Attack on Home Education - by Todd King
We should have seen it coming. In fact, those of us who have our heads out of the sand did see it coming. The Appellate Court of California, 2nd App. District, 3rd Division, Judge Stephen Marpet, taking a sheet right out of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto has ruled against a homeschooling family in case number JD00773. Never mind that this family has raised 5 of their 8 children successfully via home education, now they have been ruled "unqualified" to properly teach their children at home. Have the children in question been ruled mentally deficient, or have they received sub-standard scores on the dumbed-down standardized tests they have been made to take every year? The answer to both these questions is, "NO!"
The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) does not claim that the children involved were victims of incompetent, sub-par education, neither did the court find any evidence that might support such a claim. Even though in "the court's opinion... the home schooling the children were receiving was 'lousy,' 'meager,' and 'bad,'" Judge Marpet never qualified any of these terms or how he reached such a conclusion. Instead, he ruled that the parents could not prove that the education being provided was "as good or better than the children would have obtained in a public or private school." This in spite of the fact that standardized testing was done on a regular basis in a private academy.
No, it's not enough that parents provide an education that is equal to the public education system. If they can not demonstrably show that the education is better than what the children would have received otherwise, then it is not a risk the state is willing to take. And why does the court feel that the risk is too great? Well, in their own words, "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where; (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting."
This is a pretty bold challenge which, if it has merit, may be worth considering. I'll examine it point by point to see if it does have any merit.
1) "They could interact with people outside the family"- Is the judge seriously suggesting that these children never have interaction with others at the park, grocery store, church, field trips and other activities? Or is DCFS accusing the family of locking their children in the house and never allowing them to see the light of day? Well, if such an accusation had been leveled, it never got presented to the court, so we can safely presume that such is not the case.
2) "There are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives"- That's right, the parents are not only unqualified to teach their children, but they are not qualified to interpret their children's behavior and emotions, let alone to counsel them or teach them appropriate ways of dealing with anger, frustration or other negative behaviors. After all, we all know that the state cares more for our children than we as parents do, right?.
3) "They could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting"- In other words, children do not develop emotionally until they have been exposed to such corrupting influences as sex education, bullying, rude and crass joking and language, peer pressure, and environments that produce low self-esteem. It would also seem they deem it impossible for children to properly develop emotionally without the school system administering drugs, many times without the parents knowledge or consent. It has become commonplace in many schools in America today for fluoride, Ritalin, Prozac, and other behavior altering drugs to be administered in order to keep children subdued and docile.
It is interesting to note that the majority of home educated children in the past 30 years (yes, the modern home schooling movement has been around for that long) are amazingly well socialized. They also tend to excel in the national spelling bees, geography fairs, music competitions, and other academic contests. So much so, that homeschoolers are now beginning to be banned from some of them. If this is accurate, and statistics indicate it is, then what is the purpose of forcing these parents to place their children in the care and the custody of the public education system? Again, let us turn to the court for the answer. "A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare."
You heard it yourself, schools are not here to teach your kids the 3 "R's" or to teach them skills necessary to prepare them for the future. The primary purpose of schools is to teach children to be loyal to the state, just as children were taught in Lenin and Stalin's Russia/Soviet Union or Nazi Germany in the 1930's and 40's. And this is the ultimate reason why homeschoolers are under attack in California right now, and why we will begin to see this trend spread. Children who are home educated develop an inconquerable loyalty to family. Even more, the majority of home educating parents teach their children, rightly, that the current state is a thing of evil and should be resisted insomuch as it infringes upon your rights or the rights of others.
Please, consider taking your children out of the state sponsored day care now before it is too late. Just as the Soviet Union collapsed under Marx's principles, and Nazi Germany fell under the all-powerful state policies of Hitler, America will fail also if we allow these same architects, such as Jean Jacques Rousseau, to mold our education policies for future generations.
Todd King is self-employed, and with his wife, is home educating their two children. Todd is also actively involved in the homeschool movement. For more information on home education or to give your feedback on this article, you may contact Todd at creatorsdesign@gmail.com
Editor's note: For more information about the reality of the public education system in the United States, please check out former Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. Department of Education Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt's website and book, "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America".http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/index.html
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Jethro's Wisdom, Our Folly
Now that we have looked at how the current administration stacks up to these requirements, we ought to compare the upcoming candidates, and see whether or not they measure up to the criteria laid out by Jethro. Now remember, one must meet all of these criteria. If a man does not meet one of the requirements, then he is disqualified, so with each candidate, when I reach one that disqualifies him, I will not continue examining that candidate further.
First, let's take a look at Rudy Giuliani. The first qualification is to be an able man. This is a man with competent moral power or qualifications. Does Giuliani have competent moral power? The man has been married numerous times, once to his own cousin, and has paraded down the streets of New York City dressed and acting like a transvestite. He also misappropriated funds, defended a priest who sexually molested two young girls, and supports torture.
So... Let's move on to Mitt Romney. Does Romney meet qualification number 1 of being an able man? Well, as much as is publicly known about Mr. Romney, he does seem to have this one down. So, let's look at requirement number 2, does he fear God? Well, Romney is an open and practicing Mormon. Mormon's do not believe that God is as he describes himself to be in the Bible. They deny the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and believe that God was once a man who was so good that he became a god, and that they can do likewise. By not accepting God's word, they thus make him a liar, and by claiming to be able to become equal to God, they blaspheme his name. Oh well, maybe McCain can do better.
John McCain, while married to his first wife, developed a relationship with another woman. He then abandoned his wife and children- who had stuck with him even through his time as a POW- to pursue a political career with the wealth and resources of his younger, more attractive new wife. After having 3 children by her, and adopting one, he then divorced her so that he could reconcile with his first wife. Biblically and morally, this would disqualify McCain from being a serious contender.
How about Fred Thompson then? Again, with the first qualification of being a morally able man, Thompson seems to fit the bill. The second, being a man who fears God is one that can't really be determined by viewing his public life, or by his own words. He says that he won't speak about his religion when politicking- a position which I respect. Number three is being a man of truth. While I believe that this would be a hard case to make for Thompson, that he's a man of truth, I'll even grant him this one. His 'official' position of being for the second amendment varies greatly from his voting record of various acts of legislation to ban or restrict guns. The final requirement though, is to hate covetousness. Thompson is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, a secretive group that seeks to consolidate power in the hands of the few, elite and worthy members of society, while increasing the gap between the wealthy and the middle class, and creating a one world government. This is covetousness to its extreme.
Well then, does pastor/ governor Mike Huckabee make it through the gauntlet? Huckabee, passed legislation making it more difficult for parents to home educate their children, said that the federal government needs to be bigger to 'legislate morality', set free a convicted rapist because the victim was a Clinton relative, who then went on to rape and murder another woman shortly thereafter, and tried to skirt laws that limited the size of gifts that could be made to politicians. I think the gauntlet has become too much for Mr. Huckabee.
So how about Ron Paul, how does he stack up? Paul is morally competent and able, having been married to the same woman for fifty years, raised his children to be productive without federal funds, and having a twenty year consistent voting record. He fears God as evidenced by his strict stance for upholding the oath he swore to God to uphold and defend the Constitution. Those who fear men rather than God think nothing of violating that oath. Something, by the way, that all of the above mentioned men have violated. Paul is a man of truth as, again, can be evidenced by his principled stand on every issue he has ever spoken or written about. His position never changes based upon what is politically expedient, but is always consistent. And, finally, Paul is the only one who hates covetousness. He desires LESS power rather than more, he uses LESS money than the federal government gives him for his job, he refuses to accept taxpayer money for his retirement, he worked for free oftentimes as a doctor to help those in need. In every one of these biblical qualifications, Ron Paul shines! And he is the only one who does so.
In the future, I will examine other biblical texts which talk about leaders and their qualifications and see how Ron Paul stands up to them.
First, let's take a look at Rudy Giuliani. The first qualification is to be an able man. This is a man with competent moral power or qualifications. Does Giuliani have competent moral power? The man has been married numerous times, once to his own cousin, and has paraded down the streets of New York City dressed and acting like a transvestite. He also misappropriated funds, defended a priest who sexually molested two young girls, and supports torture.
So... Let's move on to Mitt Romney. Does Romney meet qualification number 1 of being an able man? Well, as much as is publicly known about Mr. Romney, he does seem to have this one down. So, let's look at requirement number 2, does he fear God? Well, Romney is an open and practicing Mormon. Mormon's do not believe that God is as he describes himself to be in the Bible. They deny the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and believe that God was once a man who was so good that he became a god, and that they can do likewise. By not accepting God's word, they thus make him a liar, and by claiming to be able to become equal to God, they blaspheme his name. Oh well, maybe McCain can do better.
John McCain, while married to his first wife, developed a relationship with another woman. He then abandoned his wife and children- who had stuck with him even through his time as a POW- to pursue a political career with the wealth and resources of his younger, more attractive new wife. After having 3 children by her, and adopting one, he then divorced her so that he could reconcile with his first wife. Biblically and morally, this would disqualify McCain from being a serious contender.
How about Fred Thompson then? Again, with the first qualification of being a morally able man, Thompson seems to fit the bill. The second, being a man who fears God is one that can't really be determined by viewing his public life, or by his own words. He says that he won't speak about his religion when politicking- a position which I respect. Number three is being a man of truth. While I believe that this would be a hard case to make for Thompson, that he's a man of truth, I'll even grant him this one. His 'official' position of being for the second amendment varies greatly from his voting record of various acts of legislation to ban or restrict guns. The final requirement though, is to hate covetousness. Thompson is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, a secretive group that seeks to consolidate power in the hands of the few, elite and worthy members of society, while increasing the gap between the wealthy and the middle class, and creating a one world government. This is covetousness to its extreme.
Well then, does pastor/ governor Mike Huckabee make it through the gauntlet? Huckabee, passed legislation making it more difficult for parents to home educate their children, said that the federal government needs to be bigger to 'legislate morality', set free a convicted rapist because the victim was a Clinton relative, who then went on to rape and murder another woman shortly thereafter, and tried to skirt laws that limited the size of gifts that could be made to politicians. I think the gauntlet has become too much for Mr. Huckabee.
So how about Ron Paul, how does he stack up? Paul is morally competent and able, having been married to the same woman for fifty years, raised his children to be productive without federal funds, and having a twenty year consistent voting record. He fears God as evidenced by his strict stance for upholding the oath he swore to God to uphold and defend the Constitution. Those who fear men rather than God think nothing of violating that oath. Something, by the way, that all of the above mentioned men have violated. Paul is a man of truth as, again, can be evidenced by his principled stand on every issue he has ever spoken or written about. His position never changes based upon what is politically expedient, but is always consistent. And, finally, Paul is the only one who hates covetousness. He desires LESS power rather than more, he uses LESS money than the federal government gives him for his job, he refuses to accept taxpayer money for his retirement, he worked for free oftentimes as a doctor to help those in need. In every one of these biblical qualifications, Ron Paul shines! And he is the only one who does so.
In the future, I will examine other biblical texts which talk about leaders and their qualifications and see how Ron Paul stands up to them.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Jethro's Wisdom
In Exodus 19:21, Jethro, Moses' pa-in-law, gave Moses some advice about who he should pick to help lead and judge the people. This advice was to "provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness;" Now, it certainly is possible that Jethro was wrong in his judgment, but since Moses followed it, and God blessed him in is decision rather than commanding him to not heed the advice of his pa-in-law, that it was sound advice.
Before we get into looking at any one man, and comparing them to these qualifications, it is important that we first define our terms. Just so you know, I use the original Noah Webster's 1828 version of the American Dictionary of the English Language to define all of my terms. If you have a problem with that, so what. I know terms and meanings have changed over the years, but that is not a good thing and, therefore, I will be using the terms as they were originally defined. I will also make clear what definition I am using, so that it is clear to all- even those who would prefer a more modern dictionary.
So, able men defined by Webster was 1)having physical power sufficient;having competent power or strength, physical or mental; 2)having strong or unusual powers of mind; 3)having large or competent property; 4)having competent strength or fortitude; 5)having sufficient knowledge or skill; and 6)having competent moral power or qualifications. This last, being the most applicable- as I will look at shortly- needs further clarification. The word moral means 'relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right or wrong. The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character is to be determined.'
Fear God holds with it the 2nd definition of the verb fear, to reverence; to have a reverential awe; to venerate.
Men of truth should be self explanatory, but in this day and age and political environment, this is probably the most important term to define. Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be.
Hating covetousness... covetousness means a strong or inordinate desire of obtaining and possessing some supposed good.
So then, when we apply this litmus test to our current leaders, it would be prudent to ask ourselves, do they pass? Our current president, with an approval rating that is hovering in the bottom third, and has become precipitously close to single digits, here, does not seem to meet the first definition of able for he obviously cannot physically lead his own people into battle, and does not have the mental acumen to keep the people following him. The man cannot read a tele-prompter, and has said some of the dumbest things ever to come out of the mouth of man, see bushisms. This obviously disqualifies him from the 2nd definition of able. How about the third? Whew! Finally, one he passes, owning lots of property. However, obviously Jethro was not referring to such an idea when he spoke to Moses since the Israelites were, at this time, wandering in the desert and none of them owned property. So, another strike for el presidente here as well. So, for number 4, does Bush qualify? According to it, he must have fortitude which, according to Webster, means the enabling of a person to encounter danger with coolness and courage. Does this sound like a man who sets up free-speech zones so that he never has to face those who disagree with him? I didn't think so, in fact, in my neck of the woods, it's called cowardice. Well, ok, how about def. 5? The man does not understand economics, cannot read a Constitution, cannot speak in a complete sentence, even when it is pre-written, and scored just in the mid-range during his college career. Nope, doesn't fit. All right, well how about 6 which I already said was probably THE important definition anyway. Well, does GWB have competent moral qualifications? Does he look to the law of God to determine whether or not his standards, or those belonging to the men around him, show right character? He has appointed more homosexuals than any other president before him, he has said repeatedly that Muslims worship the same God as Christians, and he has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Iraq just to depose their evil dictator (which, by the way, was accomplished a number of years ago, and yet the killing continues).
So, Bush may not be able, but what about a man that fears God. Doesn't he say that he is a Christian? Well, remember now that fear means to reverence. Does Bush reverence God when he equates Him with the same god of Islam? How about when he violates his oath to the Constitution which he swore to God! Does comparing someone to a lesser show respect? How about lying to someone and breaking your promise to them? Do these actions show respect or reverence? I didn't think so either.
Well alright, is he a man of truth at least? Stifle the giggles that have come erupting from your mouth long enough to remember the many, amny lies that sold us into this war with Iraq. Things like WMD's and an alliance with bin Laden, which were later admitted to publicly by our P and our VP to be lies.
At least he hates covetousness right? Right? Well, maybe not. Anybody who invades other countries, whether it truly is for oil, or for empire, has a strong streak of covetousness in him. So, as can be seen, Bush clearly does not meet the qualifications for a Godly leader as set out in Exodus 19.
So, why do the evangelicals support him so rabidly? And are there any candidates that meet these qualifications? These are both questions that we will address in the near future.
Before we get into looking at any one man, and comparing them to these qualifications, it is important that we first define our terms. Just so you know, I use the original Noah Webster's 1828 version of the American Dictionary of the English Language to define all of my terms. If you have a problem with that, so what. I know terms and meanings have changed over the years, but that is not a good thing and, therefore, I will be using the terms as they were originally defined. I will also make clear what definition I am using, so that it is clear to all- even those who would prefer a more modern dictionary.
So, able men defined by Webster was 1)having physical power sufficient;having competent power or strength, physical or mental; 2)having strong or unusual powers of mind; 3)having large or competent property; 4)having competent strength or fortitude; 5)having sufficient knowledge or skill; and 6)having competent moral power or qualifications. This last, being the most applicable- as I will look at shortly- needs further clarification. The word moral means 'relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right or wrong. The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character is to be determined.'
Fear God holds with it the 2nd definition of the verb fear, to reverence; to have a reverential awe; to venerate.
Men of truth should be self explanatory, but in this day and age and political environment, this is probably the most important term to define. Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be.
Hating covetousness... covetousness means a strong or inordinate desire of obtaining and possessing some supposed good.
So then, when we apply this litmus test to our current leaders, it would be prudent to ask ourselves, do they pass? Our current president, with an approval rating that is hovering in the bottom third, and has become precipitously close to single digits, here, does not seem to meet the first definition of able for he obviously cannot physically lead his own people into battle, and does not have the mental acumen to keep the people following him. The man cannot read a tele-prompter, and has said some of the dumbest things ever to come out of the mouth of man, see bushisms. This obviously disqualifies him from the 2nd definition of able. How about the third? Whew! Finally, one he passes, owning lots of property. However, obviously Jethro was not referring to such an idea when he spoke to Moses since the Israelites were, at this time, wandering in the desert and none of them owned property. So, another strike for el presidente here as well. So, for number 4, does Bush qualify? According to it, he must have fortitude which, according to Webster, means the enabling of a person to encounter danger with coolness and courage. Does this sound like a man who sets up free-speech zones so that he never has to face those who disagree with him? I didn't think so, in fact, in my neck of the woods, it's called cowardice. Well, ok, how about def. 5? The man does not understand economics, cannot read a Constitution, cannot speak in a complete sentence, even when it is pre-written, and scored just in the mid-range during his college career. Nope, doesn't fit. All right, well how about 6 which I already said was probably THE important definition anyway. Well, does GWB have competent moral qualifications? Does he look to the law of God to determine whether or not his standards, or those belonging to the men around him, show right character? He has appointed more homosexuals than any other president before him, he has said repeatedly that Muslims worship the same God as Christians, and he has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Iraq just to depose their evil dictator (which, by the way, was accomplished a number of years ago, and yet the killing continues).
So, Bush may not be able, but what about a man that fears God. Doesn't he say that he is a Christian? Well, remember now that fear means to reverence. Does Bush reverence God when he equates Him with the same god of Islam? How about when he violates his oath to the Constitution which he swore to God! Does comparing someone to a lesser show respect? How about lying to someone and breaking your promise to them? Do these actions show respect or reverence? I didn't think so either.
Well alright, is he a man of truth at least? Stifle the giggles that have come erupting from your mouth long enough to remember the many, amny lies that sold us into this war with Iraq. Things like WMD's and an alliance with bin Laden, which were later admitted to publicly by our P and our VP to be lies.
At least he hates covetousness right? Right? Well, maybe not. Anybody who invades other countries, whether it truly is for oil, or for empire, has a strong streak of covetousness in him. So, as can be seen, Bush clearly does not meet the qualifications for a Godly leader as set out in Exodus 19.
So, why do the evangelicals support him so rabidly? And are there any candidates that meet these qualifications? These are both questions that we will address in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)