persons,” because by the Communist diktat they had ceased to be relevant for the state, and once you call them former persons it was extremely easy to ship them off somewhere and have them killed.”

He continued, “It’s like a government voting that black should be white. Sorry, you can vote that if you like, you can pass it by a total majority, but it isn’t actually going to change the reality.”

That’s why I have often said that once you redefine marriage, you render it meaningless.

It would be like saying a couple can now consist of five people, or a pair can refer to one item, or a tricycle can have two wheels.

Redefining those terms doesn’t change reality, and when it comes to marriage, if you don’t have the two essential components, namely a husband and a wife, you don’t have marriage.

Consequently, if you change the fundamental meaning of marriage, you change the meaning of husband and wife as well.

As I pointed out last year in an article entitled, “I Now Pronounce You Spouse and Spouse,” as England began to move towards redefining marriage, the Daily Telegraph reported that, “The word ‘husband’ will in future be applied to women and the word ‘wife’ will refer to men, the Government has decided.”

According to John Bingham, “Civil servants have overruled the Oxford English Dictionary and hundreds years of common usage effectively abolishing the traditional meaning of the words for spouses.”

In the government’s proposed guidelines, “‘husband’ here will include a man or a woman in a same sex marriage, as well as a man married to a woman. In a similar way, ‘wife’ will include a woman married to another woman or a man married to a man.”

So, a man could be a wife if married to another man (or not), while a woman could be a husband if married to another woman (or not), all of which begs the question: Why use words at all if they have utterly lost their meaning? It’s like saying that up is down (or up) and down is up (or down), while north is south (or north) and south is north (or south).

In the same article, I cited the Huffington Post, which reported that “California’s same-sex couples may now be pronounced spouse and spouse after Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed a bill [last] Monday eliminating outdated ‘husband and wife’ references from state laws.”

Not surprisingly, according to California bill AB 1951, birth certificates will have three options: “mother,” “father,” or simply “parent,” meaning that, in the case of two lesbians, one could be designated “father,” while in the case of two gay men, one could be designated “mother.” (The bill would also allow for three parents to be listed on the birth certificate, since there’s obviously a missing third party in the event of two men or two women “having” a baby.)

This means that we’ve come to a place of semantic insanity, a place where you can have male wives, female husbands, male mothers, and female fathers.

Do people really think you can just turn the world upside down without having any adverse effects?

In keeping with this social madness, the state of Florida recently changed its marriage certificates, removing the terms “bride” and “groom” and replacing them with “spouse.”

This goes hand in hand with other international trends. As I pointed out in 2011, “In Ontario, Canada, as a result of the legalization of same-sex marriage, all references to terms like husband, wife, and widow were removed from the law books in 2005. In Spain, birth certificates were changed from ‘Father’ and ‘Mother’ to ‘Progenitor A’ and ‘Progenitor B.’”

But of course!

That’s why principle #4 in my new book is: Refuse to Redefine Marriage, since, to repeat, once you redefine marriage, you render it meaningless.

The Supreme Court can gives its ruling; laws can be passed; public opinion can shift and turn, but that doesn’t mean we have to affirm it, participate in it or, God forbid, celebrate it.

But all is not lost. True marriage – natural marriage, marriage the way God intended it from the beginning (see Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:4-6) – will endure, while radically redefined marriage will undo itself.

I was reminded of this as I watched some baby dedications at a church service on Sunday, with the proud moms and dads holding their precious little ones in their arms: There’s no substitute for marriage and family the way God set it up, regardless of what Florida or California or England or Spain or Canada might say.

anti-religion, bias, bigotry, biology, bullies, bureaucracy, civil rights, culture, discrimination, diversity, extremism, family, freedom, government, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, law, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, public policy, relativism, religion, scandal, sex

Filed under: anti-religion, bias, bigotry, biology, bullies, bureaucracy, civil rights, culture, discrimination, diversity, extremism, family, freedom, government, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, law, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, public policy, relativism, religion, scandal, sex

Schools Implant IUDs in Girls as Young as 10 Without Their Parents Knowing

original article: Schools Implant IUDs in Girls as Young as 10 Without Their Parents Knowing
September 13, 2015 by STEVEN ERTELT

After a LifeNews expose’ about how a high school in Seattle, Washington is now implanting intrauterine devices (IUD), as well as other forms of birth control in young girls and doing so without parental knowledge or permission, the watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a request for additional public record to a better idea about the situation.

The IUD is known as a long acting reversible contraception, and may even act as anabortifacient. So, a young teen in Seattle can’t get a coke at her high school, but she can have a device implanted into her uterus, which can unknowingly kill her unborn child immediately after conception. Or, if she uses another method, she can increase her chances of health risks for herself, especially if using a new method.

The high school, Chief Sealth International, a public school, began offering the devices in 2010, made possible by a Medicaid program known as Take Charge and a non-profit,Neighborcare. Students can receive the device or other method free of cost and without their parent’s insurance.

Chief Sealth isn’t the only school in Seattle doing this. Other Washington state schools are also taking part in the program.

Now, Judicial Watch has obtained documentation of the extent of the program giving girls birth control and IUDs without their parents knowing. The group released a statementwith additional information:

JW filed a public records request with the Washington Health Care Authority after reading a disturbing article in a pro-life news site over the summer about a Seattle high school that offers different forms of birth control without parental knowledge or consent. This includes implanting an intrauterine device (IUD) in a girl’s uterus free of cost. It’s part of an initiative offered by Medicaid, the joint federal and state insurance program for the poor. The article points out the irony that a teen in Seattle can’t get a sugary soft drink in high school but can have a device implanted into her uterus.

The data obtained by JW reflect increasing numbers of kids in all age groups receiving these birth control implants from 2013 to 2014. Figures can’t be compared for 2015 because the full year’s data is not yet available, but the records show that in 2014 and at least part of 2015, girls as young as 10 received the implants. The largest group of minors that got the birth control implants was 17 years old, according to the data, but girls much younger also received them.

Four 11-year-olds got birth control from the state during the 2 ½- year period and so did more than 100 girls between the ages of 12 and 13. The numbers go up as the girls get older with 364 girls age 14 getting the implants and 744 15-year-olds. The records show that 2,336 girls ages 16 to 17 were given implants during this period.

While the government maintains records about the number of young girls given birth control without their parents’ knowledge or consent, it appears government officials failed to follow up with the girls about the health problem or complications they faced afterwards. As Judicial Watch indicated:

JW also asked the Washington State agency for records involving the number of adverse health events reported for girls who had received the implants during those years, but no data was produced. Evidently, the state isn’t tracking the negative health consequences from administering the implants in young girls. As part of the investigation JW also requested a breakdown of girls that got parental consent and those who didn’t, but the state evidently doesn’t keep track and no records were produced.

This seems to be part of a trend among some states to offer children highly questionable medical care without getting permission from a parent

Parents of young girls in Washington State should be aware of what is taking place and parents of girls in other states should begin asking questions as well.

abortion, children, corruption, culture, education, extremism, family, government, ideology, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, progressive, public policy, scandal, sex

Filed under: abortion, children, corruption, culture, education, extremism, family, government, ideology, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, progressive, public policy, scandal, sex

Parents furious over school’s plan to teach gender spectrum, fluidity

Some would say teaching is a purely political act and that neutral people should “get the f— out of education.” And you thought public education was actually about education.

Parents furious over school’s plan to teach gender spectrum, fluidity
May 15, 2015 by Todd Starnes

One of the nation’s largest public school systems is preparing to include gender identity to its classroom curriculum, including lessons on sexual fluidity and spectrum – the idea that there’s no such thing as 100 percent boys or 100 percent girls.

Fairfax County Public Schools released a report recommending changes to their family life curriculum for grades 7 through 12. The changes, which critics call radical gender ideology, will be formally introduced next week.

“The larger picture is this is really an attack on nature itself – the created order,” said Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council.

“Human beings are created male and female. But the current transgender ideology goes way beyond that. They’re telling us you can be both genders, you can be no gender, you can be a gender that you make up for yourself. And we’re supposed to affirm all of it.”

The plan calls for teaching seventh graders about transgenderism and tenth graders about the concept that sexuality is a broader spectrum — but it sure smells like unadulterated sex indoctrination.

Get a load of what the kids are going to be learning in middle school:

“Students will be provided definitions for sexual orientation terms heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality; and the gender identity term transgender,” the district’s recommendations state. “Emphasis will be placed on recognizing that everyone is experiencing changes and the role of respectful, inclusive language in promoting an environment free of bias and discrimination.”

Eighth graders will be taught that individual identity “occurs over a lifetime and includes the component of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

“Individual identity will also be described as having four parts – biological gender, gender identity (includes transgender), gender role, and sexual orientation (includes heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual).”

The district will also introduce young teenagers to the “concept that sexuality is a broader spectrum.” By tenth grade, they will be taught that one’s sexuality “develops throughout a lifetime.”

“Emphasis will be placed on an understanding that there is a broader, boundless, and fluid spectrum of sexuality that is developed throughout a lifetime,” the document states. “Sexual orientation and gender identity terms will be discussed with focus on appreciation for individual differences.”

As you might imagine – parents are freaking out.

“Parents need to protect their kids from this assault,” said Andrea Lafferty, president of Traditional Values Coalition. “Who could imagine that we are in this place today – but we are.”

Last week, the school board voted to include gender identity in the district’s nondiscrimination policy – a decision that was strongly opposed by parents.

Lafferty, who led the opposition to the nondiscrimination policy, warned that the district is moving towards the deconstruction of gender.

“At the end of this is the deconstruction of gender – absolutely,” she told me. “The majority of people pushing (this) are not saying that – but that clearly is the motivation.”

School Board spokesman John Torre told the Washington Times the proposed curriculum changes have nothing to do with last week’s vote to allow boys who identity as girls to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of their choice.

He would have us believe it was purely coincidental.

To make matters worse, Lafferty contends parents will not be able to opt their children out of the classes because the lessons will be a part of the mandatory health curriculum.

However, Torre told me that parents will indeed be able to opt out of those classes “including the sexual orientation and gender identity lessons.”

I must confess that I’m a bit old school on sex education. I believe that God created male and female. My reading of the Bible does not indicate there were dozens of other options.

“They are not being forthright with the information,” Lafferty said. “They are not telling people the truth.  They are bullying parents. They are intimidating and they are threatening.”

I must confess that I’m a bit old school on sex education. I believe that God created male and female. My reading of the Bible does not indicate there were dozens of other options.

However, I’m always open to learning new things – so I asked the school district to provide me with the textbooks and scientific data they will be using to instruct the children that there are dozens and dozens of possible genders.

Here’s the reply I received from Torre:

“Lessons have not been developed for the proposed lesson objectives,” he stated. “Because of the need to develop lessons, the proposed objectives would not be implemented until fall 2016.”

In other words – they don’t have a clue.

And the Family Research Council’s Sprigg said there’s a pretty good reason why they can’t produce a textbook about fluidity.

“It’s an ideological concept,” he told me. “It’s not a scientific one.”

He warned that Fairfax County’s planned curriculum could be harmful to students.

“It’s only going to create more confusion in the minds of young people who don’t need any further confusion about sexual identity,” he said.

The board will introduce the changes on May 21. Lafferty said she hopes parents will turn out in force to voice their objections.

children, corruption, culture, diversity, education, extremism, family, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, reform, relativism, sex

Filed under: children, corruption, culture, diversity, education, extremism, family, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, reform, relativism, sex

Unraveling the Poverty Myths Obama Is Promoting

original article: Unraveling the Poverty Myths Obama Is Promoting
May 18, 2015 by Stephen Moore

Our class warrior in chief was at it again last week complaining about our “ideological divides that have prevented us from making progress” in solving problems like poverty. Just when you thought you’d heard it all.

Our most ideological president perhaps ever is arguing that there is too much ideology in Washington. Wow. Apparently an ideology is a firmly held belief that is held by other people—especially those on the right.

In a discussion on poverty at Georgetown University, the president managed to blame the slow-growth economy and stagnant wages on everything from Ayn Rand (who promoted “cold hearted policies” and classified everyone as a “moocher”) to California’s Proposition 13 (which is responsible for the Golden State’s dreadful schools). Everything has contributed to our current malaise except for his own failed policies.

Here’s a brief truth squad examination of Obama’s mythologies and misstatements of fact.

President Obama: “The stereotype is that you’ve got folks on the left who just want to pour more money into social programs, and don’t care anything about culture or parenting or family structures … ”

After more than $22 trillion spent on the War on Poverty since 1964 (in inflation adjusted dollars)—how is it a stereotype to say the left only wants to pour money at programs?

Just a few weeks ago the president blamed the Baltimore riots on Republicans for not spending and borrowing even more money on his social programs. He sounded like a parody of himself.

If the left really wants to advance cultural values like work, why do they oppose reforms to a welfare system that requires able-bodied adult Americans to work in exchange for receiving welfare benefits like food stamps?

Obama: “It is a mistake for us to suggest that somehow every effort we make has failed and we are powerless to address poverty. That’s just not true. First of all, just in absolute terms, the poverty rate when you take into account tax and transfer programs, has been reduced about 40 percent since 1967.”

There are two problems with this defense of the welfare state. First, the official poverty was falling before 1965 and at a faster rate than after the Great Society got rolling in the mid-1960s. This official poverty rate has remained virtually stagnant since the War on Poverty began.

Second, the decline in poverty that Obama is boasting about is only after taking into account tax credits and government handouts and welfare benefits. When excluding these programs there has been little progress at all.

Redistribution may have raised the material living standards of some of the poor. But it has not increased self-sufficiency.

The original purpose of the welfare state was to lift people into self-sufficiency, not to create a permanent underclass dependent on taxpayers. Lyndon Johnson told us when he started these programs that “the days of the dole are numbered.” We have passed day 18,000.

Obama also wants it both ways. He says over and over, even in this speech, that the biggest problem with the economy is income inequality because the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. So if the poor are getting poorer, how have his social programs worked to reduce poverty?

Obama: “In some ways, rather than soften the edges of the market, we’ve turbocharged it.”

Wait, we’ve turbo-charged the free market? When? Where?

Obama: “There are programs that work to provide ladders of opportunity … but we just haven’t figured out how to scale them up.”

Hold on. One of the few programs that has proven to provide “a ladder of opportunity” is the Washington D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program for roughly 1,500 kids each year to attend private schools. They are all poor and almost all black. The graduation rates for these kids have improved in some cases markedly.

But guess who doesn’t want to “scale up” this successful program (which is, by the way, one of the few programs that would actually be appropriate for the federal government to scale up)? In every budget Obama has submitted, he has proposed eliminating the program.

It’s more than a little hypocritical for a president who sends his own daughters to private schools that cost $30,000 a year to prevent poor children in Washington, D.C., from attending those same schools.

Obama: “And so over time, families frayed. Men who could not get jobs left. Mothers who are single are not able to read as much to their kids.”

The president acts as though “families frayed” by accident. No, there were major cultural shifts that contributed to the major decline in marriage and rise in unwed births, not to mention the introduction of a massive government welfare system that financially took the place of the father.

In 1960, not even one in four black children were born without a father in the home. By 2013 that number had soared, tragically, to nearly three of every four black children being born outside of marriage. As economist Thomas Sowellhas put it: “the black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state.”

Obama: “You look at state budgets, you look at city budgets, and you look at federal budgets, and we don’t make those same common investments that we used to. … And there’s been a very specific ideological push not to make those investments.”

In 1950 total state, local and federal government spending was just over $500 billion (in constant 2015 dollars) and 22.2 percent of our GDP. Today it is nearly $6 trillion and 33 percent of our GDP. Under Obama federal spending will reach $4 trillion next year and borrowing to finance these “common investments” will have risen by $8 trillion over his tenure.

The only thing that has been underfunded over the last decade is middle-class family incomes, which have stagnated.

Obama: “We don’t dispute that the free market is the greatest producer of wealth in history—it has lifted billions of people out of poverty. We believe in property rights, rule of law, so forth.”

No, you don’t. And that’s the whole problem.

bias, Democrats, economics, economy, elitism, family, government, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, lies, marxism, nanny state, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, poverty, president, progressive, propaganda, spending, welfare

Filed under: bias, Democrats, economics, economy, elitism, family, government, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, lies, marxism, nanny state, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, poverty, president, progressive, propaganda, spending, welfare

Benevolent Totalitarianism – New Age Slavery

original article: The government’s war on Christianity
May 4, 2015 by Bob Livingston

The number one goal of all governments is to control and dominate their own citizens. The more deceptively it can be done, the more complete and long-lasting the tyranny.

I have been telling you for many years that the face of modern tyranny is benevolent totalitarianism. Police state totalitarianism went out with World War II. The “Gestapo” knock at the door in the middle of the night and barbed-wire detainment camps are history, though there are steps in place to recreate them here via FEMA resettlement camps. Benevolent totalitarianism is an advanced stage of people control through mind control and mass psycho-political manipulation.

The individual (individualist) is an enemy of the state. Therefore individuality must be removed. So the individual and the nuclear family, which is an individual and sovereign unit, are under attack.

Stop here, dear reader, if you are offended by the politically incorrect. This column will surely distress your sensibilities. If you read on you are in for some uncomfortable but Godly truths.

Government is attacking the individual and family unit in a myriad of ways: through social programs, class warfare and altruism, which is selfless self-denial to the point of literal self-sacrifice for a myth called society, and propaganda.

Social welfare programs are destructive to the individual and the family unit because they absolve the parents of their parental responsibilities and promote dependency on government. There are now “families” that for two or three generations have been wards of the state. Many if not most of them are without a male head of household. They depend upon the state to provide their sustenance, their housing, their transportation, their healthcare and their entertainment. They know nothing of individuality or personal responsibility. Their provider is the state, and the state is their god. It is 21st Century Baal worship.

Class warfare is a code word for race warfare and it promotes racism and bigotry. Government panders to minorities with extravagant subsidies and racism. Minorities respond because they are conditioned to do so. Subsidies and racism are subtle forms of economic warfare between the middle class and minorities. All is a masquerade for the benefit of a wicked political system.

Who are minorities? They are, of course, racial minorities, but there are a whole lot more. There are homosexual minorities, feminist minorities, political minorities, religious minorities, low wage minorities and all the minorities whose issues dominate the news cycles. For more on this read, “Lawyers and minorities love socialism.”

Public policy is molded on these manipulated minority influences, all contributing to the power and collectivism of government. This is all an invisible charade, an organism, with a totally different and opposite orientation to individual liberty and Christianity. It is in reality New Age slavery, a benevolent totalitarianism, an illusion of freedom.

One can always identify minority special interests simply because they welcome government intervention and intrusion (socialism) as a net for perceived social inequality, poverty and underachievement. Guilt manipulation and all manner of charades are used to force social and economic equality where none is earned.

Because of perceived social, cultural, racial and psychic inferiority, minorities desire to parasite on government force and socialism to subvert those they envy and wish to imitate.

They could never succeed except for the very sophisticated propaganda of altruism.

Altruism is the very foundation of statist propaganda that the individual must place his interests, including his property, beneath the “need” of the collective (state). It is a deceptive ploy by government to play upon Christian values of service and servitude as taught by Jesus Christ. But it is not service to benefit others — as Christ taught — that the state seeks, but service and sacrifice to the state. In our time this is called “in the public interest” or “common good.” The terms “public interest” and “common good” always translate to “in the government interest.”

Therefore, the army of federal judges and politicians act in the “public interest.” And they would tell you in a minute that they do everything in the “public interest.” This is a deception that few unravel mainly because of the self-deception of altruism. As long as an individual believes that he should share his property and produce for the “common good,” he is in reality no longer an individual but a part of the collective servants of the state. Altruism motivates people to self-sacrifice for the state. This is why altruism is at the root of all governments. Governments must instill self-sacrifice to solidify political power.

The goal of government is to coerce the people into a regimented, docile and obedient mass under a propaganda system based on altruism and self sacrifice. That is why the individual and the family unit must be undermined.

The individual will act in his own interest and is therefore a danger to the state. In a traditional family unit headed by a man – as established by God in Genesis 1 and reaffirmed by Christ in Matthew 19 and the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 and Colossians 3 — the individualist man will always act in the best interest of self and family.

The crowd, on the other hand, is easy to persuade and manipulate through the mass media. Note that few if any television families today or in the last 40 years are traditional families. This is by design. In fact, traditional families are anathema to Hollywood and the male head of household, if there is one, is almost always portrayed as drunk, a louse, an adulterer, an abuser or a buffoon — or some combination of those traits — who is disrespected by his wife and children. This serves to diminish the role and necessity of the father and the traditional family unit. (This is not to vilipend the importance of the work by single parents in families torn apart by death or divorce, but to point out that the ideal family in God’s plan is for there to be a husband, wife and children.)

All public schools are government training grounds for group dynamics. Everything is taught in terms of groups over individualism and even family. Children are force-fed altruism, feelings-based character traits (where self-esteem is elevated over achievement), alternative lifestyles and even non-Christian religious or pagan dogma. But Christian-based values are banned from the classroom and the discussion.

So how is all this an attack on Christianity? The way to destroy a religion is to dilute it. Enough water in the milk and the milk becomes water. The way to conquer a religion is to absorb it. The way to one-world religion is to unite all religions. This is what secret cults do rather than open confrontation.

Christianity still has its name, its churches and its forum but not its spirit. Hillary Clinton recently said “deep-seated … religious beliefs” have to be changed before the world’s women will get full access to abortion. Fifty-three million souls lost to abortion since Roe v. Wadeare not enough for her or the arbotionistas.

But Christians cannot change these “deep-seated … religious beliefs” because if they do so they are no longer Christian. (1 John 2)

The homosexual lobby tells Christians they must violate their beliefs and God’s commands and participate in their immorality. The homosexual lobby preaches tolerance but will not tolerate other beliefs. They are homo-intolerant.

The regime’s Solicitor General conceded to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito that if homosexual marriage is legalized by the Supreme Court that churches that do not accept homosexual marriage in their doctrines would lose their tax-exempt status. This would be an all-out, full frontal assault on the Christian faith. And it would get ugly quickly, because Christians cannot accept homosexual marriage in their midst because to do so is to violate God’s command in Ephesians 5:3, and engage in works of the flesh. In fact, some avowed Christians are now promising resistance to this heresy.

Some “Christians,” I call them nominal Christians, have come to accept anything that doesn’t interfere with their six pack and wide-screen TV. So they sit back as the messianic state, also known as the nanny state, legislates away our freedoms one by one, promising security in return and even deliverance from every modern problem. Herein the religious basis of the modern religio-political system is revealed. One cannot understand politics today (which is to say, the system) until one understands the history and manifestation of false religion among sinful men.

All sin is established and brought forth from a seemingly tiny kernel of false belief about the nature and purpose of man. This humanistic kernel is planted in the vacuum of men’s hearts and spirits when they kick God out of their lives. As the Bible tells us, true belief is shown in the doing (James 2:14-26). Faith without works is dead. Many men speak of freedom but their actions do not accord with what they say.

Christians, in your smugness, arrogance, conceit and materialism, the time is at hand when you will be considered “a terrorist” if you claim your faith, proclaim Biblical teaching, belong to a patriotic group or even a pro-life organization.

anti-religion, atheism, bias, bigotry, bullies, bureaucracy, censorship, christian, corruption, culture, discrimination, diversity, family, freedom, government, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, public policy, relativism, religion, socialism

Filed under: anti-religion, atheism, bias, bigotry, bullies, bureaucracy, censorship, christian, corruption, culture, discrimination, diversity, family, freedom, government, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, public policy, relativism, religion, socialism

Modern Feminism Means Forcing Your Wife To Work

original article: Modern Feminism Means Forcing Your Wife To Work
May 6, 2015 by Mollie Hemingway

USA Today published a column from Sean Dunbar, 32, who is married with two children. “Why I won’t let my wife quit her job” is about how Sean won’t “let” his wife quit working even though she would like to. It sounds like controlling spouses’ career decisions is a general problem with his friend set. He begins by noting that his “friends are telling their wives to quit their jobs and be stay-at-home moms.”

Sean says he makes decent money so his friends ask him why his wife works. The wife is always referred to as his, never by name. None of the women who are being forced to stay in the workforce or to leave the workforce are named in the piece. Sean concedes that if his wife were to stay at home with their children, it would have “many benefits for the entire family.”

But, he says, “I want better for my wife. Am I a bad man for wanting this?”

I mean, we’re all stained by sin, so Sean’s not particularly special by being a bad person. But yes, he’s a bad man! There are all sorts of problems with this attitude. Namely, Sean is spending a lot of time thinking about what he wants and not a lot about what his wife wants. He lists all the reasons why he wants her to work and so by the time you read in the piece that Sean’s wife specifically said she’d like to stay home with the kids, you want to send her a help line. This is the picture of the couple that accompanies the USA Today column.

NamelessBrideA friend sent the article to me with the note, “Area man doesn’t see he’s making decisions for his wife.” That he’s announcing the decisions he’s made for her under the claim of wanting “better” for her is particularly patronizing.

Sean says that other women look at him as if he’s insecure for wanting his wife to work. He admits he fears her staying home. He discusses how proud he is of how hard she fought for her college degree (working full-time and going to school full-time). He says that she’s proud of her college diploma and is a good worker. When she was pregnant with her second child, her mood began to change, though. He thinks it was because her bosses were concerned about maternity leave but it sounds like she simply wanted to raise her children:

She started asking me whether she could quit her job and stay home with the kids. I danced around the issue, telling her things would get better.

But my wife could not wait to have the baby and be done with work.

But what Mrs. Dunbar wanted was not relevant. See, Sean says he was “so afraid of my wife becoming stagnant,” which is, I guess, what he thinks of women who are homemakers. I am a stay-at-home mother, albeit one who has also worked full time for a few years, and trust me on this: the least stagnant I’ve ever been in my life was when I got to stay home to be with my children. They are a never-ending source of joy and challenges that are unmatched by any job I’ve ever held. Every day was different, unlike many years of office jobs I held. But yeah, Sean, thanks for the dig.

Sean’s wife is working a new job from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. and he says she loves it. He admits that making time for the kids is “just harder.”

His friends think he’s a jerk and he wonders, again, if he’s a bad man for making her work “even though she says she wants to stay home with the kids.”

He justifies this by saying he’s “terrified she’ll lose her drive,” which I think is a reference to how he values her only in terms of her market value.

Take this line:

The happiest times I have seen my wife (besides with the kids) is when she has achieved professionally. I don’t want her to look back and say, “I could have done ‘this’ with my degree.”

Isn’t that sad? He realizes she’s happier with their children but he is so focused on her (unstated) professional achievements that he denigrates that vitally important work of motherhood and fails to see how much women who stay home achieve in their home lives. There’s an old saw about how “no one ever says on his deathbed that he wished to spend more time at work.” But this conventional wisdom is becoming hate speech in an era where women are pressured to work full-time no matter if they want to or not.

Sean is a bundle of fears, saying he’s worried that if he doesn’t force her to work, she’ll feel inferior to him and resent him. And he goes on to note how much he hates women who raise their children at home:

More so, I think about our daughter. I don’t want her seeing mommy at home, thinking she needs to do the same because that’s what she grew up seeing.

I lay in our daughter’s bed at night, talking to her and listening to her dreams about going to Mars or being the first female president.

We don’t talk about her dreams of becoming a trophy wife or stay-at-home mom.

What the what? He equates raising one’s own children rather than paying someone else to do so with being a trophy wife? In what world does that make sense?

Anyway, let’s get to the end of this trainwreck:

A self-sufficient, independent professional also keeps a husband on his toes.

I mean, no offense, Sean, but you don’t really seem to be on your toes so much as on your back, on a digital therapist’s couch, telling the world about all of your greatest insecurities. And you’re making your wife — and your children — pay the price for your issues.

Listen, I’m sympathetic to the idea a husband would want his wife to work. Sometimes I talk to my husband about whether I could quit working and he strongly encourages me to keep working. But it’s because he genuinely thinks it’s good for me. And he doesn’t tell me what to do or make me do things against my wishes! And I don’t think I ever felt so valued as a woman as those early years with my children when I was so appreciated by my husband and babies.

This guy’s denigration of stay-at-home mothers combined with forcing his wife to work some 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. job against her wishes, shows how confused our messages to women are. It reminds me of when President Obama said of women who leave the workforce to raise their children, “That’s not a choice we want Americans to make.

Actually, women leaving the workforce to raise children is an excellent decision for a woman to make. Another important thing to remember is that this discussion should not be about simply full-time work or leaving the workforce. Some six in ten women with children at home say they’d like to work part-time. If it occurs to Mr. Dunbar to be so generous as to “allow” his wife such an arrangement, that might be the best of all worlds.

culture, family, feminism, freedom, ideology, left wing, liberalism, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, relativism

Filed under: culture, family, feminism, freedom, ideology, left wing, liberalism, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, relativism

It’s Come To This: Having Good Parents Is An ‘Unfair Advantage’

original article: It’s Come To This: Having Good Parents Is An ‘Unfair Advantage’
May 7, 2015 by Elise Hilton

“One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.”

“Why are families a good thing exactly?”

“We should accept that lots of stuff that goes on in healthy families—and that our theory defends—will confer unfair advantage.”

One of my co-workers thought he was reading an article from the satirical website The Onion. Alas, that is not the case. No, these are quotes from philosopher Adam Swift, who believes we must acknowledge the “fact” that children growing up in an intact, mom-and-pop family have an “unfair advantage” to those children who don’t. Even worse, he thinks we should set things aright.

Frontpage, calling Swift a “liberal egalitarian sociologist with an interest in social justice” (and if that doesn’t give you the heebie-jeebies, I don’t know what will), quotes Swift as saying that parents shouldn’t stop reading bedtime stories to their tykes, but we should feel guilty about it. Think about all those kids who aren’t being read to. This is the “liberal egalitarian social justice” equivalent to Mom telling you to eat your veggies because there are kids who are starving in Africa.

Swift and his ilk, rather than seeing that mom and dad kicking the soccer ball around with the kids after dinner is a good thing and we need more of it, believe we should take a parent out of the picture or scrap the family bonding time. What? We have a formula for family that we know works well, produces healthy marriages and healthy kids, but since some people don’t have that, we should do away with the good that we have? Who thinks like this?

Daniel Greenfield:

I’ve come to the conclusion that the West is unfairly advantaged by having so many sociologists, critical race theorists and social justice warriors. If we all deported them to poor countries, they could finally catch up to us in the field of social justice.

As much as it might pain us to lose these demented parasites respected academics, it’s the right thing to do. No longer will we enjoy our vast advantages in sociology and theories on gendered icebergs (yes it’s a thing). The rest of the world will now be able to benefit from having a declining economy and an academic environment that consists of crazy people denouncing others for thoughtcrimes.

Mr. Swift, please stay in your ivory tower. You can write in heady academic journals that three of your colleagues read. The rest of us will be snuggled in bed with our kids, enjoying “Goodnight, Moon” and “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.”

Read “Is having a loving family an unfair advantage?” at ABC.

children, culture, extremism, family, ideology, justice, left wing, liberalism, marxism, nanny state, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism, socialism, victimization

Filed under: children, culture, extremism, family, ideology, justice, left wing, liberalism, marxism, nanny state, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism, socialism, victimization

Age of intolerance: What the Indiana pizza attacks tell us about free speech

original article: Age of intolerance: What the Indiana pizza attacks tell us about free speech
April 6, 2015 by Howard Kurtz

The Indiana pizza uproar is still giving me indigestion.

Just when gay rights advocates had won a victory by getting Mike Pence and the Indiana legislature to modify their religious freedom law, left-wing zealots harassed the poor folks at Memories Pizza into temporarily shutting down.

As you probably know, the contretemps began when Crystal O’Connor, one of the shop’s owners, told a local ABC station that they wouldn’t provide pies for a gay wedding. As she later told Neil Cavuto, “It is not a sin that we bring gays into our establishment and to serve them. It is a sin, though, if we cater their wedding. We feel we are participating, we are putting a stamp of approval on their wedding.”

By answering that hypothetical question, O’Connor unleashed an outpouring of hate on social media. Yelp was flooded with such images as Hitler holding a pizza and Jesus holding up a middle finger. “Avoid this place like the Plague,” one person wrote. “Sounds to me like a memory of owning a pizza place is all the owners going to have after this idiocy,” said another.

Now I don’t think it’s fair to blame this on “the left.” It’s not that liberal commentators or leading activists were mounting a crusade against the pizzeria, it’s these morons who spew venom, often anonymously, with nasty tweets, nasty emails, and now nasty restaurant “reviews.”

I get that Crystal O’Connor’s business may not have a legal right to refuse service, not that there’s a great demand for sausage and pepperoni at gay weddings or any other kind of wedding. But she wasn’t even expressing animosity toward gays and lesbians, just explaining her Christian beliefs.

This reinforces my view that the clashes in Indiana and Arkansas were largely about the politics of symbolism. Whether you’re more concerned about religious liberty or about gay rights, how many bakers and florists could have been affected by the Indiana law as originally signed, before a media and business backlash prompted Pence to accept gay rights language in the revised measure?

But the larger problem is that too many on the left want to silence free speech or punish those whose beliefs are deemed unacceptable. You see this every time a campus protest forces a conservative speaker to cancel an appearance—and that should depress honest liberals who once fervently fought for free speech.

Remember last year, when pressure from gay activists and boycott threats forced Brendan Eich to resign as CEO of the browser company Mozilla? His sin was to make a donation to the 2008 Prop 8 campaign in California, which succeeded at the time in banning gay marriage.

Keep in mind that those who don’t support gay marriage are being denounced and hounded for taking the same position that Barack Obama espoused until 2012.

Same-sex marriage is now legal in 37 states, and with young people increasingly seeing it as a non-issue, that trend will undoubtedly continue. But it’s important for all of us, in the media and elsewhere, to respect the views of a significant number of Americans who don’t agree.

On Crystal O’Connor and the pizza controversy, the Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf, a gay marriage supporter, frames the question around small-business owners as “should we destroy their livelihoods”:

“The owners of Memories Pizza are, I think, mistaken in what their Christian faith demands of them. And I believe their position on gay marriage to be wrongheaded. But I also believe that the position I’ll gladly serve any gay customers but I feel my faith compels me to refrain from catering a gay wedding is less hateful or intolerant than let’s go burn that family’s business to the ground.

“And I believe that the subset of the gay-rights movement intent on destroying their business and livelihood has done more harm than good here—that they’ve shifted their focus from championing historic advances for justice to perpetrating small injustices against marginal folks on the other side of the culture war.”

But liberal Washington Post columnist Gene Robinson likens the debate to the civil rights movement:

“It is her right to believe whatever she wants. Religious liberty is guaranteed by the Constitution. But in a pluralistic society, freedom of worship cannot mean a business that serves the general public can discriminate. When I was growing up in the South, there were business owners who believed the Lord didn’t intend for different races to mix, much less marry. Federal civil rights legislation barred these businesses from acting on that belief. The proprietors got over it.”

But National Review’s Jonah Goldberg says that critics of these religious freedom laws are going overboard:

“Comparing RFRA laws to Jim Crow laws turns all of this on its head. Jim Crow laws forced tolerant businesses to be intolerant of blacks. No one, anywhere, is suggesting that people who want to do business with same-sex couples should be barred from doing so. The argument is whether the government should force a few ardent Christians (or Jews or Muslims) to participate in a ceremony that violates their faith.”

Rush Limbaugh is escalating matters further, saying the battle is part of “the Democrats’ war on Christianity” because “they resent that Christianity provides a repository for faith and confidence in something other than government, which is where they want all power localized.”

I get that passions are running high. But if Republicans and Democrats were able to find a compromise in Indianapolis, perhaps we could all lower the temperature a bit—and that includes those who think it’s great sport to harass a small pizza shop owner.

anti-religion, bias, bigotry, bullies, christian, culture, discrimination, diversity, extremism, family, free speech, freedom, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, justice, left wing, liberalism, news media, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, public policy, reform, regulation, relativism, right wing, scandal, victimization

Filed under: anti-religion, bias, bigotry, bullies, christian, culture, discrimination, diversity, extremism, family, free speech, freedom, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, justice, left wing, liberalism, news media, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, public policy, reform, regulation, relativism, right wing, scandal, victimization



February 2017
« Jan