Friday, August 28, 2009

A Mind is Terrible Thing to Waste

By: Theosebes

The little girl's shoulders shook as she tearfully hugged her big brother good bye. The mother stood by with her hand on her son's shoulder, painfully dealing with the transition from high school student to college freshman. The scene was touching and brought back personal memories of just a year ago as I too experienced this emotional release in 2008 when my daughter entered the university for the first time. Yet there was peace knowing that the college she was attending was built on this mission statement: "Biblically centered education, scholarship and service- equipping men and women in mind and character to impact the world for the Lord Jesus Christ."

The first institution in America was founded in 1636 by a Puritan named John Harvard. He left his library of 400 books to found a "seminary" with this understanding, "The maine end of [a student's] life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3, and therefore to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only foundation of all found knowledge and learning." (Samuel, Eliot Morison, The Founding of Harvard College). Today the mission statement for Harvard is vastly different. "In brief: Harvard strives to create knowledge, to open the minds of students to that knowledge, and to enable students to take best advantage of their educational opportunities." Harvard no longer espouses that the study of God and Jesus Christ is the foundation of all found knowledge and learning, but rather there is a denial of God and the belief that humans can create knowledge. Education has devolved from its superior beginnings in America when the Progressive agenda took root, walking away from the classical preparation that made the true pursuit of knowledge and truth foundational and moving toward an education of experience, resulting in an incremental “dumbing down” of Americans dating back to the early twentieth century.

Parents today may send their children off to prestigious learning institution, feeling secure in the campus security, the dorm life, and the extra-curricular activities these schools may offer, but because parent's have also been indoctrinated into a Progressive mentality, it doesn't occur to them to be wary of the propaganda taught at most universities. Glenn Beck points out in Common Sense that the educational system has "fallen prey to political patronage and the Progressive agenda." Beck also quoted Woodrow Wilson, once president of Princeton University, (another one of America's first colleges founded to meet the needs of training ministers) who said, "Our problem is not merely to help the students to adjust themselves to world life....[but]to make them as unlike their fathers as we can." Beck, Glenn Common Sense, Pg 91.

When did the fathers of our country become unworthy of study and emulation? Who should we fashioning our lives after, if it is not the great men and women in history, our American history? Who should children view as worthwhile role models if it is not their fathers? When did the colleges and universities become enemies of the parent instead of a support system to help the child to succeed in becoming an adult?

According to Gary Amos and Richard Gardiner, in their book Never Before in History, the standard for graduation in the 1700s from Harvard was as follows:

  • Every student who, on trial, shall be able to translate from the original Latin text, and logically to explain the Holy Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, and shall also be thoroughly acquainted with the principles of natural and moral philosophy, and shall be blameless in life and character, and approved at public examination by the President and the Fellows of the College, may receive the first degree.

The Masters Degree required the following:
  • Every scholar who has maintained a good standing, and exhibited a written synopsis of logic, natural and moral philosophy, arithmetic and astronomy, and shall be prepared to defend a proposition or thesis; shall also be versed in the original languages, as aforesaid; and who carries with him a reputation for upright character and diligence in study, and shall pass successfully a public examination, shall be admitted to the second, or Master’s degree.

Today according to the Harvard website, graduation requirements to earn the bachelor’s degree, a student must complete 128 credits and maintain good academic standing (2.0 GPA). At least 64 credits must be completed at Harvard University. A student must fulfill all of his or her requirements and be in good academic and financial standing with Harvard University, with no disciplinary or administrative procedures pending, to graduate and participate in May Commencement. Each school of study of course has differing requirements for its emphasis,

but it is interesting to note the very different tone that one finds today at one of America’s most renowned universities and the requirements of two hundred years ago.

Most interesting is the requirement that the student must be upright and blameless in life and character and having a thorough knowledge of the Bible in the 1700’s Laws and Statutes for Students of Harvard College. One would be hard pressed to find such a high standard for graduation from any school today, let alone America’s oldest institution of higher learning: Harvard University.

Academic standards are set without regard for the character of the individual and no where is the Bible seen as an indispensable factor for a well rounded scholar.

Our lower institutions of learning have an even tougher climb to reach the excellence of early American schools. The New England Primer was the text book that emphasized both Christian charact

er and literacy and classical education was a standard for many colonial Americans, along with apprenticeships to provide skilled training.

Today’s classrooms would not be allowed to have a New E

ngland Primer, as it would offend those who believe in the separation of church and state. The Primer utilized Bible stories to help teach the alphabet and the Westminster Catechism was also part of the text. Samuel Eliot Morison said, “American revolutionary leaders, both North and South, Madison, Wythe, and Jefferson, the Rutledges and Pinckneys, as well as Hamilton, Jay, and the Adamses, and Trumbulls, could never have rendered their distinguished services to the young republic without that classical leaning which is denied to most Americans today. (Samuel Eliot Morison, Three Centuries of Harvard (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1936), 136.

How do we expect our children to excel in grade school, middle school and high school when the standards of education are at an all time low? When Progressivism has a choke hold on real education, when indoctrination is the ring of the school bell, and the diploma of good citizenship is given to a student who can spew out the correct responses on a test that measures the ability to think green, distrust the government and treat people equally. We are not raising an army of brilliant thinkers as the founding fathers were, but rather a generation whose work ethic, morality and character are easy to mold by those who believe they know what is best. Yet this “knowing” leadership also attended the schools of Progressive instruction and they too are not in the same league as the excellent scholars, thinkers and statesmen that the Founders were.

How can we as parents pursue an education for our children, that reflects excellence and strives for a standard that few achieve, a standard that early Americans set and achieved? We as parents do know what is best for our children, even in regard to education, though the local school district and the Obama Administration would say the contrary. American schools are failing our children not because students are not learning to read, write and do basic math, but because the standard of excellence, the standard of “blameless in life and character” is not the key element in a child’s life. When we take away the foundation of Biblical scholarship and morality and replace it with an ever changing ideology of humanism, then the goal becomes only to clone robots who espouse the philosophy of the powers that be. When high moral character and biblical ethics are separated from the education of a child, only the outer shell will appear polished. Test scores may reflect understanding and in academics that child may find success, but the inner person will struggle for meaning that was never addressed in this pursuit of knowledge.

A wholly educated person is educated in mind, body and spirit and is a danger to the Progressive agenda, because that person has the ability to reason, to consider ethical ramifications and to speak against the wrongs that the government is foisting on the “tired and huddled masses”. This is why education is the most crucial weapon that we have as parents and that the Progressive desire to hold in complete control. There is recognition that if the masses can be educated just enough to know how to follow their “teachers”, then an army of “yes men” can be established. This is why parents must do their due diligence to be connected with their child through every part of schooling, even the choosing of the university. This too should becomes a family affair as the family releases the life, mind, and spirit of their child to an institution that will either reinforce the values of the family unit and build it into a stronger entity, or will do the work of a cancer and slowly destroy the value system of that individual, creating in that student an individual who questions the loving authority that nurtured it and instilling a group think mentality focused on experience and skills needed for a future society.

The future of America is in the children that we raise. Mediocre is not an option. Parents must become more deeply engaged in the philosophy of the educational process, as well as breaking the chains that have imprisoned our minds as well. We must re-educate ourselves, recognizing that we all have had a dose of Progressive indoctrination, and we must return to the educational pattern that helped establish this nation. Those who rule on high in Washington are products of this century old heist of the American mind. Like the old proverb, they too have been the frog, slowing dying in an ever warming pot of water. But the fire can be extinguished and the death of brilliant minds stopped. It is not too late to stop the march of this Statist ideology but it must become personal and we must return to the pursuit of truth that Harvard was built on at its inception: "The maine end of [a student's] life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3, and therefore to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only foundation of all found knowledge and learning.” Without this foundation, we may truly say, the mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Saturday, August 22, 2009

California Appeals Court Stands for English Only

By Theosebes

english language

In 1914, President Theodore Roosevelt stated, "We have room for but one language in this country, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house."

Last week, the First District Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected arguments that English-only exams violate a federal requirement that limited-English-speaking students "shall be assessed in a valid and reliable manner." Nearly 1.6 million students in California have limited command of the language, according to a OneNewsNow article. The court of appeals, in a three-to-zero ruling, upheld a San Francisco judge’s decision that ruled against the bilingual-education group in his 2007 decision.

The lawyer for the school district, Marc Coleman stated that they are considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court. But Aloysius Hogan, a spokesman for English First, thinks that due to the solid three-to-zero ruling this would be a tough challenge.

Last week, I had the privilege of introducing a ten year old Ukrainian boy to a group of school children. This young man was adopted by a couple last December and knew absolutely no English when he arrived aside from “hello, yes, no, and mommy and papa.” The day of the assembly, he spoke in very good English to a group of children his age and fielded the questions that these children had for him about the orphanage he had lived in and about Ukraine. His native tongue is Russian and he had been learning to read Russian. Here in his new home, he had to learn a new alphabet and is now reading very well for only being here for eight months.

justin passport

Credit goes to his parents, I am sure, for their dedication in helping him learn the language so quickly. But this young man has had a much more difficult life than most children ever experience in the United States and is already putting the majority of bi-lingual children and adults to shame.

If an orphan child can come to a new land, learn a new alphabet, learn to read and speak in English, in eight months, then why can’t a high school or any elementary school child do the same? I would suggest that there is laziness and a lack of care. The examples these children have at home demonstrate arrogance for not adopting the language that defines America and its heritage. There is no reason other than laziness and pride that keeps individuals back from learning the language of the land. With effort, the lives of the adults and children who do not have a command of the language would improve by making it easier to live in a country with a single language, making it easier to be neighborly and do day to day tasks in the community.

I agree with the Court's decision and believe that pressure needs to be applied to the homes of non-English speakers, holding them responsible for getting their children ready for the world. It is not the government’s job, but rather the individual who chooses to live in the United States of America.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Freedom of speech and Expression is not just for the left!

By Lenice Moynihan

Listen, I love the joker poster of Obama. I read that police are investigating who put them up and who created them. My first question is why and my second thought is I am outraged! There is a man at one of the rallies holding a sign that says "Obama die" and I believe he is now a man of suspicion. Although I personally would not choose to voice my opinion in that way, we do still live in a free society. We are a country of free speech! The poster of the joker is called free expression and the sign held by that man is called free speech. They have every right to say how they feel!

The left called George Bush Hitler for most of his term and no one said a word. I think of the art displays, if you can call them that, over the years. One in particular was the Cross in urine. Yes, it was beloved by the left as up and coming art. It was called free expression and no one cared how many of us were heartbroken by such a vile display! That artist was hailed not investigated! Those of us who found it blasphemous were considered stupid. A couple of months ago Obama was nailed to the cross looking just like Christ. This was done by some liberal artist. The image was going to be unveiled and touted as amazing. I found it to be vile and heresy. We heard no mention of investigations just awe of another genius. The more the art stomps on someone's beliefs or morals the left likes it that much more. You are a square if you can't see how secularism is cool!

The disgusting things the left has come up with under the guise of free speech and free expression has ruined this country. They are the ones who corrupted our image and they continue to do it. Hey, they came up with teaching kids how to put a condom on a banana in school. Of course, our tax dollars should pay for that, right? Who can argue with that kind of higher education and we were worried that we were becoming dumbed down! Remember though no Bible allowed, only bananas and "my two moms."

Free speech is free speech, period! I can't stand, I mean CAN'T STAND, the double standard of these vile hateful people. They love to dish it out but oh boy how they can't take it. This President has the thinnest, not the blackest, skin I have ever seen. He is a cry baby as is much of his staff. We agree mostly we don't want to be shrill like the left but if there are a few out there that do, have at it. Your Constitution defends you. Dear leader, I say that with contempt, that is the end of the story. Some might say what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Yea, maybe many of us see carrying the "Obama die" sign as crass but haven't we stood silent long enough. Remember the bananas?

Thursday, August 20, 2009

DOMA Doomed by Obama?

By Theosebes


Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, a homosexual California couple, are challenging the Defense of Marriage Act. This law prevents same sex couples from securing spousal benefits from Social Security, filing joint tax returns and gaining benefit from other federal rights reserved for traditional marriage. DOMA gives the states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. According to the Associated Press, the Justice Department lawyers have argued that the act is constitutional and they contend that awarding the federal marriage benefits to homosexuals would infringe on the rights of taxpayers in the 30 states that specifically prohibit same-sex marriages.

The Obama administration filed court papers this Monday, August 17, 2009, claiming that they too believe that DOMA discriminates against homosexuals. According to the filing by Assistant Attorney General Tony West, “DOMA reflects a cautiously limited response to society’s still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage.”

But would not the converse be true, if the law was reversed, wouldn’t the millions of people who live in traditional marriages, who support traditional marriages then be discriminated against? And at what point does the institution of marriage stop evolving? Who gets the final say as to what an “Evolved Marriage” looks like?

Also noted in the Associated Press was that the administration does not agree with the arguments that DOMA protects children by defining marriage as between a man and woman?


“The United States does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend DOMA’s constitutionality,” lawyers argued in the filing.

Ironically, this is the same administration that believes the government (also known as “The Village”) knows how to raise our children better than we and that it would like to send “trained babysitters” to our homes to see that we are parenting right via a little paragraph in the proposed healthcare bill. This administration also thinks that the United Nation has the right tools to take care of all the world’s children, individually caring for them, through the efforts of U.N. Treaty on Children. This Administration is not rational about procreation and child-rearing!

welcome to MassIf Mr. Smelt and Mr. Hammer want a state that accepts them and recognizes them for who they are, then I say, move to Massachusetts! Give the people of the states the right to vote their conscience and trust that their voice will be not only heard but also remain law. Let those whose cause has been lost, to either be a good sport about it, or move to a place where they can have the rights they believe they deserve. An interest group, such as the homosexual lobby, should not be able to over turn the voices of millions of Americans and trample states rights. The Obama administration has much bigger issues than to get in bed with this particular “special interest group.”

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Keep It Up Mobsters!

Cheers to the American people who have come out of the woodwork to oppose the monstrosity of a health care bill currently supported by President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. There is nothing more exhilarating to watch than the wheels of democracy in motion with real Americans taking their representatives in Congress to task.

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has called you Nazis, un-American, and your movement “AstroTurf.” Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, refers to you as “evil-mongers.” The President of the United States wants you to “get out of the way” and would like you to be reported to the White House for spreading misinformation. Representative John Dingell thinks you are racists and likened you to sheet wearing KKK members of the 1960’s. You are ridiculed by Senator Barbara Boxer because you dress nicely. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that your concern and anger is “manufactured” and “not completely indicative of what's going on in America”; and NBC News says you are “dumber than Joe the Plumber” and just upset because we have a black President. The arrogant, out-of-touch leaders in Washington D.C. and most in the main stream media just keep turning their noses up to you and the majority of Americans in this country.

During a town-hall-meeting, Senator Arlen Specter, the Republican turned Democrat from Pennsylvania, when trying to respond to the genuine concern of his constituents about this health care bill, was about as inspiring, interesting and persuasive as a can of white paint. There was no substance to his remarks and he sounded bored and defeated. The regular everyday Americans who were there to ask questions sounded more informed and passionate than he did. Other Representatives and Senators have expressed outrage at the fact that you are informed and against the government take-over of our health care. They show disdain for you and want you to just be grateful that they took time out of their busy schedule to listen to you.

I am so proud of my fellow Americans who are making their voices heard. Unlike First Lady Michelle Obama who said “for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country” when her husband became the Democrat nominee for President, this is one of many times that I have been proud of my country. To see so many standing up in opposition to Obama and the Democrats desire to take over our health care, the courage to speak out loudly about it, and the strength to take ridicule from those who don’t understand is inspiring.

Keep it up well dressed mobsters!! We need to stay the course, hold our elected leaders accountable and let them know that we do pay attention; we are concerned; and they cannot do as they please with our country. As Thomas Jefferson said, “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Chuck Norris Doesn't Just Read Books

By Theosebes

chuck norris

Google “Chuck Norris” and the first site that comes up is the website Chuck Norris Facts. He has become a phenomenon on the Internet because of his tough guy image and the jokes pertaining to all things “Chuck Norris.”

Chuck Norris doesn’t read books,he just stares them down until he gets the information he wants out of them.

Yet unlike Al Franken: an actor playing the part of a politician; Chuck Norris has read the Health Care bill and knows what he is talking about.

“While watching these political hot August nights, I decided to research the reasons so many are opposed to Obamacare to separate the facts from the fantasy. What I discovered is that there are indeed dirty little secrets buried deep within the 1,000-plus page health care bill.”

According to, Mr. Norris did read the bill and found this interesting fact:

“It’s outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading “home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children.” The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.

The bill says that the government agents, “well-trained and competent staff,” would “provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains … modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices,” and “skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development.”

It appears that Hillary Clinton’s village to raise America’s children again is sneaking in through the backdoors of our homes via the Obamacare bill. I for one don’t like Clinton's and Obama’s version of a village and don’t intend to live there or let them raise my children. Their parenting skills are supremely lacking when it comes to running an efficient White House- hold, laying on the backs of our children ninety nine trillion dollars of debt. I don’t want them teaching my children math skills, as they appear to have none themselves. I don’t want them teaching my children how to read, as neither appears to have read the Stimulas Bill nor the Health Care Bill. I don’t want them telling my children who God is, as neither seems to understand the Bible. And I would thoroughly disapprove of the babysitters they want to send into my home according to this bill to coach me on how to raise my most treasured possession.

We already see burned out social workers who have no love for the children they purport to “help.” We see teachers who once had a love for kids stumble in and out of the classroom doing the job, without the motivating love behind it. These are the type of babysitter who will be trained to assess whether or not we as American parents are doing it correctly, by their playbook.

Obama and Hillary both ascribe to the “It takes a village mentality”, but their village is more global than American and the U.N. Treaty on Children is the means to the end. According to an article at Huffington Post, “democrats, from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to California Sen. Barbara Boxer, chair of a Senate subcommittee on human rights, have advocated pushing for Senate ratification of the treaty, which requires two-thirds approval in the 100-seat chamber.” The Obama administration is looking to ratify this treaty.

As pointed out by Warren Mass in his article Obama May Revive Anti-family UN Child Treaty “like all UN conventions — is not based on the premise stated in our Declaration of Independence that rights are God-given and, therefore, unalienable (inherent and not subject to government restriction). As with the UN Charter itself, and the constitutions of many other nations, the convention presumes to grant rights. Any governmental entity that does this also presumes the converse power to restrict or suspend those same rights.” This administration does not see our children as belonging to American families, but as to the world. They desire to push their ethics onto the lives of all Americans, no matter what vehicle it takes, a Healthcare Bill or a U.N. Treaty, and they will not cease or desist until their agenda has permanently changed the landscape of our Nation and individually, our private homes.

My God-given rights as a parent, by virtue of the children God gave me, are not for the government to take away. I can not stand by and allow what I know is best for my children on a day to day basis, to be stripped away by a government that seems to only desire a nation that won’t back talk and will consent to every agenda. Washington D.C., Obama and the Democrats believe they can create a “Changed Nation” by getting to the hearts and minds of our kids. And they are right, they can. By taking away the rights of parents to love and choose what is best for their families, the government becomes the facilitator of cloned American children, all raised under one standard. This standard is not “One Nation Under God”, but rather “We are the world, we are the children.” The standard that has thrown God, the Bible and prayer out of so many crucial places in America will be the one in place when the babysitters come to check on our parenting skills. And if I, as a parent, get in the way of the babysitter, I will be deemed an unfit mother and placed in timeout, indefinitely.

As Chuck Norris pointed out, “Government needs less of a role in running our children’s lives and more of a role in supporting parents’ decisions for their children. Children belong to their parents, not the government. And the parents ought to have the right — and government support — to parent them without the fed’s mandates, education or intervention in our homes.”


Another claim on children, by another government, was Hitler’s Youth. According to History Learning Site, movements for youngsters were part of German culture. The Hitler Youth was a logical extension of Hitler’s belief that the future of Nazi Germany was its children. The Hitler Youth was seen as being as important to a child as school was. Another dictator also saw the benefit in capturing the minds of children. As stated also in the Norris article, Josef Stalin once declared, “Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.” These men were smart and so are the Progressives who rule our country today. They know that they can create permanent Change by leaving an indelible mark on our nation’s children, through education and re-education of the American parents.

Perhaps this is why the fight against this bill is so impassioned, as deep down, we recognize a take over of things we holder dearer to us than just Health Care reform. The take over is our freedom to be Americans, to raise our families in God-fearing homes if we so choose and to teach our children what “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” means historically, not progressively. The fight is far from over, but if we have women and men, like Chuck Norris, ready and willing to take a stand, at all costs for our children and the country they will inherit, we can win and return it to our foundational roots.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Julie and Julia a movie review to lighten it up!

Meryl Streep and Amy Adams star in the movie Julie and Julia. It is the latest script written by Nora Ephron. I took a front row seat on opening day. I love to cook myself and was looking forward to learning more about Julia Child. Of course, Meryl was magnificent as Julia and captivated us while she was on screen. Her accent, look and vibrant love for cooking were inspiring as was her portrayal of Julia's marriage to Paul Child, played by Stanley Tucci. Amy Adams was not so fortunate. Her character lacked the charisma Julia did and I found myself bored early on. The movie could have been more interesting and done just as well focusing more on Julia Child. Most of of my generation certainly has heard of Julia but were unaware of her biography. I brought my 19 year old daughter along because she never heard of Julia Child. I figured she was a role model worth knowing. She lead an interesting life and did not start cooking until after age 40. That was inspiring to a 48 year old facing empty nest syndrome! Stanley Tucci held his own along side Meryl Streep. Julia’s whit and charm melted even the French. Her determination and ability to laugh at mistakes made cooks everywhere ready to tackle a harder recipe.

The character Julie was also inspired by Julia and decided to cook her way through Julia’s “Master French Cooking” cook book. She was unfulfilled in her dead end job and quit writing which was her true passion. She decided to make all 547 recipes of Julia’s in one year. She blogs the experience; thus, getting back to writing. Her husband supports her in the beginning but becomes irritated with her self involvement. Her mother, performance only by phone by Mary Kay Place, is a riot. Overall though, Julie cannot captivate the way Julia can.

Although I enjoy Nora’s writing, there were some inconsistencies. Perhaps it was for laughs, but Julie’s best friend tells her she is a bitch. That really was not Julie’s character. Also, Julia was characterized as this generous over the top individual, yet we are informed she is neither impressed nor interested in Julie’s attempt to cook her recipes and blog the experience. That was inconsistent with her character and ended the movie for me on a bad note. On a personal note, I did not appreciate the standard liberal knock at Republicans pointed in one scene. It was unnecessary and really had nothing to do with the movie. Most of the audience did not laugh, the audience was older, and Nora only showed her political bias. Hollywood should recognize Republicans are half of the population and we pay for movie tickets too!

I give this movie a 7. Most performances are strong. The movie was a little long mostly when Julie was on screen. The food looked delicious and made me appreciate a good dish even more. I left the theatre salivating and hungry for some of that French Stew. There were a couple of morals but the one I left with as most important was you can never use too much butter!

Smart Girl Politics ©Template Blogger Green by Dicas Blogger.