I posted an awesome article about homeschooling on my homeschool blog. It was originally from Ladies Against Feminism.
At my annual review yesterday, my principal gave me quite the compliment. He said, “I love the way you make everyone around you want to be smarter. I finish talking to you and I think to myself, ‘I’ve got to read more!’” We talked about that for a bit, and I realized that the thing that makes me valuable as a schoolteacher is the same thing that makes leaving my job and homeschooling imperative. That thing is a love of excellence.My parents were committed to getting me an excellent education, and thus moved me around from school to school. I went to seven different schools by the time I was in ninth grade. I was the “new kid” for all three years of junior high. I went to a variety of schools, including an all-girls school, a progressive public school, and then a fantastically wealthy public high school that looked like a country club. I also spent three years being homeschooled full-time during elementary school, and homeschooled myself part-time for the last two years of high school. (Yes, you really can do that.)
I can say that every school I went to was exceptionally damaging to my sense of self-worth and my education. Being the socially clueless kid with a bad hair cut (and, later, with train wreck acne) did me no favors in a system where being pretty and hip is a prerequisite to being accepted. Each of my schools had a different system of education where the focus seemed to be on new methods and rearranging the desks every few months. None of the schools focused on assessing student learning. One could know nothing about the subject being tested, fail the test, and get a B because of homework and participation. That kind of grade reflects docility, not knowledge. Nobody seems to care if students actually learn anything, so long as it looks like the teacher is teaching. That’s an important distinction.
The only types of schooling that worked for me were homeschooling and college. I’ve never been good at staying focused on tasks that are drawn out. If learning a new math skill should take 10 minutes to teach and 50 minutes to practice, then so be it—I’m your girl. I’ll listen closely, work hard, and follow your advice. However, I have never been able to focus on a 45-minute lecture while sifting out the 10 minutes worth of usable material. My response in school was always, “I guess I don’t really need to know this, since nobody can explain how it works or why it’s useful.” Asking things like, “How can I use this information?” or “How will I know that I’ve mastered this skill?” were treated like mutiny. (I don’t remember this, but eyewitnesses swear that it’s true: when I was a junior in high school, a few weeks into an allegedly tough English class, the teacher, who routinely graded papers with college-level rubrics, had us pick out plastic animal figurines from a bag, then sculpt our bodies so that we resembled the animal. Apparently my response was, “This is malarkey; I am not doing it,” and then I walked out of the classroom. I do remember dropping the class and homeschooling myself in English, German, and humanities for the rest of the year, taking just a few classes for the rest of high school.)
Based on my experience, I believe that students in regular classrooms learn many self-defeating lessons from their teachers and classmates.
To read the rest of the article click here.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Tea Party Racism by my good friend, Emery McClendon
My dear friend Mary Ann Hunt posted this on her blog and I wanted to share it. If you'd like to check out her blog click here. I don't know Mr. McClendon, but if he's a friend of Mary Ann, I know he is a reliable and honorable man.
To Whom It May Concern:
The following is a response to charges of racism at Tea Parties. I hope that you will consider using it. Thank you
In response to the mainstream media outlets that are trying to discredit the Tea Party Movement as racist, I feel that it is imperative that the truth be presented by one who’s been there.
First of all let me say that I am a conservative African American and a Veteran. I have not only attended several Tea Parties, but I organized the Tea Party event in Fort Wayne, Indiana in April of 2009! The event turned out to be well attended. Our keynote speaker was also African American; former presidential candidate, Dr. Alan Keyes. I also recently was a speaker at the Indianapolis, Indiana 2010 Tea Party, and I was the Keynote speaker in Wabash, Indiana.
I am outraged at the biased coverage of these events. The racist accusations against the Tea Party movement are false and do not portray the truth about a movement which is waking up Americans to the principles that founded this great nation. Every day a new charge is made, and the major media outlets refuse to allow someone like me refute these allegations and defend the Tea Party, and those that attend the rallies.
I challenge the media to allow an African American conservative patriot to evaluate the Tea Party movement based on experience. I also accept the offer to be that person, because I would like to share the truth about them from my first hand experiences.
I have attended dozens of these events, and have been featured as a speaker at several of them. I have also served on several U.S. Senate candidate panels, and was the moderator at a Senate and Congressional debate. I have also been asked to serve as a speaker at Town Hall Meetings. It has been wonderful to meet and to talk to those that attend. These are folk that love their country, share a deep respect for our Constitution and those that serve in our nation’s Armed Forces. It is a movement that unites everyone, regardless of race, based on those beliefs.
I have never encountered any racism at any of the events that I have attended throughout Indiana or in other states. Even after being the only Black person at a Tea Party in an Indiana town that has a very racial history in the past. The people there were friendly, and allowed me to ask questions, and to speak to them.
I have also attended rallies in the nation’s capital, and these have also been with out any incident.
I cannot sit by and allow a movement such as this to receive unwarranted negative publicity.
The movement is driving true patriotic Americans back to our founding principles and recreating a love for our Constitution. It does this across racial and cultural barriers. The Tea Party movement is bringing us together to stand up for a common cause; that of restoring the traditional values which encompass all people who call themselves Americans. Perhaps unity is what is what the naysayers really fear and the race card is always a handy tool to divide the people.
Sincerely;
FREEDOM and LIBERTY (Use Them Or Loose Them)
Emery McClendon / KB9IBW
To Whom It May Concern:The following is a response to charges of racism at Tea Parties. I hope that you will consider using it. Thank you
In response to the mainstream media outlets that are trying to discredit the Tea Party Movement as racist, I feel that it is imperative that the truth be presented by one who’s been there.
First of all let me say that I am a conservative African American and a Veteran. I have not only attended several Tea Parties, but I organized the Tea Party event in Fort Wayne, Indiana in April of 2009! The event turned out to be well attended. Our keynote speaker was also African American; former presidential candidate, Dr. Alan Keyes. I also recently was a speaker at the Indianapolis, Indiana 2010 Tea Party, and I was the Keynote speaker in Wabash, Indiana.
I am outraged at the biased coverage of these events. The racist accusations against the Tea Party movement are false and do not portray the truth about a movement which is waking up Americans to the principles that founded this great nation. Every day a new charge is made, and the major media outlets refuse to allow someone like me refute these allegations and defend the Tea Party, and those that attend the rallies.
I challenge the media to allow an African American conservative patriot to evaluate the Tea Party movement based on experience. I also accept the offer to be that person, because I would like to share the truth about them from my first hand experiences.
I have attended dozens of these events, and have been featured as a speaker at several of them. I have also served on several U.S. Senate candidate panels, and was the moderator at a Senate and Congressional debate. I have also been asked to serve as a speaker at Town Hall Meetings. It has been wonderful to meet and to talk to those that attend. These are folk that love their country, share a deep respect for our Constitution and those that serve in our nation’s Armed Forces. It is a movement that unites everyone, regardless of race, based on those beliefs.
I have never encountered any racism at any of the events that I have attended throughout Indiana or in other states. Even after being the only Black person at a Tea Party in an Indiana town that has a very racial history in the past. The people there were friendly, and allowed me to ask questions, and to speak to them.
I have also attended rallies in the nation’s capital, and these have also been with out any incident.
I cannot sit by and allow a movement such as this to receive unwarranted negative publicity.
The movement is driving true patriotic Americans back to our founding principles and recreating a love for our Constitution. It does this across racial and cultural barriers. The Tea Party movement is bringing us together to stand up for a common cause; that of restoring the traditional values which encompass all people who call themselves Americans. Perhaps unity is what is what the naysayers really fear and the race card is always a handy tool to divide the people.
Sincerely;
FREEDOM and LIBERTY (Use Them Or Loose Them)
Emery McClendon / KB9IBW
Saturday, April 24, 2010
American Family Association - Action Alert
Army disinvites Graham to Pentagon Prayer Day Insist your members of Congress declare a position on the issue
American Family Association - Action Alert
American Family Association - Action Alert
The Naked Communism of Earth Day
Wow. I had never even considered a connection between communism and environmentalism. This article from RenewAmerica made me think.
By Alan Caruba
It is no accident that April 22, Earth Day, is also the birth date of Vladimir Lenin, an acolyte of Karl Marx, the lunatic who invented communism as an alternative to capitalism.
Earth Day is naked communism.
To begin, it substitutes a worship of the Earth, Gaia, for the worship of God, creator of the universe and the instructor of moral behavior for mankind.
The Earth does not demand a moral code of personal behavior. Indeed, the lesson it teaches is "the survival of the fittest "and an indifference to suffering. The "natural events" mankind fears most all involve the potential for significant loss of life and for injury.
The Earth is a beautiful place, but it is utterly merciless. Man has learned to adapt to it and, by adapt, I mean to use its resources to build shelter and protection from it, to plant and harvest crops from it, and to domesticate some of its species while hunting and fishing for others for food.
Earth Day postulates that man is the cause of harm to Earth by virtue of his cities, his highways, his use of its sources of energy, and even the garbage that results from the normal course of maintaining life. For centuries mankind routinely burned and buried garbage. Now we are told we must separate and recycle it. We are told that everything plastic is bad even though it is one of the great inventions of modern times.
Communism reached its zenith in the last century. Its imposition in the former Soviet Union, in China, and elsewhere is a litany of murder and oppression. In the 20th century, a minimum 110 million people died as a result. It enslaves mankind wherever it can.
Environmentalism has been built on the foundation laid by communism because both exist to control everyone's life. They are opposite sides of the same coin, both are opposed to the ownership of private property and both regard man as state property to be drained of his earnings through taxation.
Environmentalism's preferred method is coercion and the mechanism for this is government.
While America was established to ensure "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," environmentalism exists to exert more and more control over our lives by limiting our choices, our liberty. Environmentalism redefines happiness as doing without the advances of science and commerce that protects and prolongs our lives.
There is nothing voluntary about environmentalism.
There is nothing voluntary about having to recycle. There is nothing voluntary about having to fill your tank with a mixture of gasoline and ethanol. There is nothing voluntary about the imposition of mileage standards for cars. There is nothing voluntary about losing access to beneficial chemicals that control countless insect and rodent pests that spread disease and destroy property.
While the vast majority of Americans clamor for the government to permit access to our nation's vast natural resources of coal, oil, and natural gas it stands in the way, claiming always that drilling and mining pose a threat to the environment. At the same time it acquires more and more of the nation's landmass to deter access and economic growth.
In the name of the environment, the U.S. government is set to impose a Cap-and-Trade law on Americans that has no basis whatever in science and is, in fact, based on the greatest hoax of the modern era, "global warming."
Cap-and-Trade will tax energy use and directly control how much energy individual Americans can use to heat or cool their homes through "smart grid" technology controlled by the utilities, not the consumer.
Environmentalism is the reason the U.S. has not had a single new refinery or nuclear plant built since the 1970s. Think about that every time you drive your car or turn on the lights.
The spread of endless environmental propaganda has been taken up by the nation's mainstream media and has infiltrated the nation's schools through its textbooks and other means of instruction. Earth Day will be the occasion for an orgy of media coverage.
Just as communism failed the former Soviet Union and just as Red China abandoned communism as the model for its economy, environmentalism continues its relentless quest to deter economic growth and security in America. It is the infrastructure of a New World Order.
Do not celebrate Earth Day. Denounce it.
© Alan Caruba
By Alan Caruba
It is no accident that April 22, Earth Day, is also the birth date of Vladimir Lenin, an acolyte of Karl Marx, the lunatic who invented communism as an alternative to capitalism.
Earth Day is naked communism.
To begin, it substitutes a worship of the Earth, Gaia, for the worship of God, creator of the universe and the instructor of moral behavior for mankind.
The Earth does not demand a moral code of personal behavior. Indeed, the lesson it teaches is "the survival of the fittest "and an indifference to suffering. The "natural events" mankind fears most all involve the potential for significant loss of life and for injury.
The Earth is a beautiful place, but it is utterly merciless. Man has learned to adapt to it and, by adapt, I mean to use its resources to build shelter and protection from it, to plant and harvest crops from it, and to domesticate some of its species while hunting and fishing for others for food.
Earth Day postulates that man is the cause of harm to Earth by virtue of his cities, his highways, his use of its sources of energy, and even the garbage that results from the normal course of maintaining life. For centuries mankind routinely burned and buried garbage. Now we are told we must separate and recycle it. We are told that everything plastic is bad even though it is one of the great inventions of modern times.
Communism reached its zenith in the last century. Its imposition in the former Soviet Union, in China, and elsewhere is a litany of murder and oppression. In the 20th century, a minimum 110 million people died as a result. It enslaves mankind wherever it can.
Environmentalism has been built on the foundation laid by communism because both exist to control everyone's life. They are opposite sides of the same coin, both are opposed to the ownership of private property and both regard man as state property to be drained of his earnings through taxation.
Environmentalism's preferred method is coercion and the mechanism for this is government.
While America was established to ensure "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," environmentalism exists to exert more and more control over our lives by limiting our choices, our liberty. Environmentalism redefines happiness as doing without the advances of science and commerce that protects and prolongs our lives.
There is nothing voluntary about environmentalism.
There is nothing voluntary about having to recycle. There is nothing voluntary about having to fill your tank with a mixture of gasoline and ethanol. There is nothing voluntary about the imposition of mileage standards for cars. There is nothing voluntary about losing access to beneficial chemicals that control countless insect and rodent pests that spread disease and destroy property.
While the vast majority of Americans clamor for the government to permit access to our nation's vast natural resources of coal, oil, and natural gas it stands in the way, claiming always that drilling and mining pose a threat to the environment. At the same time it acquires more and more of the nation's landmass to deter access and economic growth.
In the name of the environment, the U.S. government is set to impose a Cap-and-Trade law on Americans that has no basis whatever in science and is, in fact, based on the greatest hoax of the modern era, "global warming."
Cap-and-Trade will tax energy use and directly control how much energy individual Americans can use to heat or cool their homes through "smart grid" technology controlled by the utilities, not the consumer.
Environmentalism is the reason the U.S. has not had a single new refinery or nuclear plant built since the 1970s. Think about that every time you drive your car or turn on the lights.
The spread of endless environmental propaganda has been taken up by the nation's mainstream media and has infiltrated the nation's schools through its textbooks and other means of instruction. Earth Day will be the occasion for an orgy of media coverage.
Just as communism failed the former Soviet Union and just as Red China abandoned communism as the model for its economy, environmentalism continues its relentless quest to deter economic growth and security in America. It is the infrastructure of a New World Order.
Do not celebrate Earth Day. Denounce it.
© Alan Caruba
Friday, April 23, 2010
A Gun Ban By Any Other Name...
Received from my NRA newsletter. To view the original article, click here
By John Lott
- FOXNews.com
Gun control laws divert money from law enforcement activities that work. The thousands of hours spent by police to register guns are time that police could have put to solving crimes. That diversion of resources is the real threat to public safety.
On Friday, a federal District Court judge tried to indirectly reinstate the D.C. handgun ban. Judge Ricardo Urbina, a Clinton appointee, wants to make it so difficult for people living in DC to use a handgun defensively that few will get one.
Last September, a Washington Post reporter, Christian Davenport, found out just how difficult it still is to get a handgun in D.C. even after the Supreme Court struck down the city's handgun ban. Excluding the price of the gun, the reporter spent $558.69 in various fees to get through the approval process. But that was only part of the cost. It took him "a total of 15 hours 50 minutes, four trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, two background checks, a set of fingerprints, a five-hour class and a 20-question multiple-choice exam."
So when do these types of regulations constitute just as much of a ban on handguns as an outright ban? A dollar tax solely on newspapers would clearly be struck down as unconstitutional. The power to regulate can destroy both the First and Second Amendments. Despite the costs, about a thousand people may have gotten handgun permits. That is only about 0.2 percent of adults living in D.C. The big change from the 2008 Heller decision might have simply been that D.C. law now requires that gun owners (primarily those owning long guns) only have to store their guns locked and unloaded if minors might have access to them. And it is probably this change that helps explain why D.C.'s murder rate fell by 25 percent the year after the handgun ban was struck down as unconstitutional.
Judge Urbina justifies the regulations using the same reasons that D.C. originally tried to use to justify the ban based on public safety. But for the regulations ruled on by Judge Urbina, the evidence clearly shows that freedom and safety go together. More guns mean less crime. Rules that make it very costly and difficult for people to register handguns for self-defense, disarm law-abiding citizens relative to criminals and make crime more likely. It isn't too surprising that every place in the world where guns have been banned and crime rates are available to study have seen an increase in murder rates.
After the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban and gunlocks in 2008, the D.C. Council enacted strict new handgun laws. On Friday, the judge found D.C.'s new handgun laws constitutional because "the Council provided ample evidence of the ways [the different gun laws] will effectuate the goal of promoting public safety." The problem is that D.C. really didn't provide "evidence," and merely made claims that the gun laws work. The court ruled that those claimed benefits outweighed the constitutional rights lost from the regulations.
Yet, the available evidence contradicts the safety argument.
Gunlocks -- The Supreme Court was right in the Heller decision. It ruled that a locked, unloaded gun "makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional." Empirical work shows that gunlock laws have failed to reduce accidental gun deaths for children. Instead, they have cost innocent lives as law-abiding citizens have become more vulnerable to criminal attack. Just as higher arrest or conviction rates or longer prison sentences can deter criminals, so can more self-defense. Gunlock laws not only embolden criminals to attack people in their homes. These laws also increase the probability that the criminal will be successful.
Limiting the number of bullets that a gun can hold to 10 -- This was one of the restrictions that had been in the Federal Assault Weapons ban that lasted from 1994 to 2004. But despite a large academic literature on Assault Weapon bans, there hasn't been a single refereed study by either criminologists or economists that such laws reduce violent crime.
Handgun registration -- After the decision on Friday, D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson claimed: "Because law-abiding citizens register their guns, it makes it easier for the police to identify and arrest the criminals." Despite the inaccuracies show on television shows, registration doesn’t work to solve crimes. In theory, if a gun is registered and it is left at the scene, it could theoretically be traced back to the owner. But guns from crimes are virtually never left at the scene of the crime. When they are left at the scene, it is primarily in cases where the criminal has been seriously wounded or killed. Then, of course, the weapon is not needed to catch the perpetrator. Moreover, in the few cases guns are left at the scene, they are traced back to somebody else because the criminals never bothered to register their guns.
In spite of the statements in “The Bill of Rights” that "Congress shall make no law" or "shall not be infringed," courts don't view constitutional rights as absolutes. Courts now ask whether the benefits from the law outweigh the constitutional rights lost -- so-called "balancing" tests. With high levels of "scrutiny" usually reserved for “The Bill of Rights,” courts must also find that the laws are "narrowly tailored" to achieve a compelling governmental interest. Public safety is surely an important governmental interest, but the evidence shows that gun control laws either produce no benefit, or actually increase crime rates, nevermind that these laws are the only way to reduce crime. Indeed, every location for which crime data is available has seen an increase in murder rates after gun bans have been imposed. D.C.'s gun laws can't meet these constitutional tests as they don't even reduce crime, let alone meet the other constitutional tests.
What is worse is that these laws divert money from law enforcement activities that work. The thousands of hours spent by police to register guns are time that police could have put to solving crimes. That diversion of resources is the real threat to public safety.
John R. Lott, Jr. is a FOXNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010), the third edition will be published in May."
By John Lott
- FOXNews.com
Gun control laws divert money from law enforcement activities that work. The thousands of hours spent by police to register guns are time that police could have put to solving crimes. That diversion of resources is the real threat to public safety.
On Friday, a federal District Court judge tried to indirectly reinstate the D.C. handgun ban. Judge Ricardo Urbina, a Clinton appointee, wants to make it so difficult for people living in DC to use a handgun defensively that few will get one.
Last September, a Washington Post reporter, Christian Davenport, found out just how difficult it still is to get a handgun in D.C. even after the Supreme Court struck down the city's handgun ban. Excluding the price of the gun, the reporter spent $558.69 in various fees to get through the approval process. But that was only part of the cost. It took him "a total of 15 hours 50 minutes, four trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, two background checks, a set of fingerprints, a five-hour class and a 20-question multiple-choice exam."
So when do these types of regulations constitute just as much of a ban on handguns as an outright ban? A dollar tax solely on newspapers would clearly be struck down as unconstitutional. The power to regulate can destroy both the First and Second Amendments. Despite the costs, about a thousand people may have gotten handgun permits. That is only about 0.2 percent of adults living in D.C. The big change from the 2008 Heller decision might have simply been that D.C. law now requires that gun owners (primarily those owning long guns) only have to store their guns locked and unloaded if minors might have access to them. And it is probably this change that helps explain why D.C.'s murder rate fell by 25 percent the year after the handgun ban was struck down as unconstitutional.
Judge Urbina justifies the regulations using the same reasons that D.C. originally tried to use to justify the ban based on public safety. But for the regulations ruled on by Judge Urbina, the evidence clearly shows that freedom and safety go together. More guns mean less crime. Rules that make it very costly and difficult for people to register handguns for self-defense, disarm law-abiding citizens relative to criminals and make crime more likely. It isn't too surprising that every place in the world where guns have been banned and crime rates are available to study have seen an increase in murder rates.
After the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban and gunlocks in 2008, the D.C. Council enacted strict new handgun laws. On Friday, the judge found D.C.'s new handgun laws constitutional because "the Council provided ample evidence of the ways [the different gun laws] will effectuate the goal of promoting public safety." The problem is that D.C. really didn't provide "evidence," and merely made claims that the gun laws work. The court ruled that those claimed benefits outweighed the constitutional rights lost from the regulations.
Yet, the available evidence contradicts the safety argument.
Gunlocks -- The Supreme Court was right in the Heller decision. It ruled that a locked, unloaded gun "makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional." Empirical work shows that gunlock laws have failed to reduce accidental gun deaths for children. Instead, they have cost innocent lives as law-abiding citizens have become more vulnerable to criminal attack. Just as higher arrest or conviction rates or longer prison sentences can deter criminals, so can more self-defense. Gunlock laws not only embolden criminals to attack people in their homes. These laws also increase the probability that the criminal will be successful.
Limiting the number of bullets that a gun can hold to 10 -- This was one of the restrictions that had been in the Federal Assault Weapons ban that lasted from 1994 to 2004. But despite a large academic literature on Assault Weapon bans, there hasn't been a single refereed study by either criminologists or economists that such laws reduce violent crime.
Handgun registration -- After the decision on Friday, D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson claimed: "Because law-abiding citizens register their guns, it makes it easier for the police to identify and arrest the criminals." Despite the inaccuracies show on television shows, registration doesn’t work to solve crimes. In theory, if a gun is registered and it is left at the scene, it could theoretically be traced back to the owner. But guns from crimes are virtually never left at the scene of the crime. When they are left at the scene, it is primarily in cases where the criminal has been seriously wounded or killed. Then, of course, the weapon is not needed to catch the perpetrator. Moreover, in the few cases guns are left at the scene, they are traced back to somebody else because the criminals never bothered to register their guns.
In spite of the statements in “The Bill of Rights” that "Congress shall make no law" or "shall not be infringed," courts don't view constitutional rights as absolutes. Courts now ask whether the benefits from the law outweigh the constitutional rights lost -- so-called "balancing" tests. With high levels of "scrutiny" usually reserved for “The Bill of Rights,” courts must also find that the laws are "narrowly tailored" to achieve a compelling governmental interest. Public safety is surely an important governmental interest, but the evidence shows that gun control laws either produce no benefit, or actually increase crime rates, nevermind that these laws are the only way to reduce crime. Indeed, every location for which crime data is available has seen an increase in murder rates after gun bans have been imposed. D.C.'s gun laws can't meet these constitutional tests as they don't even reduce crime, let alone meet the other constitutional tests.
What is worse is that these laws divert money from law enforcement activities that work. The thousands of hours spent by police to register guns are time that police could have put to solving crimes. That diversion of resources is the real threat to public safety.
John R. Lott, Jr. is a FOXNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010), the third edition will be published in May."
Missouri, Kansas move to relax concealed-carry rules
Received this note from my NRA newsletter.
For the original posting from the KC Star click here.
Posted on Wed, Mar. 31, 2010
By JASON NOBLE and DAVID KLEPPER
The Kansas City Star
JEFFERSON CITY
It’s been a quiet week in Jefferson City.
Legislators writing laws. Debating the budget.
Training with handguns.
About 16 Missouri lawmakers — along with several legislative staffers and at least one representative’s wife — are taking a firearms-training course sponsored by the bipartisan “Sportsmen’s Caucus” that will qualify them for concealed weapons permits.
Tuesday’s lesson plan? Proper firearm care and cleaning.
“You need to bring your weapon tonight,” read a reminder sent out over the House e-mail system. “No ammo will be needed. Pizza and soda will be served.”
Missouri, like most states, allows people to carry concealed weapons if they pass a training course and register with a law enforcement agency. This week, lawmakers took steps to extend that privilege into the corridors of the Capitol.
On the same day of the lawmakers’ firearms class, the House gave first-round approval to a bill that would expressly allow legislators, their aides and employees to carry concealed weapons in the statehouse.
“If you stay up with your news and what’s going on in the world, you know bad things happen all over the place,” said Rep. Jeanie Riddle, a Mokane Republican who sponsored the amendment that added the Capitol language. “It would be nice for us to not be a statistic.”
State law now bars most people — including state employees — from bringing a deadly weapon into the Capitol. Lawmakers who hold a concealed-carry permit, however, are exempt from the prohibition.
Riddle said it was only fair to extend that privilege to others who work in the building, which no longer has metal detectors but has a Capitol police force.
“My life isn’t any more important than anyone else’s who works here, so to offer them the same opportunity I think is the right thing to do,” Riddle said.
The measure was included in a broader firearms bill that would drop the age limit for a concealed-carry permit from 23 to 21, and expand the “Castle Doctrine” to allow people who rent their homes to use deadly force against intruders.
The bill passed on a 125-19 vote.
But not everyone thinks lawmakers and their staffers should be packing heat in the halls of government.
“I think it’s incredibly shortsighted for so many people who are not even elected by the public to bring guns into the Capitol, (especially) so many people who often are immature and feel very passionate about their positions,” said Rep. Mary Still, a Columbia Democrat who voted against the bill.
But even some opponents of the legislation were not especially concerned with the provisions relating to the Capitol. More troubling, they said, was the proposed lowered age limit for concealed-carry permits.
“I know there are a lot of people that bring weapons into the statehouse. I can’t help that. It’s their right and privilege under the law,” said Rep. Tom McDonald, an Independence Democrat. “But extending that to 21-year-olds and giving kids that age the privilege to carry a gun leads to bigger problems.”
The firearms legislation must still win a second vote in the House before moving to the Senate for further consideration. Yet even if it fails, Missouri’s Capitol is still more welcoming to weapons than Kansas and some other states.
In Kansas, firearms — concealed or otherwise — are not allowed in the statehouse or in most other government buildings. State law does not prohibit the open carrying of firearms, so cities without local bans, such as Topeka, allow citizens to wear holstered firearms in public — though not in the statehouse.
Kansas was one of the last holdouts in the nation on concealed weapons, authorizing licenses in 2006 only after lawmakers overrode a veto by then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.
Now some lawmakers are trying to relax the rules, arguing that worries about concealed weapons have been proven false.
Rep. Forrest Knox, an Altoona Republican, this year pushed through the House a bill that would allow permit holders to take their concealed firearms into any public building, including university campuses and government buildings. The only exception would be buildings with “adequate” security, including metal detectors and armed guards.
Because the Kansas statehouse has only a small security detachment and a single metal detector at one of two public entrances, its security would not qualify as “adequate,” according to bill supporters.
Knox, who does not have a concealed weapons permit, said he was shocked by the lack of statehouse security when he was first elected. He lived in Israel for six years and said too many Americans were naive about the threat of violence.
“The things we hope never happen — a crazy comes with a gun — that’s really the real concern,” Knox said. “Somebody could come into this Capitol and do terrible things.”
Knox said some lawmakers, most of them women, have told him they have carried firearms in the statehouse, despite the prohibition.
Knox’s bill, however, faces a fight. The Senate this year is not likely to even consider the measure. And Sen. Jay Emler, a Lindsborg Republican who is chairman of the Joint Committee on Kansas Security, said he opposed any proposal to bring guns into the Capitol, a building often filled with visiting schoolchildren.
“We don’t need any firearms in the statehouse other than those carried by uniformed law enforcement,” Emler said.
Gov. Mark Parkinson, a Democrat, agreed, saying the idea of concealed weapons on college campuses was particularly worrisome. He said he supported Sebelius’ veto of concealed weapons and that it was a bad idea to relax the rules.
“I understand that people feel they have a right to bear arms and the Constitution verifies that. But there are reasonable limits that we should impose,” Parkinson said.
But Patricia Stoneking, president of the Kansas State Rifle Association, said logic was on the side of those pushing for the changes. The only people who follow concealed-weapon rules are law-abiding citizens, she said.
Every time she visits the statehouse, she said, she locks her concealed weapon in her car, but she does not like it.
“The only people disarming are the good guys,” Stoneking said. “The signs basically say ‘nobody in here has a gun and we have no way to defend ourselves.’ It’s like putting a bull’s-eye on the door.”
But if you are wondering which Missouri lawmakers might be packing heat now or in the future, forget it. Whether a person has a concealed-carry permit is confidential, and revealing a permit holder’s status is a misdemeanor. In fact, supporters of concealed carry often prefer not to publicize their status as permit holders.
When asked if she carried a weapon in the Capitol, or would if she had a permit, Riddle demurred.
“You know, it’s our Second Amendment right,” she said.
Others apparently don’t mind letting it be known they’re armed.
Rep. Curt Dougherty, an Independence Democrat, said he was taking the lawmakers’ training course and would get a permit upon completing the requirements. But the lifetime member of the National Rifle Association said he probably would not carry a gun on a regular basis.
“I always thought since that issue meant something to me, I should probably go out and get the license,” Dougherty said. “But I have no interest, really, in carrying a gun.”
Sponsoring the firearms class in Missouri is the legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus, a group of lawmakers who advocate for hunting, fishing and Second Amendment rights.
“We’ve got Republicans and Democrats,” said Rep. Jason Brown, a Platte City Republican and co-chairman of the caucus. “It’s very bipartisan.”
The course follows hunter-safety classes held earlier this year by the caucus. In coming weeks, the group will sponsor a trapshooting event and a turkey hunt for young hunters, co-sponsored by Gov. Jay Nixon.
The goal of each event is to advocate for activities that are culturally intrinsic to Missouri, caucus members said, but which may not be well understood in all parts of the state or by all lawmakers.
“Every caucus needs to have meaningful activities that meet up with their mission,” said Sen. Wes Shoemyer, a Clarence Democrat. “This is just one of those meaningful activities that meets up with the Sportsmen’s Caucus.”
The class is led by volunteer instructors, organizers said, although participants have been asked to make $50 contributions to the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, a national lobbying group and umbrella organization for state sportsmen’s caucuses.
State law requires eight hours of training to qualify for a concealed-carry permit. In the Kansas City area, those courses typically cost between $50 and $125.
The first class was held two weeks ago in the statehouse, but lessons were moved across town to a trade group’s headquarters when it came time to bring guns to class.
In the class’ final meeting later this month, participants must demonstrate their marksmanship. To pass, they must hit a target with at least 15 of 20 rounds from 7 yards away.
To reach Jason Noble, call 573-634-3565 or send e-mail to jnoble@kcstar.com. To reach David Klepper, call 785-354-1388 or send e-mail to dklepper@kcstar.com.
© 2010 Kansas City Star and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved. http://www.kansascity.com
For the original posting from the KC Star click here.
Posted on Wed, Mar. 31, 2010
By JASON NOBLE and DAVID KLEPPER
The Kansas City Star
JEFFERSON CITY
It’s been a quiet week in Jefferson City.
Legislators writing laws. Debating the budget.
Training with handguns.
About 16 Missouri lawmakers — along with several legislative staffers and at least one representative’s wife — are taking a firearms-training course sponsored by the bipartisan “Sportsmen’s Caucus” that will qualify them for concealed weapons permits.
Tuesday’s lesson plan? Proper firearm care and cleaning.
“You need to bring your weapon tonight,” read a reminder sent out over the House e-mail system. “No ammo will be needed. Pizza and soda will be served.”
Missouri, like most states, allows people to carry concealed weapons if they pass a training course and register with a law enforcement agency. This week, lawmakers took steps to extend that privilege into the corridors of the Capitol.
On the same day of the lawmakers’ firearms class, the House gave first-round approval to a bill that would expressly allow legislators, their aides and employees to carry concealed weapons in the statehouse.
“If you stay up with your news and what’s going on in the world, you know bad things happen all over the place,” said Rep. Jeanie Riddle, a Mokane Republican who sponsored the amendment that added the Capitol language. “It would be nice for us to not be a statistic.”
State law now bars most people — including state employees — from bringing a deadly weapon into the Capitol. Lawmakers who hold a concealed-carry permit, however, are exempt from the prohibition.
Riddle said it was only fair to extend that privilege to others who work in the building, which no longer has metal detectors but has a Capitol police force.
“My life isn’t any more important than anyone else’s who works here, so to offer them the same opportunity I think is the right thing to do,” Riddle said.
The measure was included in a broader firearms bill that would drop the age limit for a concealed-carry permit from 23 to 21, and expand the “Castle Doctrine” to allow people who rent their homes to use deadly force against intruders.
The bill passed on a 125-19 vote.
But not everyone thinks lawmakers and their staffers should be packing heat in the halls of government.
“I think it’s incredibly shortsighted for so many people who are not even elected by the public to bring guns into the Capitol, (especially) so many people who often are immature and feel very passionate about their positions,” said Rep. Mary Still, a Columbia Democrat who voted against the bill.
But even some opponents of the legislation were not especially concerned with the provisions relating to the Capitol. More troubling, they said, was the proposed lowered age limit for concealed-carry permits.
“I know there are a lot of people that bring weapons into the statehouse. I can’t help that. It’s their right and privilege under the law,” said Rep. Tom McDonald, an Independence Democrat. “But extending that to 21-year-olds and giving kids that age the privilege to carry a gun leads to bigger problems.”
The firearms legislation must still win a second vote in the House before moving to the Senate for further consideration. Yet even if it fails, Missouri’s Capitol is still more welcoming to weapons than Kansas and some other states.
In Kansas, firearms — concealed or otherwise — are not allowed in the statehouse or in most other government buildings. State law does not prohibit the open carrying of firearms, so cities without local bans, such as Topeka, allow citizens to wear holstered firearms in public — though not in the statehouse.
Kansas was one of the last holdouts in the nation on concealed weapons, authorizing licenses in 2006 only after lawmakers overrode a veto by then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.
Now some lawmakers are trying to relax the rules, arguing that worries about concealed weapons have been proven false.
Rep. Forrest Knox, an Altoona Republican, this year pushed through the House a bill that would allow permit holders to take their concealed firearms into any public building, including university campuses and government buildings. The only exception would be buildings with “adequate” security, including metal detectors and armed guards.
Because the Kansas statehouse has only a small security detachment and a single metal detector at one of two public entrances, its security would not qualify as “adequate,” according to bill supporters.
Knox, who does not have a concealed weapons permit, said he was shocked by the lack of statehouse security when he was first elected. He lived in Israel for six years and said too many Americans were naive about the threat of violence.
“The things we hope never happen — a crazy comes with a gun — that’s really the real concern,” Knox said. “Somebody could come into this Capitol and do terrible things.”
Knox said some lawmakers, most of them women, have told him they have carried firearms in the statehouse, despite the prohibition.
Knox’s bill, however, faces a fight. The Senate this year is not likely to even consider the measure. And Sen. Jay Emler, a Lindsborg Republican who is chairman of the Joint Committee on Kansas Security, said he opposed any proposal to bring guns into the Capitol, a building often filled with visiting schoolchildren.
“We don’t need any firearms in the statehouse other than those carried by uniformed law enforcement,” Emler said.
Gov. Mark Parkinson, a Democrat, agreed, saying the idea of concealed weapons on college campuses was particularly worrisome. He said he supported Sebelius’ veto of concealed weapons and that it was a bad idea to relax the rules.
“I understand that people feel they have a right to bear arms and the Constitution verifies that. But there are reasonable limits that we should impose,” Parkinson said.
But Patricia Stoneking, president of the Kansas State Rifle Association, said logic was on the side of those pushing for the changes. The only people who follow concealed-weapon rules are law-abiding citizens, she said.
Every time she visits the statehouse, she said, she locks her concealed weapon in her car, but she does not like it.
“The only people disarming are the good guys,” Stoneking said. “The signs basically say ‘nobody in here has a gun and we have no way to defend ourselves.’ It’s like putting a bull’s-eye on the door.”
But if you are wondering which Missouri lawmakers might be packing heat now or in the future, forget it. Whether a person has a concealed-carry permit is confidential, and revealing a permit holder’s status is a misdemeanor. In fact, supporters of concealed carry often prefer not to publicize their status as permit holders.
When asked if she carried a weapon in the Capitol, or would if she had a permit, Riddle demurred.
“You know, it’s our Second Amendment right,” she said.
Others apparently don’t mind letting it be known they’re armed.
Rep. Curt Dougherty, an Independence Democrat, said he was taking the lawmakers’ training course and would get a permit upon completing the requirements. But the lifetime member of the National Rifle Association said he probably would not carry a gun on a regular basis.
“I always thought since that issue meant something to me, I should probably go out and get the license,” Dougherty said. “But I have no interest, really, in carrying a gun.”
Sponsoring the firearms class in Missouri is the legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus, a group of lawmakers who advocate for hunting, fishing and Second Amendment rights.
“We’ve got Republicans and Democrats,” said Rep. Jason Brown, a Platte City Republican and co-chairman of the caucus. “It’s very bipartisan.”
The course follows hunter-safety classes held earlier this year by the caucus. In coming weeks, the group will sponsor a trapshooting event and a turkey hunt for young hunters, co-sponsored by Gov. Jay Nixon.
The goal of each event is to advocate for activities that are culturally intrinsic to Missouri, caucus members said, but which may not be well understood in all parts of the state or by all lawmakers.
“Every caucus needs to have meaningful activities that meet up with their mission,” said Sen. Wes Shoemyer, a Clarence Democrat. “This is just one of those meaningful activities that meets up with the Sportsmen’s Caucus.”
The class is led by volunteer instructors, organizers said, although participants have been asked to make $50 contributions to the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, a national lobbying group and umbrella organization for state sportsmen’s caucuses.
State law requires eight hours of training to qualify for a concealed-carry permit. In the Kansas City area, those courses typically cost between $50 and $125.
The first class was held two weeks ago in the statehouse, but lessons were moved across town to a trade group’s headquarters when it came time to bring guns to class.
In the class’ final meeting later this month, participants must demonstrate their marksmanship. To pass, they must hit a target with at least 15 of 20 rounds from 7 yards away.
To reach Jason Noble, call 573-634-3565 or send e-mail to jnoble@kcstar.com. To reach David Klepper, call 785-354-1388 or send e-mail to dklepper@kcstar.com.
© 2010 Kansas City Star and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved. http://www.kansascity.com
Thursday, April 22, 2010
NASA Threatened by Talk of Intelligence
Here's another example for Ben Stein to use if makes a part 2. See the original article at HERE
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 4/22/2010 5:00:00 AM
A NASA employee in Pasadena, California, has filed suit over action taken against him for discussing intelligent design with other employees.
David Coppedge, an information technology specialist and system administrator on the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's mission to Saturn, claims he was harassed and demoted from a high-level job because he distributed DVDs that explain intelligent design.
Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Discovery Institute, tells OneNewsNow that NASA officials claimed intelligent design is religious material when it is really scientific.
"The evolution lobby has long claimed that intelligent design is religion and cannot be advocated in public schools," Luskin reports. "But now they are claiming that intelligent design is religion and cannot even be talked about at scientific research organizations, whose primary goal is to study the origin of life."
The only employees who received the DVDs were willing recipients, and the Discovery Institute attorney explains that Coppedge "would offer these pro-intelligent design DVDs to his coworkers, and if they said that they were not interested, he would drop the matter. He was not pushy in trying to share these DVDs with his coworkers," Luskin assures.
Nonetheless, the NASA employee was accused of promoting ideas in a fashion that was unwelcome and disruptive, and he was charged with creating a hostile work environment. Action was taken without Coppedge being allowed to even see evidence against him, so now he is suing for religious discrimination, harassment and retaliation, violation of his free-speech rights, and wrongful demotion.
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 4/22/2010 5:00:00 AM
A NASA employee in Pasadena, California, has filed suit over action taken against him for discussing intelligent design with other employees.
David Coppedge, an information technology specialist and system administrator on the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's mission to Saturn, claims he was harassed and demoted from a high-level job because he distributed DVDs that explain intelligent design.
Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Discovery Institute, tells OneNewsNow that NASA officials claimed intelligent design is religious material when it is really scientific.
"The evolution lobby has long claimed that intelligent design is religion and cannot be advocated in public schools," Luskin reports. "But now they are claiming that intelligent design is religion and cannot even be talked about at scientific research organizations, whose primary goal is to study the origin of life."
The only employees who received the DVDs were willing recipients, and the Discovery Institute attorney explains that Coppedge "would offer these pro-intelligent design DVDs to his coworkers, and if they said that they were not interested, he would drop the matter. He was not pushy in trying to share these DVDs with his coworkers," Luskin assures.
Nonetheless, the NASA employee was accused of promoting ideas in a fashion that was unwelcome and disruptive, and he was charged with creating a hostile work environment. Action was taken without Coppedge being allowed to even see evidence against him, so now he is suing for religious discrimination, harassment and retaliation, violation of his free-speech rights, and wrongful demotion.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Obama 'amused' by Tea Parties (OneNewsNow.com)
Chad Groening 4/21/3010 OneNewsNow
One of the most conservative members of Congress says President Obama must be completely out of touch with reality for making light of the recent Tea Party gatherings around the country.
Read the full article at:
Obama 'amused' by Tea Parties (OneNewsNow.com)
One of the most conservative members of Congress says President Obama must be completely out of touch with reality for making light of the recent Tea Party gatherings around the country.
Read the full article at:
Obama 'amused' by Tea Parties (OneNewsNow.com)
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
A true Christian hero (OneNewsNow.com)
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German pastor and author who became a force for good, working against the unfathomable evil of Nazism. It cost him his life.
A true Christian hero (OneNewsNow.com)
A true Christian hero (OneNewsNow.com)
Monday, April 19, 2010
Darwin Taught Male Superiority
I so appreciate Answers In Genesis. You can find the link to the original article HERE.
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.January 1, 2007
According to Charles Darwin, the central mechanism of evolution is survival of the fittest. In this concept, inferior animals are more likely to become extinct while the superior ones are more likely to thrive.1 The racism that this idea has produced has now been both well-documented and widely publicized.2 Less widely known is the fact that many evolutionists, including Darwin, taught that women were both biologically and intellectually inferior to men.
Reasons for Inferiority
According to Darwinian theory, women were less evolved than men, and because of their smaller brains, they were “eternally primitive,” childlike, less spiritual, more materialistic, and “a real danger to contemporary civilization.”3 The supposed intelligence gap that many leading Darwinists believed existed between human males and females was so large that some leading Darwinists classified them as two distinct species—males as Homo frontalis and females as Homo parietalis.4 The differences were so great that Darwin was amazed “such different beings belong to the same species.”5
Reasons for male superiority included the conclusion that war and hunting pruned the weaker men, allowing only the most fit to return home and reproduce. Women, in contrast, were not subject to these selection pressures but were protected by men, allowing the weak to survive.6
Darwin’s Writings and Opinions Regarding Women
Many Darwin biographers, including Peter Brent and Evelleen Richards, conclude that Darwin had a low opinion of women. Brent concluded, “It would be hard to conceive of a more self-indulgent, almost contemptuous, view of the subservience of women to men” than Darwin’s attitude.7 Richards writes that Darwin had “clearly defined opinions on women’s intellectual inferiority and her subservient status.”8
Darwin taught that women were both biologically and intellectually inferior to men.
Darwin’s writings and those of his disciples reveal that the belief of women inferiority was central to early evolutionary theory. In The Descent of Man Darwin argued that adult females of most species resembled the young of both sexes and that “males are more evolutionarily advanced than females.”9
Darwin’s Influence
This degrading view of women rapidly spread to Darwin’s scientific and academic contemporaries during the late Victorian period10 and heavily influenced many theorists who had a major role in shaping the following generation—from Sigmund Freud to Havelock Ellis.11 Evelleen Richards concludes that Darwin’s views about women logically followed from his theory, “thereby nourishing several generations of scientific sexism.”12 Importantly, as a result of Darwin’s ideas, scientists were inspired to use biology to build support for the position that women were “manifestly inferior and irreversibly subordinate” to men, thus impacting all of society.13 Darwinian thinking supported the idea that men were superior to women, which was already within many cultures. Darwin simply gave credence to this unbiblical teaching.
Contrasting Ideas
In contrast to this evolutionary teaching, the Scriptures teach that all humans descended from Adam and Eve, and all are brothers and sisters. Furthermore, in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ” (Galatians 3:28, NIV). Men and women, like Jews, Greeks, slaves, and free people, have equality of personhood before God. One is not superior to another, though their roles in life may differ.
Dr. Jerry Bergman has published over 700 articles and books and has earned nine degrees. He has served as a consultant for CBS News, ABC News, and Reader’s Digest. Dr. Bergman has also taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology at Northwest State College in Archbold, Ohio (USA) for 20 years.
Visit www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/females.asp for an in-depth look at what Darwin believed about women.
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.January 1, 2007
According to Charles Darwin, the central mechanism of evolution is survival of the fittest. In this concept, inferior animals are more likely to become extinct while the superior ones are more likely to thrive.1 The racism that this idea has produced has now been both well-documented and widely publicized.2 Less widely known is the fact that many evolutionists, including Darwin, taught that women were both biologically and intellectually inferior to men.
Reasons for Inferiority
According to Darwinian theory, women were less evolved than men, and because of their smaller brains, they were “eternally primitive,” childlike, less spiritual, more materialistic, and “a real danger to contemporary civilization.”3 The supposed intelligence gap that many leading Darwinists believed existed between human males and females was so large that some leading Darwinists classified them as two distinct species—males as Homo frontalis and females as Homo parietalis.4 The differences were so great that Darwin was amazed “such different beings belong to the same species.”5
Reasons for male superiority included the conclusion that war and hunting pruned the weaker men, allowing only the most fit to return home and reproduce. Women, in contrast, were not subject to these selection pressures but were protected by men, allowing the weak to survive.6
Darwin’s Writings and Opinions Regarding Women
Many Darwin biographers, including Peter Brent and Evelleen Richards, conclude that Darwin had a low opinion of women. Brent concluded, “It would be hard to conceive of a more self-indulgent, almost contemptuous, view of the subservience of women to men” than Darwin’s attitude.7 Richards writes that Darwin had “clearly defined opinions on women’s intellectual inferiority and her subservient status.”8
Darwin taught that women were both biologically and intellectually inferior to men.
Darwin’s writings and those of his disciples reveal that the belief of women inferiority was central to early evolutionary theory. In The Descent of Man Darwin argued that adult females of most species resembled the young of both sexes and that “males are more evolutionarily advanced than females.”9
Darwin’s Influence
This degrading view of women rapidly spread to Darwin’s scientific and academic contemporaries during the late Victorian period10 and heavily influenced many theorists who had a major role in shaping the following generation—from Sigmund Freud to Havelock Ellis.11 Evelleen Richards concludes that Darwin’s views about women logically followed from his theory, “thereby nourishing several generations of scientific sexism.”12 Importantly, as a result of Darwin’s ideas, scientists were inspired to use biology to build support for the position that women were “manifestly inferior and irreversibly subordinate” to men, thus impacting all of society.13 Darwinian thinking supported the idea that men were superior to women, which was already within many cultures. Darwin simply gave credence to this unbiblical teaching.
Contrasting Ideas
In contrast to this evolutionary teaching, the Scriptures teach that all humans descended from Adam and Eve, and all are brothers and sisters. Furthermore, in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ” (Galatians 3:28, NIV). Men and women, like Jews, Greeks, slaves, and free people, have equality of personhood before God. One is not superior to another, though their roles in life may differ.
Dr. Jerry Bergman has published over 700 articles and books and has earned nine degrees. He has served as a consultant for CBS News, ABC News, and Reader’s Digest. Dr. Bergman has also taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology at Northwest State College in Archbold, Ohio (USA) for 20 years.
Visit www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/females.asp for an in-depth look at what Darwin believed about women.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Are Christians Outcasts in United States
Christians and moralists in the United States have been far too tolerant and silent for far too long. Now we are outcasts in our own Country--even though our Country was founded upon principles that are the very tenets of our faith in God. As we attempt to restore our Country to its former moral stature, those with whom we have been tolerant will not be tolerant in return. I predict that Christians will experience persecution like never before seen here in the United States, as the powers of darkness seek to retain control.
Rather than evangelizing unbelievers for the past several decades, those unbelievers demanded tolerance (and we complied). We told them they could believe whatever they wanted, just so long as they didn't force it on anyone else. Well guess what? They're not going to return the favor with us. If the Christians, tea partiers and others dissatisfied with the current direction of our government do not find a way to unite themselves in order to reclaim our Country...we are sunk!
Now is NOT the time to divide over theological and worship differences. Now IS the time to unite around the U.S. Constitution, read it, memorize it, read it in conjunction with the Federalist Papers. We must know our Constitution and the Federalist Papers so well that we know when someone is quoting it correctly...or not. And, we must know them well enough to be able to tell when the U.S. Supreme Court lays a big egg (like Roe v. Wade). The time for doctrinal isolation and purity is in the private worship sector. By all means, worship God in the manner you see fit in your church or house of worship. However, you must come to terms with those who worship differently than you in order to save our nation from it's public woes.
Do NOT interpret any of the above to mean that I think abortion is a "right," "personal decision," or "states' rights" issue. I believe our founding documents clearly uphold the value of life, even pre-born life. It is always interesting to me that those who push abortion as a legal right are always those who have already been born.
Abortion is one social issue upon which all Christian faiths ought to agree; an issue upon which all moral people ought to agree. Yet, ironically, abortion is the one issue that divides the supposedly conservative Republican Party, even though their platform is a pro-life platform. Until Christians and all moral people can come to terms on the issue of abortion, we will never see our Country restored to constitutional rule.
America's democratic republic [IMHO we are a Constitutional Republic] came about because, by God's providence, people who were highly influential American leaders at the time followed the discipline of faith and reason to conclusions about justice that recognized the right of the people to govern themselves. What leaders will do so now? Whoever they are, they represent the leaders the Tea Party movement needs to lift up as its representatives if, as its name implies, it is to be a faithful reiteration of the fabled spirit of 1776. Where will they be found? One thing is certain: not among those touted by the "Great Mentioners" in the puppet media, or in any way served up by the "God is unmentionable" crowd in control of the present party system. ~Dr. Alan Keyes, Which is Really the Third Party?, Sat. 17 April 2010.
Let's make God publicly mentionable again, and not just as a curse word. The atheists among us have just as much right NOT to listen as we do to speak. Speaking about your faith is NOT hate speech. Speaking about the consequences of Heaven and Hell is NOT hate speech. Condemning the act of homosexuality is NOT hate speech. What first brought the Pilgrims to the New World was the desire to be free to worship God in the manner they thought best represented the example of worship followed by the early church. Now, some 230+ years later, God is the great unmentionable in both major parties.
Those two parties, Democrats and Republicans, have surreptitiously enacted election laws at all levels of government which virtually assure that no candidate outside those two parties will ever be able to campaign for elected office. What's worse, they have convinced the supposedly conservative party (Republicans) that if the conservatives don't vote for the GOP candidate, no matter how bad a choice he/she may be, that it will guarantee a Democrat win. If you repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth, right? And, so the people are so afraid of "splitting the conservative vote" they won't vote for the best candidate if they don't believe that candidate can win. It has become the total opposite of what our revered Founders intended.
It is time for all sects of the Christian faith to rise up in support of the U.S. Constitution, and for the morality that it espouses. It is time for all sects of the Christian faith to let go of the lie that a woman has the right to choose between herself and her baby--who advocates for the baby? The woman has a voice, but her pre-born offspring does not.
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. Please don't stay on the couch. Please get involved, and please don't trust either of the two major parties to tell you the truth about their candidate. They're not in it for the good of the Country. They're in it for the power high it gives them--why else would politicians (and parties) spend millions of dollars campaigning for a Congressional seat that pays only $174,000 per year? Folks, when are you going to realize that we are being screwed by BOTH parties?
Christians and moralists in the United States have been far too tolerant and silent for far too long. Now we are outcasts in our own Country--even though our Country was founded upon principles that are the very tenets of our faith in God. As we attempt to restore our Country to its former moral stature, those with whom we have been tolerant will not be tolerant in return. I predict that Christians will experience persecution like never before seen here in the United States, as the powers of darkness seek to retain control.
Rather than evangelizing unbelievers for the past several decades, those unbelievers demanded tolerance (and we complied). We told them they could believe whatever they wanted, just so long as they didn't force it on anyone else. Well guess what? They're not going to return the favor with us. If the Christians, tea partiers and others dissatisfied with the current direction of our government do not find a way to unite themselves in order to reclaim our Country...we are sunk!
Now is NOT the time to divide over theological and worship differences. Now IS the time to unite around the U.S. Constitution, read it, memorize it, read it in conjunction with the Federalist Papers. We must know our Constitution and the Federalist Papers so well that we know when someone is quoting it correctly...or not. And, we must know them well enough to be able to tell when the U.S. Supreme Court lays a big egg (like Roe v. Wade). The time for doctrinal isolation and purity is in the private worship sector. By all means, worship God in the manner you see fit in your church or house of worship. However, you must come to terms with those who worship differently than you in order to save our nation from it's public woes.
Do NOT interpret any of the above to mean that I think abortion is a "right," "personal decision," or "states' rights" issue. I believe our founding documents clearly uphold the value of life, even pre-born life. It is always interesting to me that those who push abortion as a legal right are always those who have already been born.
Abortion is one social issue upon which all Christian faiths ought to agree; an issue upon which all moral people ought to agree. Yet, ironically, abortion is the one issue that divides the supposedly conservative Republican Party, even though their platform is a pro-life platform. Until Christians and all moral people can come to terms on the issue of abortion, we will never see our Country restored to constitutional rule.
America's democratic republic [IMHO we are a Constitutional Republic] came about because, by God's providence, people who were highly influential American leaders at the time followed the discipline of faith and reason to conclusions about justice that recognized the right of the people to govern themselves. What leaders will do so now? Whoever they are, they represent the leaders the Tea Party movement needs to lift up as its representatives if, as its name implies, it is to be a faithful reiteration of the fabled spirit of 1776. Where will they be found? One thing is certain: not among those touted by the "Great Mentioners" in the puppet media, or in any way served up by the "God is unmentionable" crowd in control of the present party system. ~Dr. Alan Keyes, Which is Really the Third Party?, Sat. 17 April 2010.
Let's make God publicly mentionable again, and not just as a curse word. The atheists among us have just as much right NOT to listen as we do to speak. Speaking about your faith is NOT hate speech. Speaking about the consequences of Heaven and Hell is NOT hate speech. Condemning the act of homosexuality is NOT hate speech. What first brought the Pilgrims to the New World was the desire to be free to worship God in the manner they thought best represented the example of worship followed by the early church. Now, some 230+ years later, God is the great unmentionable in both major parties.
Those two parties, Democrats and Republicans, have surreptitiously enacted election laws at all levels of government which virtually assure that no candidate outside those two parties will ever be able to campaign for elected office. What's worse, they have convinced the supposedly conservative party (Republicans) that if the conservatives don't vote for the GOP candidate, no matter how bad a choice he/she may be, that it will guarantee a Democrat win. If you repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth, right? And, so the people are so afraid of "splitting the conservative vote" they won't vote for the best candidate if they don't believe that candidate can win. It has become the total opposite of what our revered Founders intended.
It is time for all sects of the Christian faith to rise up in support of the U.S. Constitution, and for the morality that it espouses. It is time for all sects of the Christian faith to let go of the lie that a woman has the right to choose between herself and her baby--who advocates for the baby? The woman has a voice, but her pre-born offspring does not.
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. Please don't stay on the couch. Please get involved, and please don't trust either of the two major parties to tell you the truth about their candidate. They're not in it for the good of the Country. They're in it for the power high it gives them--why else would politicians (and parties) spend millions of dollars campaigning for a Congressional seat that pays only $174,000 per year? Folks, when are you going to realize that we are being screwed by BOTH parties?
Chinese city detains 1,300 in compulsory sterilisation drive
I originally found out about this from Ladies Against Feminism, but the origianl link is here.
By Mail Foreign Service
Last updated at 4:44 PM on 16th April 2010
Chinese family planning authorities have detained 1,300 people to sterilise as part of a crackdown on parents who violate strict birth control rules.
Authorities in Puning, a city in southern China's Guangdong province, have detained the men and women against their will in cramped offices, according to state media.
There they are being forced to listen to lectures on laws limiting the size of families.
Officials in Puning last week launched a 20-day campaign to sterilise 9,559 women or their husbands who they suspect of planning to have a second or third child.
State media said that half of that number have so far agreed to comply.
The Nanfang Countryside Daily reported that those detained included parents who refused to undergo a surgical sterilisation procedure and their 'relatives'.
Among those held are the elderly parents of those who have tried to evade the family planning authorities. The newspaper claimed that on April 10 some 100 people, mostly old, were seen inside a 200 metre square building at a family planning centre.
The newspaper reported: 'There were some mats on the floor, but the room was too small for all the people to lie down and sleep, so the young ones had to stand or squat. Due to the lack of quilts, many cuddled up to fight the cold.'
An employee at the Puning Population and Family Bureau told the publication: 'It's not uncommon for family planning authorities to adopt some tough tactics.'
Among those being held was the 64-year-old father of Huang Ruifeng, who already has three daughters.
Mr Huang told the Global Times: 'Several days ago, a village official called me and asked me or my wife to return for the surgery. Otherwise they would take away my father.'
China launched its 'one couple, one child' rule in the late 1970s. The policy has some exceptions for groups including rural farmers whose first child is a daughter and ethnic minorities.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1266574/Chinese-city-detains-1-300-compulsory-sterilisation-drive.html#ixzz0lPPuTrpH
By Mail Foreign Service
Last updated at 4:44 PM on 16th April 2010
Chinese family planning authorities have detained 1,300 people to sterilise as part of a crackdown on parents who violate strict birth control rules.
Authorities in Puning, a city in southern China's Guangdong province, have detained the men and women against their will in cramped offices, according to state media.
There they are being forced to listen to lectures on laws limiting the size of families.
Officials in Puning last week launched a 20-day campaign to sterilise 9,559 women or their husbands who they suspect of planning to have a second or third child.
State media said that half of that number have so far agreed to comply.
The Nanfang Countryside Daily reported that those detained included parents who refused to undergo a surgical sterilisation procedure and their 'relatives'.
Among those held are the elderly parents of those who have tried to evade the family planning authorities. The newspaper claimed that on April 10 some 100 people, mostly old, were seen inside a 200 metre square building at a family planning centre.
The newspaper reported: 'There were some mats on the floor, but the room was too small for all the people to lie down and sleep, so the young ones had to stand or squat. Due to the lack of quilts, many cuddled up to fight the cold.'
An employee at the Puning Population and Family Bureau told the publication: 'It's not uncommon for family planning authorities to adopt some tough tactics.'
Among those being held was the 64-year-old father of Huang Ruifeng, who already has three daughters.
Mr Huang told the Global Times: 'Several days ago, a village official called me and asked me or my wife to return for the surgery. Otherwise they would take away my father.'
China launched its 'one couple, one child' rule in the late 1970s. The policy has some exceptions for groups including rural farmers whose first child is a daughter and ethnic minorities.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1266574/Chinese-city-detains-1-300-compulsory-sterilisation-drive.html#ixzz0lPPuTrpH
Friday, April 16, 2010
Same Old: Liberals Then & Now
By Ben Stein on 4.15.10 @ 6:09AM
Editor's note: Back in 1976, when Gerald Ford was President, Ben Stein, then a consultant on Washington and conservatism for the Normal Lear show All's Fair, sent this memorandum to its creators:
What I don't like is the way rich liberals, who have made their money through the operations of the capitalist system and who would be miserable bureaucratic cogs in a socialist system, are nevertheless socialists. I suspect that a large part of their motivation is a style of asceticism which has been fashionable among the rich since the time of the Pharisees. Another motivation for the rich liberals to dislike the capitalist system is that they have already gotten theirs and they don't want to be challenged by other people coming along and getting theirs.
I don't like the way liberals of any income group assume that they have a monopoly on morality and that the only conscionable position on issues is their position. A sanctimoniousness runs in the liberal mind which is a direct descendant of the Calvinist assuredness of moral superiority. Liberals assume that any challenge to their position comes from impure motives, often motivations having to do with "profit and loss" instead of the "human" factors that liberals allegedly consider. I resent the assumption of liberals that only they truly understand human needs and suffering.
To read the rest of this article, click here.
Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes "Ben Stein's Diary" for every issue of The American Spectator.
Editor's note: Back in 1976, when Gerald Ford was President, Ben Stein, then a consultant on Washington and conservatism for the Normal Lear show All's Fair, sent this memorandum to its creators:
What I don't like is the way rich liberals, who have made their money through the operations of the capitalist system and who would be miserable bureaucratic cogs in a socialist system, are nevertheless socialists. I suspect that a large part of their motivation is a style of asceticism which has been fashionable among the rich since the time of the Pharisees. Another motivation for the rich liberals to dislike the capitalist system is that they have already gotten theirs and they don't want to be challenged by other people coming along and getting theirs.
I don't like the way liberals of any income group assume that they have a monopoly on morality and that the only conscionable position on issues is their position. A sanctimoniousness runs in the liberal mind which is a direct descendant of the Calvinist assuredness of moral superiority. Liberals assume that any challenge to their position comes from impure motives, often motivations having to do with "profit and loss" instead of the "human" factors that liberals allegedly consider. I resent the assumption of liberals that only they truly understand human needs and suffering.
To read the rest of this article, click here.
Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes "Ben Stein's Diary" for every issue of The American Spectator.
Liberal vs Conservative: A Difference in Species
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 4.15.10 @ 6:09AM
WASHINGTON -- The pro-abortion lobby cannot be happy about a law that has just been passed and signed in faraway Nebraska. There anti-abortion forces must have clout. The law bans most abortions 20 weeks after conception on the basis of "fetal pain.” Thus the Nebraskan pro-life advocates are saying that the suffering of a fetus is at least as important as the suffering of a chicken at a poultry processing plant or of a stray dog picked up by the animal control authorities. For Liberalism this could mean still more Liberal crack-up, as sympathizers for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and other advocates of animal rights are put in the awkward position of contemplating the pain suffered by that biological inconvenience that civilized Americans still call a fetus. If they contemplate with sufficient intelligence, they might conclude that a fetus has rights.
Naturally pro-abortionists are promising a huge legal battle. There will be claims that the fetus does not suffer. Experts will be called in. The case will be as acrimonious as every abortion controversy has been since 1973 when through the courts pro-abortionists forced legalized abortion on the entire country. Had the question of abortion been left to legislatures, doubtless the process would have become legal in some states but not in others. Federalism's genius would abide. Diversity would exist.
Yet Liberal justices on the Supreme Court found a "right” in the Constitution that never is mentioned in that document, the right to privacy. Thus was abortion brought down on the nation, not through the will of the majority but through the willfulness of a minority, the Liberals.
The entire controversy brings to mind a thesis of mine about Liberals and conservatives that I elaborate on enthusiastically in my new book, After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery, which comes out this coming week. The Liberal has the political libido of a nymphomaniac, at times of a sex offender. It is impossible to restrain. By comparison, the conservatives' political libido is more subject to reason and restraint. Almost nothing restrains the Liberals' political activism. Conservatives' are more disciplined. Process matters to them.
Consider how differently the conservative President Ronald Reagan handled abortion from how President Barack Obama handled healthcare. Reagan opposed abortion but realized that a large number of Americans favored it, perhaps not a majority but a large enough minority to render it reckless for him to force the issue. He chose persuasion and restrained his political impulse. Obama undertook healthcare reform recognizing that it was controversial. As Obamacare became ever more far-reaching and opposition to it grew to the point that a majority opposed it, the President just rammed his reform through. Today 58% favor repeal. There has been violence from both sides. The country is torn over yet another Liberal grand design.
In the culture wars there is a new battleground, healthcare. The battle is going to last as long as the abortion battles have lasted, unless Obamacare can be repealed. Increasingly the law looks like it might be repealed for the law really is a slapdash creation, but you see my point. As with abortion so too with healthcare the Liberal political libido went wild. No restraint was shown. Tremendous anger replaced the mild dissatisfaction a significant number of Americans felt about the healthcare system.
In Hangover I argue that so different is the Liberal political libido from the conservative political libido that at least when it comes to politics Liberals and conservatives are not members of the same species. Let those who decry "gridlock” on Capitol Hill think about that. When the Liberals and the conservatives confront each other, it is as though Homo habilis were confronting Homo sapiens. That is not a happy thought, though I at least take heart in knowing which of the aforementioned species survived.
Bob Tyrrell is founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. His new book, After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery, is being published this month by Thomas Nelson. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn't Work: Social Democracy's Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; and The Clinton Crack-Up.
He makes frequent appearance on national television and is a nationally syndicated columnist, whose articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Baltimore Sun, Washington Times, National Review, Harper's, Commentary, The (London) Spectator, Le Figaro (Paris), and elsewhere.
Bob is also an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute and a contributing editor to the New York Sun.
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 4.15.10 @ 6:09AM
WASHINGTON -- The pro-abortion lobby cannot be happy about a law that has just been passed and signed in faraway Nebraska. There anti-abortion forces must have clout. The law bans most abortions 20 weeks after conception on the basis of "fetal pain.” Thus the Nebraskan pro-life advocates are saying that the suffering of a fetus is at least as important as the suffering of a chicken at a poultry processing plant or of a stray dog picked up by the animal control authorities. For Liberalism this could mean still more Liberal crack-up, as sympathizers for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and other advocates of animal rights are put in the awkward position of contemplating the pain suffered by that biological inconvenience that civilized Americans still call a fetus. If they contemplate with sufficient intelligence, they might conclude that a fetus has rights.
Naturally pro-abortionists are promising a huge legal battle. There will be claims that the fetus does not suffer. Experts will be called in. The case will be as acrimonious as every abortion controversy has been since 1973 when through the courts pro-abortionists forced legalized abortion on the entire country. Had the question of abortion been left to legislatures, doubtless the process would have become legal in some states but not in others. Federalism's genius would abide. Diversity would exist.
Yet Liberal justices on the Supreme Court found a "right” in the Constitution that never is mentioned in that document, the right to privacy. Thus was abortion brought down on the nation, not through the will of the majority but through the willfulness of a minority, the Liberals.
The entire controversy brings to mind a thesis of mine about Liberals and conservatives that I elaborate on enthusiastically in my new book, After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery, which comes out this coming week. The Liberal has the political libido of a nymphomaniac, at times of a sex offender. It is impossible to restrain. By comparison, the conservatives' political libido is more subject to reason and restraint. Almost nothing restrains the Liberals' political activism. Conservatives' are more disciplined. Process matters to them.
Consider how differently the conservative President Ronald Reagan handled abortion from how President Barack Obama handled healthcare. Reagan opposed abortion but realized that a large number of Americans favored it, perhaps not a majority but a large enough minority to render it reckless for him to force the issue. He chose persuasion and restrained his political impulse. Obama undertook healthcare reform recognizing that it was controversial. As Obamacare became ever more far-reaching and opposition to it grew to the point that a majority opposed it, the President just rammed his reform through. Today 58% favor repeal. There has been violence from both sides. The country is torn over yet another Liberal grand design.
In the culture wars there is a new battleground, healthcare. The battle is going to last as long as the abortion battles have lasted, unless Obamacare can be repealed. Increasingly the law looks like it might be repealed for the law really is a slapdash creation, but you see my point. As with abortion so too with healthcare the Liberal political libido went wild. No restraint was shown. Tremendous anger replaced the mild dissatisfaction a significant number of Americans felt about the healthcare system.
In Hangover I argue that so different is the Liberal political libido from the conservative political libido that at least when it comes to politics Liberals and conservatives are not members of the same species. Let those who decry "gridlock” on Capitol Hill think about that. When the Liberals and the conservatives confront each other, it is as though Homo habilis were confronting Homo sapiens. That is not a happy thought, though I at least take heart in knowing which of the aforementioned species survived.
Bob Tyrrell is founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. His new book, After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery, is being published this month by Thomas Nelson. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn't Work: Social Democracy's Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; and The Clinton Crack-Up.
He makes frequent appearance on national television and is a nationally syndicated columnist, whose articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Baltimore Sun, Washington Times, National Review, Harper's, Commentary, The (London) Spectator, Le Figaro (Paris), and elsewhere.
Bob is also an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute and a contributing editor to the New York Sun.
Prayer Ruling "Flawed"
Charlie Butts and Jody Brown - OneNewsNow - 4/16/2010 7:50:00 AM
At least one Christian legal firm says yesterday's ruling on the National Day of Prayer is flawed and likely will be overturned.
On Thursday in Wisconsin, U.S. Federal Judge Barbara Crabb ruled in favor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which argued that the government setting aside a day of prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, FFRF is challenging the constitutionality of a 1988 federal law giving the president of the United States the authority to designate the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer.
In her ruling, Crabb wrote that government involvement in prayer is constitutional only as long as it does not call for religious action, which the prayer day does.
"It goes beyond mere 'acknowledgment' of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context," the judge wrote. "In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience."
Attorney Jordan Sekulow of the American Center for Law & Justice says Crabb's decision is "flawed."
"The Establishment Clause is to mandate the federal government from establishing a national church, to say that you have to read a specific Bible or to say a specific prayer," he clarifies. "That's not what's done in this National Day of Prayer Proclamation. Here, we are again just signifying and looking back on our history, respecting our history of the founding of the Judeo-Christian country."
Sekulow says the decision will be quickly appealed.
"We represented...31 members of Congress [in the case]," says the attorney. "We'll be ready to file our amicus brief to the appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals -- and I'm sure the president and the White House, the executive branch, are getting their appeal ready as well."
Meanwhile, the White House has indicated President Obama will go ahead with issuing a proclamation for this year's event, schedule for Thursday, May 6. In her ruling, Judge Crabb indicated this year's day of prayer will go on as planned.
Ruling described as 'atrocious'
Congressman Randy Forbes (R-Virginia) is one of the 31 members of Congress mentioned by Sekulow. He says Thursday's decision "represents a movement we are seeing across the country of a small minority who want to exclude faith, religion, and morality from the marketplace of ideas" and "seeks to unravel [the] very foundation our nation was built upon."
Forbes, who founded and chairs the Congressional Prayer Caucus, calls the decision "atrocious," but says it shows the importance of elections, since the president appoints federal judges and the Senate confirms them.
"I think it's an atrocious decision, one that I certainly hope can be turned around on appeal," says the congressman. "This is one judge -- but I think it should bring attention to the fact that elections do matter, because elections determine who are going to be sitting in those benches."
Forbes says the judge's ruling will likely make this year's prayers more intense than ever. "I think you're going to see a greater intensity level this May on the National Day of Prayer -- and perhaps that will turn into a very good thing," he suggests.
Charlie Butts and Jody Brown - OneNewsNow - 4/16/2010 7:50:00 AM
At least one Christian legal firm says yesterday's ruling on the National Day of Prayer is flawed and likely will be overturned.
On Thursday in Wisconsin, U.S. Federal Judge Barbara Crabb ruled in favor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which argued that the government setting aside a day of prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, FFRF is challenging the constitutionality of a 1988 federal law giving the president of the United States the authority to designate the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer.
In her ruling, Crabb wrote that government involvement in prayer is constitutional only as long as it does not call for religious action, which the prayer day does.
"It goes beyond mere 'acknowledgment' of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context," the judge wrote. "In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience."
Attorney Jordan Sekulow of the American Center for Law & Justice says Crabb's decision is "flawed."
"The Establishment Clause is to mandate the federal government from establishing a national church, to say that you have to read a specific Bible or to say a specific prayer," he clarifies. "That's not what's done in this National Day of Prayer Proclamation. Here, we are again just signifying and looking back on our history, respecting our history of the founding of the Judeo-Christian country."
Sekulow says the decision will be quickly appealed.
"We represented...31 members of Congress [in the case]," says the attorney. "We'll be ready to file our amicus brief to the appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals -- and I'm sure the president and the White House, the executive branch, are getting their appeal ready as well."
Meanwhile, the White House has indicated President Obama will go ahead with issuing a proclamation for this year's event, schedule for Thursday, May 6. In her ruling, Judge Crabb indicated this year's day of prayer will go on as planned.
Ruling described as 'atrocious'
Congressman Randy Forbes (R-Virginia) is one of the 31 members of Congress mentioned by Sekulow. He says Thursday's decision "represents a movement we are seeing across the country of a small minority who want to exclude faith, religion, and morality from the marketplace of ideas" and "seeks to unravel [the] very foundation our nation was built upon."
Forbes, who founded and chairs the Congressional Prayer Caucus, calls the decision "atrocious," but says it shows the importance of elections, since the president appoints federal judges and the Senate confirms them.
"I think it's an atrocious decision, one that I certainly hope can be turned around on appeal," says the congressman. "This is one judge -- but I think it should bring attention to the fact that elections do matter, because elections determine who are going to be sitting in those benches."
Forbes says the judge's ruling will likely make this year's prayers more intense than ever. "I think you're going to see a greater intensity level this May on the National Day of Prayer -- and perhaps that will turn into a very good thing," he suggests.
Reagan Quote
"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size.
Government programs, once launched, never disappear.
Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to
eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!"
-- Ronald Reagan
(1911-2004) 40th US President
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Ronald.Reagan.Quote.F1B8
Government programs, once launched, never disappear.
Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to
eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!"
-- Ronald Reagan
(1911-2004) 40th US President
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Ronald.Reagan.Quote.F1B8
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
An email funny
My SIL sent this to me. It's scary because be it's funny but so TRUE!
The Fence
If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative is interested in consuming less energy, he quietly pursues efficiency and moderation. A liberal burns up huge amounts of energy telling everyone how concerned he is about cutting down energy usage.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.(Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh. A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".
Well, I forwarded it to you, so you know where I sit!
The Fence
If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative is interested in consuming less energy, he quietly pursues efficiency and moderation. A liberal burns up huge amounts of energy telling everyone how concerned he is about cutting down energy usage.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.(Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh. A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".
Well, I forwarded it to you, so you know where I sit!
Sunday, April 11, 2010
The Truth About Women That Feminists Don’t Want You to Know
This article is from Ladies Against Feminism.
Posted By Anna Sofia & Elizabeth Botkin on April 9, 2010
The recent naming of Nancy Pelosi as the “most powerful woman in American history” has sparked national discussion on both the history of women in America and the nature of woman’s power. As Speaker of the House, Mrs. Pelosi holds the highest civic position any American woman has held to date, and her hand in putting through the recent Health Care Bill will have huge historic implications. Though we don’t see it as a great advance for women to finally be oppressed by one of our own, this is undeniably a kind of power.
But behind this recent tribute to Mrs. Pelosi is this presupposition: “Women find their power in holding the positions of men – the traditional women’s role has no power. The power traditional women exercised in the past doesn’t count.”
Americans are ready to believe this because they long ago adopted a feminist view of history. Before feminism led women from the kitchen to the boardroom, we are told, women’s minds withered in the confines of a “comfortable concentration camp,” their talents never developed or given room to benefit society. Before feminism bought women the positions of men, woman’s influence was hushed and smothered beneath the oppression of male dominance. Before feminism invented justice, equality, and rights for women, women were deprived of education, opportunities, property, and power.
All thanks to feminism, we are now surely the strongest, smartest, most capable, most valued, best educated generation of women the West has ever seen. So we are to believe.
But despite feminism’s revisions of history, the truth is impossible to fully conceal when the light of strong, brilliant women glimmers through from supposedly dark eras. The general response, when a particularly intelligent and spirited woman appears in a Christian, patriarchal society, is to quickly recruit her as a proto-feminist, an anomaly of her time. Consider this typical approach to Abigail Adams, from the feminist biography Dearest Friend: “Abigail Adams was, in many ways, a prisoner of the times in which she lived, and her views on women’s role in society and on politics reflect that fact.” [1]
Were the Abigail Adamses flukes of history, born out of a void? Or did they come out of societies that were all about producing women like Abigail Adams? In this article we would like to let the women and facts speak for themselves. We will see that the reason feminism must reinterpret the facts is because it cannot stand on the legs of real history.
Our Forgotten Mothers
America has a rich legacy of powerful womanhood, integral to its very foundation and strength. Consider the inscription on the Monument to the Pilgrim Mothers in Plymouth, Massachusetts: “They brought up their families in sturdy virtue and a living faith in God without which nations perish.” As America was fighting to establish herself as an independent nation, their foe British general Lord Cornwallis despaired, “We may destroy all the men in America, and we shall still have all we can do to defeat the women.” [2]
After 200 years of cultivated feminine strength in America, French journalist Alexis de Tocqueville concluded his great work Democracy in America: “[I]f I were asked, now that I am drawing to the close of this work, in which I have spoken of so many important things done by the Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply: To the superiority of their women.”[3]
There is a great heritage of strength and even power that should be our birthright as American daughters. But how many of us are making good on that birthright? How many of us could claim to be as selflessly intrepid as the pilgrim women? How many of us are as brave as the wives of the signers? How many as enterprising and resourceful as those who helped build colonial culture and economy? How many as unflappable and capable as the women who civilized the Wild West? How many as poised and gracious as the White House hostesses and army wives whose savoir faire helped advance their husbands? How many as wise and educated as our founding mothers?
In many ways, our pajama-wearing, text-messaging, Me-generation is America’s weak generation of women. To paraphrase de Tocqueville’s quote, if you were to ask us now to what we would attribute the singular weakness and growing apostasy of America, we might say, to the selfishness and pettiness of their women. We’ve forgotten how to build strength into a nation; our idea of “power” is to leave the next generation for others to raise, ramrod through Health Care Bills most Americans don’t want, and put men out of a job.
But we will continue to feel good about where we are now as long as we continue to be ignorant about where we came from. It’s certainly easier to be excited about how “intelligent,” “educated,” and “valued” women are when we lose the historical point of comparison.
Examining Feminism’s Inheritance
“I disagree with the ideas behind radical feminism,” people sometimes write to us, “but you have to admit feminism has brought womanhood some good things.” [4] Some warn us against throwing the baby out with the bathwater, hating political feminism while refusing to be grateful for the strengths it has infused into us and our peers. If we examine four of the most popular claims people make, though, we may begin to be grateful for something completely different.
Claim 1: “Before feminism, women were not as valued and did not have as many rights.”
Before feminism, the Bible declared men’s and women’s equal standing and value before God – and in fact teaches this more consistently than any other religious or secular doctrine. In Scripture, man’s work and woman’s work are equally valid – wifehood, motherhood, homemaking, and femininity are not belittled, and women are not guilt-manipulated into living and acting like men. On the contrary; woman’s distinctiveness from man is praised and honored, and her unique role is held vital. Women were to be protected and cherished, to “attain honor” (Prov. 11:16) and be “praised in the gates” (Prov. 31:31). It wasn’t until the advent of women’s “liberation” that women were told, “Your value as a woman is determined by how well you can perform as a man. Being a woman is no longer enough.” And it wasn’t until feminism had raised up “an epidemic of thugs, dolts, and cads”[5] that women as a mass began to be “valued” as objects to be used and discarded.
As for our new rights – where did these rights come from? All rights must be bestowed by some Higher Source, which Susan B. Anthony was not. God is the author of our rights, as our founders recognized – not feminism – and it was He who gave women property rights, marital rights, and divorce rights (for example). The Bible was there first.
Millennia before feminism, the Bible also gave the world strict laws to protect women from abuse, rape, incest, abandonment, injustice, and more. Moreover, it gave women something our legal system doesn’t: a whole system of provisions for women who end up in hard circumstances.[6]
And there were societies long before suffrage-era America, attempting to construct themselves along biblical lines, which put these rights, laws, and provisions into action. One of these societies was Reformation-era Geneva, which “came to be known as ‘the paradise of women.’ There were good reasons for this. John Calvin was strongly protective of “women’s rights.” Under his guidance, church consistories went after wife abusers. They prosecuted guardians who had misappropriated trust funds of widows and orphans. …Rules were published to protect both men and women in marriage… Deserted wives were protected, and so on.” [7]
Yes, we will always be able to find single examples of women being mistreated in any era. But speaking historically as well as theologically, Christianity is the only social, spiritual, and political force that gives women true value and rights. It is the anti-Christian religions (including Marxism, Islam, and feminism) that demean, undervalue, and exploit women; throughout history, it was the Christian societies that truly valued women, protected women, and honored women (insofar as those societies were faithful to the Bible’s actual teachings).
Claim 2: Women are better educated today, thanks to feminism.
Women have more educational opportunities today, thanks to the cheap and almost-instant accessibility of information. So do men. But women are not necessarily making better use of their opportunities than they ever did (and feminism did not help Al Gore invent the Internet.)
There have never been enough deeply wise and learned women, and, certainly, some societies produced fewer than others, but we believe, historically, the chief barrier between a woman and her education is her own apathy and mental laziness.
Hannah More, regarded by Britain’s intelligentsia as one of the most learned people of her time (1745 – 1833), chided: “She who regrets being doomed to a state of dark and gloomy ignorance, by the injustice, or tyranny of the men, complains of an evil which does not exist.”[8]
The Bible offers as much praise for women who are intelligent, wise, capable, prudent, gifted, well-spoken, prolific, and diplomatic, as it does men – and casts an intimidating vision for all that godly womanhood requires. Once again, the Bible was there long before feminism, telling girls not to be ignorant, foolish, lazy, myopic, or easily led (Prov. 9:13, Prov. 31:27, Lam. 1:9, 2 Tim. 3:6).
And history is replete with examples of Christian men who knew they needed to educate their daughters thoroughly. The Lady Jane Greys, Anne Bradstreets, Mercy Otis Warrens, Abigail Adamses, Hannah Mores, and others from the panoply of educated women in history did not come out of a vacuum. They were the products of Christian families that understood the importance of learned women to a Christian society.
In 1688, Francois Fenelon wrote an entire book to rebut those who “exclaim, ‘Why make them learned? Curiosity renders them vain and conceited: it is sufficient if they be one day able to govern their families, and implicitly obey their husbands!’”[9] (an excuse he attributed mainly to “maternal caprice.”) His central thesis: “Great reservoirs of intellect can and must be cultivated in daughters. This will sustain them as well as equip them for the challenges of productive womanhood.”
Granted, there have always been boorish men who preferred stupid women, and there have always been women eager to accommodate them. Our society is no enlightened exception. And people who want to complain about the devaluation of female intellect in the past should consider that feminism’s sons are hardly known for valuing women’s brains over women’s bodies.
Feminism hasn’t stemmed the tide of boors and bimbos in society, or stopped girls from being too undisciplined to educate themselves. What feminism has done, chiefly, is change the goal of a woman’s education – for which we will decline to thank it.
Education expert John Taylor Gatto writes about the actual decline of education over the last 200 years, for men and women, through government schooling: “Anyone who reads can compare what the American present does in isolating children from their natural sources of education, modeling them on a niggardly last, to what the American past proved about human capabilities. The magnitude of the forced schooling institution’s strange accomplishment has been monumental. No wonder history has been outlawed.”[10]
Claim 3: Thanks to feminism, women can now work and earn money.
Woman’s work has moved into a different sphere since feminism started creeping into American thinking, but so has industry in general. Part of the reason we are confused about woman’s relation to “work” today is because economy, industry, and work were redefined during the industrial revolution, when biblical domestic economy was moved into workstations and factories. Woman’s work at home, which had previously included broad opportunities for gainful employment in the family endeavors, dwindled to household chores and caring for children…until that last, too, was removed from the sphere of the home. The women’s movement was enlisted as an important player in this change, helping to bury the family economy by equating “real” work with jobs outside the home.
Anthropologist Allan Carlson notes: “Industrialization tore asunder this settled, family-oriented European world. In historian John Demos’ words: ‘Family life was wrenched apart from the world of work — a veritable sea-change in social history.’ …The reciprocal, complementary tasks of husbands and wives in household production were quickly leveled, and questions grew about gender roles in the new order. …In the industrial milieu, the inward-looking, autonomous, cooperative family changed into a collection of individuals in potential, and often real, competition with each other.”[11]
Prior to both of these social movements, women worked. Their work was carried on in the household workplace (which could include fields, vineyards, family storefronts or offices, workshops, etc.), but was not limited to household chores. Women were productive members of society, producing goods of tangible value, bringing in money, and expanding the family holdings. In Scripture (just look at Proverbs 31), and in Christian societies in history, woman’s work included business transactions, production of goods, making investments, developing skills in diverse fields, and earning money – from home.
One such example is Eliza Lucas Pinckney, who at age 16 (in 1739) not only accepted the work of maintaining her family’s three plantations in her father’s absence, but used the fields to experiment with crops to strengthen the fledgling nation’s economy, including oaks for lumber when American would need fleets. According to Cokie Roberts, “Among her many accomplishments was the successful cultivation of indigo in South Carolina, which provided a source of income to the Mother Country that one historian of the era judged more important than the silver mines of Peru or Mexico to Spain. When Eliza Pinckney died, George Washington insisted on acting as a pallbearer at her funeral.”[12] Though Cokie Roberts’ comments between the lines try to revise feminism into Eliza’s motives, Eliza’s own words breathe a focus on home and family; a desire to stay in her “proper province,” submitted to her father and then her husband. It would take a feminist to see a contradiction in her words and actions.[13]
It would also take a feminist to think that Eliza and her contemporaries needed liberation.
Claim 4: Feminism gives us power.
Woman’s power is innate. Women are hugely influential, and always have been – for better or for worse. We have always had the power to build up or to destroy (Prov. 14:1). Much of the power we’re seeing women wield today, from the house to the House, is more of the latter – of course, the power to destroy generally makes itself more obvious, giving women the impression of being stronger.
We really should consider, as well, how much women have influenced every society, and when looking at cultures which marginalized women, to consider how much their women played a part in that.
We don’t mean to downplay the fact that there is real oppression and exploitation in this world, and there are real victims. But often, women are the ones who perpetuate their own exploitation and oppression. This is one case where “it takes two to tango”; it takes both to perpetuate pornography, unhealthy fashion trends, a sexually exploitive culture, and endless other harms to women. Male-female inter-connectivity and inter-dependency make it impossible for men to get away with much that women don’t allow. Women have always known, as Abigail Adams wrote to her husband, “…notwithstanding all your wise Laws and Maxims we have it in our power not only to free ourselves but to subdue our Masters, and without violence throw both your natural and legal authority at our feet.”[14] And she wasn’t talking about feminist insurrections.
Up From Liberation
The good news is this: we have God-given strength that we can use to rebuild and restore what feminism has taken away from us.
In muffling the truth and cutting us off from our heritage of strong, intelligent womanhood, they have defrauded even those of us who wanted no part of feminism. In exchange, they gave us “Women’s Studies” – a faulty concept, because it divorces “woman” from her context and tries to study her as an individual entity, as if “woman” can be understood apart from “human” and extracted from her environment. Avoiding what the best women in history have done, focusing on victims overcoming victimhood, “women’s studies” largely consists of erecting imaginary glass ceilings, planting territorial flags on discoveries feminism did not make, and recruiting spokeswomen from among its antithesis.
Thankfully, the Bible is our source of vision and inspiration. Even when we seem to have no good examples before us, Scripture is always there. Even when society is in shambles, the blueprint for rebuilding it is in front of us.
We have been given the opportunity to rebuild a culture of femininity from scratch. Let us be thankful that we have examples from previous generations of women to learn from, but let’s not restrict ourselves to copying the past. A biblical culture of femininity must be built on the right foundations – not Regency or Victorian England, not enlightenment romanticism, not fantasy lore, not 1st, 2nd, or 3rd wave feminism, and not Nancy Pelosi.
Feminists, hands off our heroines and our history. Because we have more coming.
———
Footnotes:
1. Lynne Withey, Founding Mothers, Simon and Schuster, 2001) p. xiii)
2. Cited in Founding Mothers, by Cokie Roberts, (William Morrow, 2004) p. xix
3. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (New York: Penguin Books USA Inc., 1956), p. 246, emphasis added
4. We occasionally get comments like this even from conservative Christians, including one from a young lady thankful to feminism for the right to drive; supposedly she was concerned that, had she lived a few hundred years ago, she might not have been allowed to drive a car. We would point out to this young lady that she might also have been denied access to a cell phone or the internet — but not by an oppressive patriarchy. She can thank progress in general–increased mobility and communication technology do bring new opportunities for everyone, but that has nothing to do with feminism.
5. “The Myth About Boys,” by David Burnett, TIME Magazine, 2007
6. This system of provisions includes the gleaning system, the kinsman redeemer system, the family provision system, the poor-tithe system, the handmaid system, and more. Biblical Law presupposed that there will be sin and irresponsibility in every society, and that the true victims must be protected.
7. R.J. Rushdoony, Roots of Reconstruction (Ross House Books, 1991), p. 407, emphasis added
8. Hannah More, Essays on Various Subjects Principally Designed for Young Ladies, emphasis added
9. Franois de Salignac de La Mothe Fenelon, De l’ Education des Filles (The Education of Daughters), written 1688, published in English by Backus and Whiting, 1806
10. John Taylor Gatto, The Underground History of American Education (Oxford Village Press, 2001) p. 33. He notes: “Ninty-six and a half percent of the American population is mediocre to illiterate where deciphering print is concerned. This is no commentary on their intelligence, but without ability to take in primary information from print and to interpret it they are at the mercy of commentators who tell them what things mean. A working definition of immaturity might include those who excessively require others to tell them what things mean.” Ibid, p. 62
11. Allan B. Carlson, From Cottage to Workstation, from the Introduction
12. Cokie Roberts, Founding Mothers (William Morrow, 2004) p. xvii
13. In Dearest Friend, Lynne Withey takes a similar approach with Abigail Adams: “She was contradictory in other ways too. She argued for improved legal rights and education for women long before they became popular issues; but she always believed that a woman’s place was in the home…Although she never actually stepped outside her role as wife and mother, she carried it to its limits. She managed all the family property and investments – including buying land, planning additions, to houses and farm buildings, hiring and firing laborers, contracting with tenants, and supervising far work. … She also served as John’s unofficial, unpaid, but most influential political advisor.” p. ix (History and Scripture teach us that none of this is “contradictory” – only feminists paint it as such. Buying land, hiring and firing, supervising work, and advising husbands with wise counsel is all there in Proverbs 31.)
14. The Quotable Abigail Adams, edited by John P. Kaminskiz (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2009) p. 358
About The Author
Anna Sofia & Elizabeth Botkin
Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin are the only daughters of Geoffrey and Victoria Botkin. They and their five brothers share their family’s vision for cultural reformation, and enjoy working with their father on projects affecting family, church, and state. They delight in discovering new things every day about the beauty and power of the biblical home and family unit, and in investigating the glorious and diverse opportunities open to young women at home. At 24 and 22 years of age, respectively, their interests include film making, orchestral harp, history, music theory and composition, theology, the reconstruction of the West, hospitality, classical piano, the persecuted church, and home-making. They’d be delighted to hear your questions or comments regarding So Much More or Visionary Daughters. Email them at damsels (AT) visionarydaughters (DOT) com
Posted By Anna Sofia & Elizabeth Botkin on April 9, 2010
The recent naming of Nancy Pelosi as the “most powerful woman in American history” has sparked national discussion on both the history of women in America and the nature of woman’s power. As Speaker of the House, Mrs. Pelosi holds the highest civic position any American woman has held to date, and her hand in putting through the recent Health Care Bill will have huge historic implications. Though we don’t see it as a great advance for women to finally be oppressed by one of our own, this is undeniably a kind of power.
But behind this recent tribute to Mrs. Pelosi is this presupposition: “Women find their power in holding the positions of men – the traditional women’s role has no power. The power traditional women exercised in the past doesn’t count.”
Americans are ready to believe this because they long ago adopted a feminist view of history. Before feminism led women from the kitchen to the boardroom, we are told, women’s minds withered in the confines of a “comfortable concentration camp,” their talents never developed or given room to benefit society. Before feminism bought women the positions of men, woman’s influence was hushed and smothered beneath the oppression of male dominance. Before feminism invented justice, equality, and rights for women, women were deprived of education, opportunities, property, and power.
All thanks to feminism, we are now surely the strongest, smartest, most capable, most valued, best educated generation of women the West has ever seen. So we are to believe.
But despite feminism’s revisions of history, the truth is impossible to fully conceal when the light of strong, brilliant women glimmers through from supposedly dark eras. The general response, when a particularly intelligent and spirited woman appears in a Christian, patriarchal society, is to quickly recruit her as a proto-feminist, an anomaly of her time. Consider this typical approach to Abigail Adams, from the feminist biography Dearest Friend: “Abigail Adams was, in many ways, a prisoner of the times in which she lived, and her views on women’s role in society and on politics reflect that fact.” [1]
Were the Abigail Adamses flukes of history, born out of a void? Or did they come out of societies that were all about producing women like Abigail Adams? In this article we would like to let the women and facts speak for themselves. We will see that the reason feminism must reinterpret the facts is because it cannot stand on the legs of real history.
Our Forgotten Mothers
America has a rich legacy of powerful womanhood, integral to its very foundation and strength. Consider the inscription on the Monument to the Pilgrim Mothers in Plymouth, Massachusetts: “They brought up their families in sturdy virtue and a living faith in God without which nations perish.” As America was fighting to establish herself as an independent nation, their foe British general Lord Cornwallis despaired, “We may destroy all the men in America, and we shall still have all we can do to defeat the women.” [2]
After 200 years of cultivated feminine strength in America, French journalist Alexis de Tocqueville concluded his great work Democracy in America: “[I]f I were asked, now that I am drawing to the close of this work, in which I have spoken of so many important things done by the Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply: To the superiority of their women.”[3]
There is a great heritage of strength and even power that should be our birthright as American daughters. But how many of us are making good on that birthright? How many of us could claim to be as selflessly intrepid as the pilgrim women? How many of us are as brave as the wives of the signers? How many as enterprising and resourceful as those who helped build colonial culture and economy? How many as unflappable and capable as the women who civilized the Wild West? How many as poised and gracious as the White House hostesses and army wives whose savoir faire helped advance their husbands? How many as wise and educated as our founding mothers?
In many ways, our pajama-wearing, text-messaging, Me-generation is America’s weak generation of women. To paraphrase de Tocqueville’s quote, if you were to ask us now to what we would attribute the singular weakness and growing apostasy of America, we might say, to the selfishness and pettiness of their women. We’ve forgotten how to build strength into a nation; our idea of “power” is to leave the next generation for others to raise, ramrod through Health Care Bills most Americans don’t want, and put men out of a job.
But we will continue to feel good about where we are now as long as we continue to be ignorant about where we came from. It’s certainly easier to be excited about how “intelligent,” “educated,” and “valued” women are when we lose the historical point of comparison.
Examining Feminism’s Inheritance
“I disagree with the ideas behind radical feminism,” people sometimes write to us, “but you have to admit feminism has brought womanhood some good things.” [4] Some warn us against throwing the baby out with the bathwater, hating political feminism while refusing to be grateful for the strengths it has infused into us and our peers. If we examine four of the most popular claims people make, though, we may begin to be grateful for something completely different.
Claim 1: “Before feminism, women were not as valued and did not have as many rights.”
Before feminism, the Bible declared men’s and women’s equal standing and value before God – and in fact teaches this more consistently than any other religious or secular doctrine. In Scripture, man’s work and woman’s work are equally valid – wifehood, motherhood, homemaking, and femininity are not belittled, and women are not guilt-manipulated into living and acting like men. On the contrary; woman’s distinctiveness from man is praised and honored, and her unique role is held vital. Women were to be protected and cherished, to “attain honor” (Prov. 11:16) and be “praised in the gates” (Prov. 31:31). It wasn’t until the advent of women’s “liberation” that women were told, “Your value as a woman is determined by how well you can perform as a man. Being a woman is no longer enough.” And it wasn’t until feminism had raised up “an epidemic of thugs, dolts, and cads”[5] that women as a mass began to be “valued” as objects to be used and discarded.
As for our new rights – where did these rights come from? All rights must be bestowed by some Higher Source, which Susan B. Anthony was not. God is the author of our rights, as our founders recognized – not feminism – and it was He who gave women property rights, marital rights, and divorce rights (for example). The Bible was there first.
Millennia before feminism, the Bible also gave the world strict laws to protect women from abuse, rape, incest, abandonment, injustice, and more. Moreover, it gave women something our legal system doesn’t: a whole system of provisions for women who end up in hard circumstances.[6]
And there were societies long before suffrage-era America, attempting to construct themselves along biblical lines, which put these rights, laws, and provisions into action. One of these societies was Reformation-era Geneva, which “came to be known as ‘the paradise of women.’ There were good reasons for this. John Calvin was strongly protective of “women’s rights.” Under his guidance, church consistories went after wife abusers. They prosecuted guardians who had misappropriated trust funds of widows and orphans. …Rules were published to protect both men and women in marriage… Deserted wives were protected, and so on.” [7]
Yes, we will always be able to find single examples of women being mistreated in any era. But speaking historically as well as theologically, Christianity is the only social, spiritual, and political force that gives women true value and rights. It is the anti-Christian religions (including Marxism, Islam, and feminism) that demean, undervalue, and exploit women; throughout history, it was the Christian societies that truly valued women, protected women, and honored women (insofar as those societies were faithful to the Bible’s actual teachings).
Claim 2: Women are better educated today, thanks to feminism.
Women have more educational opportunities today, thanks to the cheap and almost-instant accessibility of information. So do men. But women are not necessarily making better use of their opportunities than they ever did (and feminism did not help Al Gore invent the Internet.)
There have never been enough deeply wise and learned women, and, certainly, some societies produced fewer than others, but we believe, historically, the chief barrier between a woman and her education is her own apathy and mental laziness.
Hannah More, regarded by Britain’s intelligentsia as one of the most learned people of her time (1745 – 1833), chided: “She who regrets being doomed to a state of dark and gloomy ignorance, by the injustice, or tyranny of the men, complains of an evil which does not exist.”[8]
The Bible offers as much praise for women who are intelligent, wise, capable, prudent, gifted, well-spoken, prolific, and diplomatic, as it does men – and casts an intimidating vision for all that godly womanhood requires. Once again, the Bible was there long before feminism, telling girls not to be ignorant, foolish, lazy, myopic, or easily led (Prov. 9:13, Prov. 31:27, Lam. 1:9, 2 Tim. 3:6).
And history is replete with examples of Christian men who knew they needed to educate their daughters thoroughly. The Lady Jane Greys, Anne Bradstreets, Mercy Otis Warrens, Abigail Adamses, Hannah Mores, and others from the panoply of educated women in history did not come out of a vacuum. They were the products of Christian families that understood the importance of learned women to a Christian society.
In 1688, Francois Fenelon wrote an entire book to rebut those who “exclaim, ‘Why make them learned? Curiosity renders them vain and conceited: it is sufficient if they be one day able to govern their families, and implicitly obey their husbands!’”[9] (an excuse he attributed mainly to “maternal caprice.”) His central thesis: “Great reservoirs of intellect can and must be cultivated in daughters. This will sustain them as well as equip them for the challenges of productive womanhood.”
Granted, there have always been boorish men who preferred stupid women, and there have always been women eager to accommodate them. Our society is no enlightened exception. And people who want to complain about the devaluation of female intellect in the past should consider that feminism’s sons are hardly known for valuing women’s brains over women’s bodies.
Feminism hasn’t stemmed the tide of boors and bimbos in society, or stopped girls from being too undisciplined to educate themselves. What feminism has done, chiefly, is change the goal of a woman’s education – for which we will decline to thank it.
Education expert John Taylor Gatto writes about the actual decline of education over the last 200 years, for men and women, through government schooling: “Anyone who reads can compare what the American present does in isolating children from their natural sources of education, modeling them on a niggardly last, to what the American past proved about human capabilities. The magnitude of the forced schooling institution’s strange accomplishment has been monumental. No wonder history has been outlawed.”[10]
Claim 3: Thanks to feminism, women can now work and earn money.
Woman’s work has moved into a different sphere since feminism started creeping into American thinking, but so has industry in general. Part of the reason we are confused about woman’s relation to “work” today is because economy, industry, and work were redefined during the industrial revolution, when biblical domestic economy was moved into workstations and factories. Woman’s work at home, which had previously included broad opportunities for gainful employment in the family endeavors, dwindled to household chores and caring for children…until that last, too, was removed from the sphere of the home. The women’s movement was enlisted as an important player in this change, helping to bury the family economy by equating “real” work with jobs outside the home.
Anthropologist Allan Carlson notes: “Industrialization tore asunder this settled, family-oriented European world. In historian John Demos’ words: ‘Family life was wrenched apart from the world of work — a veritable sea-change in social history.’ …The reciprocal, complementary tasks of husbands and wives in household production were quickly leveled, and questions grew about gender roles in the new order. …In the industrial milieu, the inward-looking, autonomous, cooperative family changed into a collection of individuals in potential, and often real, competition with each other.”[11]
Prior to both of these social movements, women worked. Their work was carried on in the household workplace (which could include fields, vineyards, family storefronts or offices, workshops, etc.), but was not limited to household chores. Women were productive members of society, producing goods of tangible value, bringing in money, and expanding the family holdings. In Scripture (just look at Proverbs 31), and in Christian societies in history, woman’s work included business transactions, production of goods, making investments, developing skills in diverse fields, and earning money – from home.
One such example is Eliza Lucas Pinckney, who at age 16 (in 1739) not only accepted the work of maintaining her family’s three plantations in her father’s absence, but used the fields to experiment with crops to strengthen the fledgling nation’s economy, including oaks for lumber when American would need fleets. According to Cokie Roberts, “Among her many accomplishments was the successful cultivation of indigo in South Carolina, which provided a source of income to the Mother Country that one historian of the era judged more important than the silver mines of Peru or Mexico to Spain. When Eliza Pinckney died, George Washington insisted on acting as a pallbearer at her funeral.”[12] Though Cokie Roberts’ comments between the lines try to revise feminism into Eliza’s motives, Eliza’s own words breathe a focus on home and family; a desire to stay in her “proper province,” submitted to her father and then her husband. It would take a feminist to see a contradiction in her words and actions.[13]
It would also take a feminist to think that Eliza and her contemporaries needed liberation.
Claim 4: Feminism gives us power.
Woman’s power is innate. Women are hugely influential, and always have been – for better or for worse. We have always had the power to build up or to destroy (Prov. 14:1). Much of the power we’re seeing women wield today, from the house to the House, is more of the latter – of course, the power to destroy generally makes itself more obvious, giving women the impression of being stronger.
We really should consider, as well, how much women have influenced every society, and when looking at cultures which marginalized women, to consider how much their women played a part in that.
We don’t mean to downplay the fact that there is real oppression and exploitation in this world, and there are real victims. But often, women are the ones who perpetuate their own exploitation and oppression. This is one case where “it takes two to tango”; it takes both to perpetuate pornography, unhealthy fashion trends, a sexually exploitive culture, and endless other harms to women. Male-female inter-connectivity and inter-dependency make it impossible for men to get away with much that women don’t allow. Women have always known, as Abigail Adams wrote to her husband, “…notwithstanding all your wise Laws and Maxims we have it in our power not only to free ourselves but to subdue our Masters, and without violence throw both your natural and legal authority at our feet.”[14] And she wasn’t talking about feminist insurrections.
Up From Liberation
The good news is this: we have God-given strength that we can use to rebuild and restore what feminism has taken away from us.
In muffling the truth and cutting us off from our heritage of strong, intelligent womanhood, they have defrauded even those of us who wanted no part of feminism. In exchange, they gave us “Women’s Studies” – a faulty concept, because it divorces “woman” from her context and tries to study her as an individual entity, as if “woman” can be understood apart from “human” and extracted from her environment. Avoiding what the best women in history have done, focusing on victims overcoming victimhood, “women’s studies” largely consists of erecting imaginary glass ceilings, planting territorial flags on discoveries feminism did not make, and recruiting spokeswomen from among its antithesis.
Thankfully, the Bible is our source of vision and inspiration. Even when we seem to have no good examples before us, Scripture is always there. Even when society is in shambles, the blueprint for rebuilding it is in front of us.
We have been given the opportunity to rebuild a culture of femininity from scratch. Let us be thankful that we have examples from previous generations of women to learn from, but let’s not restrict ourselves to copying the past. A biblical culture of femininity must be built on the right foundations – not Regency or Victorian England, not enlightenment romanticism, not fantasy lore, not 1st, 2nd, or 3rd wave feminism, and not Nancy Pelosi.
Feminists, hands off our heroines and our history. Because we have more coming.
———
Footnotes:
1. Lynne Withey, Founding Mothers, Simon and Schuster, 2001) p. xiii)
2. Cited in Founding Mothers, by Cokie Roberts, (William Morrow, 2004) p. xix
3. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (New York: Penguin Books USA Inc., 1956), p. 246, emphasis added
4. We occasionally get comments like this even from conservative Christians, including one from a young lady thankful to feminism for the right to drive; supposedly she was concerned that, had she lived a few hundred years ago, she might not have been allowed to drive a car. We would point out to this young lady that she might also have been denied access to a cell phone or the internet — but not by an oppressive patriarchy. She can thank progress in general–increased mobility and communication technology do bring new opportunities for everyone, but that has nothing to do with feminism.
5. “The Myth About Boys,” by David Burnett, TIME Magazine, 2007
6. This system of provisions includes the gleaning system, the kinsman redeemer system, the family provision system, the poor-tithe system, the handmaid system, and more. Biblical Law presupposed that there will be sin and irresponsibility in every society, and that the true victims must be protected.
7. R.J. Rushdoony, Roots of Reconstruction (Ross House Books, 1991), p. 407, emphasis added
8. Hannah More, Essays on Various Subjects Principally Designed for Young Ladies, emphasis added
9. Franois de Salignac de La Mothe Fenelon, De l’ Education des Filles (The Education of Daughters), written 1688, published in English by Backus and Whiting, 1806
10. John Taylor Gatto, The Underground History of American Education (Oxford Village Press, 2001) p. 33. He notes: “Ninty-six and a half percent of the American population is mediocre to illiterate where deciphering print is concerned. This is no commentary on their intelligence, but without ability to take in primary information from print and to interpret it they are at the mercy of commentators who tell them what things mean. A working definition of immaturity might include those who excessively require others to tell them what things mean.” Ibid, p. 62
11. Allan B. Carlson, From Cottage to Workstation, from the Introduction
12. Cokie Roberts, Founding Mothers (William Morrow, 2004) p. xvii
13. In Dearest Friend, Lynne Withey takes a similar approach with Abigail Adams: “She was contradictory in other ways too. She argued for improved legal rights and education for women long before they became popular issues; but she always believed that a woman’s place was in the home…Although she never actually stepped outside her role as wife and mother, she carried it to its limits. She managed all the family property and investments – including buying land, planning additions, to houses and farm buildings, hiring and firing laborers, contracting with tenants, and supervising far work. … She also served as John’s unofficial, unpaid, but most influential political advisor.” p. ix (History and Scripture teach us that none of this is “contradictory” – only feminists paint it as such. Buying land, hiring and firing, supervising work, and advising husbands with wise counsel is all there in Proverbs 31.)
14. The Quotable Abigail Adams, edited by John P. Kaminskiz (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2009) p. 358
About The Author
Anna Sofia & Elizabeth Botkin
Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin are the only daughters of Geoffrey and Victoria Botkin. They and their five brothers share their family’s vision for cultural reformation, and enjoy working with their father on projects affecting family, church, and state. They delight in discovering new things every day about the beauty and power of the biblical home and family unit, and in investigating the glorious and diverse opportunities open to young women at home. At 24 and 22 years of age, respectively, their interests include film making, orchestral harp, history, music theory and composition, theology, the reconstruction of the West, hospitality, classical piano, the persecuted church, and home-making. They’d be delighted to hear your questions or comments regarding So Much More or Visionary Daughters. Email them at damsels (AT) visionarydaughters (DOT) com
Friday, April 9, 2010
Some Good Quotes
"What luck for the rulers that men do not think."
-- Adolf Hitler
(1889-1945) German Nazi Dictator
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Adolf.Hitler.Quote.50AB
"The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow."
-- Ayn Rand
(1905-1982) Author
Source: Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Ayn.Rand.Quote.C53E
"This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read."
-- Sir Winston Churchill
(1874-1965) Prime Minister of England
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Winston.Churchill.Quote.907C
-- Adolf Hitler
(1889-1945) German Nazi Dictator
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Adolf.Hitler.Quote.50AB
"The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow."
-- Ayn Rand
(1905-1982) Author
Source: Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Ayn.Rand.Quote.C53E
"This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read."
-- Sir Winston Churchill
(1874-1965) Prime Minister of England
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Winston.Churchill.Quote.907C
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Family Trees
Family trees are fascinating. One could easily become absorbed in the history of our predecessors. My wife and I were recently in the United Kingdom speaking at family seminars. We had a one-day break while in Scotland and decided to visit CASTLE CAMPBELL, originally owned by Colin Campbell, my namesake. I have always loved castles. Their grandeur, largeness and strength intrigue me. I find myself contemplating the wealth, dignity, pride and creativity that belonged to my ancestors of that era. I guess it must still be in the DNA.
Most of us do not have to look very far back into the history of our families to find that many of our forbears had large families compared to today’s 2.1 member families in the USA—the average is 1.3 in European countries. What with wars, vehicle fatalities, infertility, alternative life styles that produce no children, cancer, heart failures and other diseases that cause death, the west is on the verge of self-destruction. We are told that within the next 40-50 years, much of Europe will cease to be the Europe we have known. It will instead be an Islamic Europe. Most of Europe is beyond the hope of reversing the huge demographic and cultural change that is already taking place. Read more here. Make sure to read what is written on the pictures. It's powerful.
Family trees are fascinating. One could easily become absorbed in the history of our predecessors. My wife and I were recently in the United Kingdom speaking at family seminars. We had a one-day break while in Scotland and decided to visit CASTLE CAMPBELL, originally owned by Colin Campbell, my namesake. I have always loved castles. Their grandeur, largeness and strength intrigue me. I find myself contemplating the wealth, dignity, pride and creativity that belonged to my ancestors of that era. I guess it must still be in the DNA.
Most of us do not have to look very far back into the history of our families to find that many of our forbears had large families compared to today’s 2.1 member families in the USA—the average is 1.3 in European countries. What with wars, vehicle fatalities, infertility, alternative life styles that produce no children, cancer, heart failures and other diseases that cause death, the west is on the verge of self-destruction. We are told that within the next 40-50 years, much of Europe will cease to be the Europe we have known. It will instead be an Islamic Europe. Most of Europe is beyond the hope of reversing the huge demographic and cultural change that is already taking place. Read more here. Make sure to read what is written on the pictures. It's powerful.
Black Conservatives Ripped for Supporting Tea Party Movement
Associated Press - 4/7/2010 6:15:00 AM
ALBANY, NY - They've been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white Tea Party movement -- and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation's first black president
"I've been told I hate myself. I've been called an Uncle Tom. I've been told I'm a spook at the door," said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.
"Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks," he said.
Johnson and other black conservatives say they were drawn to the Tea Party movement because of what they consider its commonsense fiscal values of controlled spending, less taxes and smaller government. The fact that they're black — or that most tea partyers are white — should have nothing to do with it, they say.
"You have to be honest and true to yourself. What am I supposed to do, vote Democratic just to be popular? Just to fit in?" asked Clifton Bazar, a 45-year-old New Jersey freelance photographer and conservative blogger.
Opponents have branded the Tea Party as a group of racists hiding behind economic concerns — and reports, as yet unproven, that some tea partyers were lobbing racist slurs at black congressmen during last month's heated healthcare vote give them ammunition.
But these black conservatives don't consider racism representative of the movement as a whole — or race a reason to support it.
Angela McGlowan, a black congressional candidate from Mississippi, said her Tea Party involvement is "not about a black or white issue."
"It's not even about Republican or Democrat. from my standpoint," she told The Associated Press. "All of us are taxed too much."
Still, she's in the minority. As a nascent grassroots movement with no registration or formal structure, there are no racial demographics available for the Tea Party movement; it's believed to include only a small number of blacks and Hispanics.
Some black conservatives credit President Barack Obama's election — and their distaste for his policies — with inspiring them and motivating dozens of black Republicans to plan political runs in November.
For black candidates like McGlowan, Tea Party events are a way to reach out to voters of all races with her conservative message. "I'm so proud to be a part of this movement! I want to tell you that a lot of people underestimate you guys," the former national political commentator for Fox News told the cheering crowd at a Tea Party rally in Nashville, Tenn., in February.
Tea Party voters represent a new model for these black conservatives — away from the black, liberal Democratic base located primarily in cities, and toward a black and white conservative base that extends into the suburbs.
Black voters have overwhelmingly backed Democratic candidates, support that has only grown in recent years. In 2004, presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry won 88 percent of the black vote; four years later, 95 percent of black voters cast ballots for Obama.
Black conservatives don't want to have to apologize for their divergent views. "I've gotten the statement, 'How can you not support the brother?'" said David Webb, an organizer of New York City's Tea Party 365, Inc. movement and a conservative radio personality.
Since Obama's election, Webb said some black conservatives have even resorted to hiding their political views. "I know of people who would play the (liberal) role publicly, but have their private opinions," he said. "They don't agree with the policy but they have to work, live and exist in the community ... Why can't we speak openly and honestly if we disagree?"
Associated Press - 4/7/2010 6:15:00 AM
ALBANY, NY - They've been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white Tea Party movement -- and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation's first black president
"I've been told I hate myself. I've been called an Uncle Tom. I've been told I'm a spook at the door," said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.
"Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks," he said.
Johnson and other black conservatives say they were drawn to the Tea Party movement because of what they consider its commonsense fiscal values of controlled spending, less taxes and smaller government. The fact that they're black — or that most tea partyers are white — should have nothing to do with it, they say.
"You have to be honest and true to yourself. What am I supposed to do, vote Democratic just to be popular? Just to fit in?" asked Clifton Bazar, a 45-year-old New Jersey freelance photographer and conservative blogger.
Opponents have branded the Tea Party as a group of racists hiding behind economic concerns — and reports, as yet unproven, that some tea partyers were lobbing racist slurs at black congressmen during last month's heated healthcare vote give them ammunition.
But these black conservatives don't consider racism representative of the movement as a whole — or race a reason to support it.
Angela McGlowan, a black congressional candidate from Mississippi, said her Tea Party involvement is "not about a black or white issue."
"It's not even about Republican or Democrat. from my standpoint," she told The Associated Press. "All of us are taxed too much."
Still, she's in the minority. As a nascent grassroots movement with no registration or formal structure, there are no racial demographics available for the Tea Party movement; it's believed to include only a small number of blacks and Hispanics.
Some black conservatives credit President Barack Obama's election — and their distaste for his policies — with inspiring them and motivating dozens of black Republicans to plan political runs in November.
For black candidates like McGlowan, Tea Party events are a way to reach out to voters of all races with her conservative message. "I'm so proud to be a part of this movement! I want to tell you that a lot of people underestimate you guys," the former national political commentator for Fox News told the cheering crowd at a Tea Party rally in Nashville, Tenn., in February.
Tea Party voters represent a new model for these black conservatives — away from the black, liberal Democratic base located primarily in cities, and toward a black and white conservative base that extends into the suburbs.
Black voters have overwhelmingly backed Democratic candidates, support that has only grown in recent years. In 2004, presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry won 88 percent of the black vote; four years later, 95 percent of black voters cast ballots for Obama.
Black conservatives don't want to have to apologize for their divergent views. "I've gotten the statement, 'How can you not support the brother?'" said David Webb, an organizer of New York City's Tea Party 365, Inc. movement and a conservative radio personality.
Since Obama's election, Webb said some black conservatives have even resorted to hiding their political views. "I know of people who would play the (liberal) role publicly, but have their private opinions," he said. "They don't agree with the policy but they have to work, live and exist in the community ... Why can't we speak openly and honestly if we disagree?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)