Why not call them what they really are?

This post is about semantics.  In particular, why is it that the names we use to describe political opponents and their ideologies are important? 

For years, we tended to call Democrats like Bill Clinton liberals.  To us, the word liberal was a negative term.  But actually, a liberal is someone who believes in liberty.  The word liberal can also be used to describe one who is generous.  But when we talk about Bill Clinton or Barack Obama as being liberal, this is hardly what we mean.  In fact, they are quite the opposite.  So I don’t think that we should use this term.

In recent years, the word progressive has perhaps become a more popular term for the type of political bent we are trying to describe.  There is even an auto insurance company which has taken on this name (and they are, in fact, very progressive in that sense).  But progressive really just means someone who is in favor of progress.  This is not necessarily bad.  Despite what Michele Bachmann says, the United States did start as a Republic in which slavery was legal (in most states, at least).  In other words, after winning the Revolutionary War, not everyone was instantly free.  Although other approaches to gain racial equality were actually detrimental to the cause of freedom, nonetheless there were beneficial progressive measures like the 13^th and 15^th Amendments.  In fact, the American Revolution itself and the adoption of the original Constitution and Bill Rights were, at the time, very progressive as well.  In a larger sense, positive progress can take place in areas other than political, such as science.  The word progress (in regards to science) even appears in the Constitution.  But “progress” is not good when it comes to mean legalizing murder and forcing people to support and condone degrading behavior such as homosexuality.  “Progress” which denies parental rights and accepts the neglecting of the parental responsibilities is also not beneficial.

Everybody has probably seen the bumper sticker “Socialism Doesn’t Work”.  If you are thinking that word Socialist is better to use for the type of people we are talking about, you are getting a lot warmer.  But here is why that word is still not quite right.  A socialist tends to want to take away all private property by means of government legislation.  In contrast, a fascist (or corporatist) is someone who wants all property to be confiscated by means of a corporate takeover of everything.  Same result, different means.  But modern leftists in America seem to be employing both tactics simultaneously.  So the distinction between “left” and “right” is now nothing but a mere illusion.  An umbrella term for this desire to put all property into a central ownership is called collectivism which is a form of totalitarianism or statism.  Another reason why Socialist isn’t quite right is because there is such a thing as voluntary socialism (i.e. utopian socialist societies).  But we are really talking about people who want to force this way of living onto everyone.  And thirdly, the words socialism, collectivism, totalitarianism or statism do not necessarily encompass things like abortion, homosexuality, and other social issues as the words liberal and progressive did (although sometimes erroneously). 

So what is the best word to use?  How about extortionist, murderer, kidnapper, thief, or pervert?  If you want to sum all these up into one word, that one word could be God-hater, criminal or lawbreaker.  Why not call them what they really are?

The Right Way to Amend the Constitution, part 4

PARENTAL PRIMACY

This is part four of an ongoing series of articles containing proposals for amendments to the Constitution. For someone who claims so fervently to be a “Constitutionalist”, how is it that I can be so eager to change the Constitution? Well, there are several reasons. For one thing, I believe that after the Bill of Rights, much damage was done by some of the amendments that were added and the legitimacy of some of their ratifications are questionable. Secondly, the Constitution has been violated so much that the necessity of further amendments is needed to resolve the resulting problems. But this should be done extremely cautiously. These amendments are extremely unlikely to ever be introduced, much less ratified, but hey, I can dream, can’t I?

Before I get to this week’s proposed amendment, I want to point a correction to something that I had written (in regards to who should decide who is a U.S. citizen) last week. "Without the 14th, the states would have the legal right to decide that question, which is a much more appealing idea to me." This is not true, the Constitution does charge Congress with the duty "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" in Article I section 8. I have made the appropriate correction in the text of that post.

Here is my fourth proposed amendment (subject to revision):

Section 1: The liberty of parents to direct the up bringing and education of their children is a fundamental right. The United States shall not infringe upon this right.

Section 2: No portion of this Constitution or of any law of the United States shall be construed as a limitation of authority or responsibility that parents have over their children. Neither shall any treaty, international law, nor executive order be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to this authority.

Section 3: The thirteenth article of amendment of this Constitution, if rendered inoperable by a subsequent amendment, shall be again operable upon ratification of this amendment.

Commentary on this proposed amendment:

As I mentioned in the last post of this series, a parental rights amendment is needed not only because of the U.N. Convention On The Rights Of The Child, but because of flaws in our own Constitution. It’s possible that the Founders took parental rights as a given, and did not even dream of the day that we would have to worry about governments intruding on them. It is clear that in these cases, the authors of some later amendments did not intend these intrusions. Sometimes the courts recognize intent when interpreting the Constitution, but sometimes they don’t. It’s best, as much as possible, not to leave this for them to decide.

The 13th prohibits involuntary servitude. A straightforward interpretation of this amendment, without any regard for the Bible or God-given rights, would lead one to believe that parents are constitutionally prohibited from requiring their children to do chores. This is a perfect example why one must be very careful in amending the constitution—it can lead to an inadvertent usurpation of authority by government.

Similarly, the 14th amendment forbids States from denying “equal protection under the law” to any person within its jurisdiction. This would mean that all laws must equally apply to all people. So you couldn’t have, for example, statutory rape laws. If a parent sent a child to his room, this would be like sending a complete stranger to his room (kidnapping). It just isn’t a well thought out piece of legislation.

Even the 2nd amendment needs tempering with a parental rights amendment. Notice it doesn’t say that “the United States and the Several States” are prohibited from infringing on the keep and right to bear arms. It just says it “shall not be infringed”. But obviously parents should have the right to decide when or if their child should be allowed to have a gun and if so, what type, and to require supervision, etc. Notice that, unlike other parental rights amendments, my amendment forbids a limitation on parental responsibility by the Federal government. Thus, an irresponsible parent, leaving his or her child unsupervised with a loaded gun, would not be immune from prosecution (by his or her State) on the basis of the 2nd amendment.

There is a joint resolution in the Congress (H.J. Res. 42/ S.J. Res. 16) to introduce a parental rights amendment which you can read about at parentalrights.org. But it is much weaker than mine. They are trying to do too much with this amendment by restricting the States with the same language as Federal and multinational government. Their proposed amendment contains this exception:

Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

This exception is so vaguely worded that the courts would take it to mean anything (so long as it’s in THEIR interest). Obviously, local government should intervene in cases of child abuse. That is obviously the primary reason for the exception. These cases are difficult to define and shouldn’t be left up to bureaucrats in Washington or federal courts to decide. That is why I only limit Federal and international authority in my version. It is easier to get rid of a local judge who makes a bad decision on a child abuse case than it is a federal judge or an international tribunal.

I do, however, applaud the intentions of the authors, the sponsors, and the cosponsors of H.J. Res. 42/ S.J. Res. 16. It did call this issue to my attention and served as a starting point for the development of my own amendment.

To continue reading this series, click here.

Support H.R. 2218, the Parental Consent Act

This bill forbids federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental-health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children.

H.R. 2218 has been introduced in response to a report of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health which has recommended MANDATORY mental-health screening for ALL AMERICANS.

We need to stand up for parent's rights to decide for themselves whether or not they want their children to be given Ritalin or other psychotropic drugs. This mental-health screening could be taken too far and be used to against children who adhere to traditional values because the political views of the attending psychiatrist may be biased against such values. We need to stop this before it gets out of hand. First it will be your children, and then IT WILL BE YOU.

Contact your representative and tell him/her to support H.R. 2218 now!

Obama on Education: Do As I Say, Don't Do As I Do

"No" To Vouchers, "Yes" to Failed Government Schools

.

Cartoons by Chuck Asay found on Townhall.com on 11/27/08

.

.

President-elite Barack Hussein Obama feels that the Washington, D.C. public schools are inadequate to instruct or indoctrinate his two precious daughters. That is commendable. But why does he not support school vouchers for those less fortunate than the Obamas to allow them to obtain a quality education? Seems to me that this is very hypocritical on the part of Obama.

.

Why is it that parents cannot exercise choice in the matter of obtaining quality education better as opposed to the education offered by the teacher union controlled public school system? Because Barack Obama is beholden to the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation (AFT) of teachers. Both of these corrupt organizations work to destroy the moral and spiritual fabric of this nation and have propped up political puppets and pawns like Obama.

.

The best thing a parent can do is to remove their students from public education and either home school their children or send them to a non-public school that will teach the children well . . .

Obituary of Common Sense

I work for a public institution. Someone at this institution (it was not me) was brave enough to send the following opinion essay to everyone in our entire department.

Obituary of Common Sense

I am 72 years old. My parents told me about Mr. Common Sense early in my life and told me I would do well to call on him when making decisions. It seems he was always around in my early years but less and less as time passed until today I read his obituary. Obituary - Common Sense

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, life isn't always fair, and maybe it was my fault. Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not children are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they themselves failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer aspirin, sun lotion or a band aid to a student; but could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar can sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement. Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason.

He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know my Rights, Someone Else is to Blame, and I'm a Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.


Author unknown

HPV Vaccination Legislation

Several states have been considering legislation that would make a new vaccination (Gardasil) against the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) mandatory for young girls. The HPV virus is spread by sexual contact and it causes cervical cancer. For now, the vaccine is not effective for boys. People are saying that the usual “safe sex” methods are not effective enough against the virus. There are three major concerns among people who are against the legislation.

THE VACCINATION MAY HAVE UNFORESEEN SIDE EFFECTS

The vaccination has gone through clinical trials (11,000 have received it), but the vaccine has only been around for a few years. There is no way of knowing for sure whether or not there will be any long term side effects (such an infertility or worse).

GIVING GIRLS THE VACCINE MAY CAUSE THEM TO BE MORE PROMISCUOUS—BUT WHAT ABOUT RAPE CASES?

Some have pointed out that a girl could contact the virus if she were raped. If the vaccination were known to be safe and effective, then this would be beneficial for them. But in order for the vaccination to work, it must be given before the sexual contact with the infected person. I am concerned about taking away from children reasons not to become sexually promiscuous. So what to do? My answer is this: Why can’t parents give their daughters the vaccination without telling them what it is or what it’s for? I am not saying that that is what they should do (they should consider the possibility of side effects of the treatment). Children receive vaccinations for all kinds of diseases and they are not always told what the disease is like and how it is spread, so why do you have to tell them in this case?

If someone contracts a disease as a result of rape, then the rapist should have to pay for (by forced labor if necessary) any resulting medical bills. (This is assuming that we allow the rapist to live, which is another question.)

IT IS AN INFRINGEMENT

It is an infringement to take medical decisions for children out of the hands of parents or to force or coerce them into giving their children a treatment that they don’t want or are unsure of. Parents should be allowed to do what they think is best for their children’s health. Medicating children is not the proper role of the government. In some states, the pending legislation will give parents the option of “opting out” of this “mandatory” vaccination. I still think that it is not right even to force parents to sign an affidavit to protect their children from something that they don’t want them to be exposed to. Circumcision may also help prevent cervical cancer. Should we force parents to sign an affidavit if they don’t have their boys circumcised? I guess that would be too much mixing religion and politics, since this is in the Bible.

In some states, the bill only applies to girls entering the 6th grade of a public school. I think that it is good that homeschoolers and parents who send their children to private schools don’t have to worry about this in these states. Maybe this intrusive legislation will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for some parents so that they take their kids out of public schools and as a result some will not be exposed to the filthy sexual suggestions that are given to them in health classes. The very existence of public schools is an intrusion, especially if parents who don’t even send their children to public schools (or who don’t want to) are forced to fund them.

I don’t think, however, that taxpayers should have to foot the bill for these treatments, educating people about them, or the expensive research needed to develop them. The government should not force a taxpayer to pay for the consequences of someone else’s sin.

Even some people who are against the legislation say that they are in favor of “educating people” about the vaccine. But I don’t believe that “educating people” is the proper role of the government. People should do their own research (talk with their pediatricians and get a second opinion) and the government should stop trying to persuade people to do things when there is nothing sinful about not doing them.

This is not about punishing people for promiscuity (though that is not a bad idea), but it is about personal responsibility, parental primacy, and religious liberty.

“If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statues, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.”

Exodus 15:26