December 2007

I just found out that the Home School Legal Defense Association endorsed Mike Huckabee (or, as the hubby and I have begun referring to him, “President Logan from 24”). This is despite the “official” policy of HSLDA, which states that they do not endorse presidential candidates in primaries unless there is a “clear-cut conservative vs. liberal match-up.”

I was so surprised by the endorsement that it took me a couple of days to get my wits about me and write about it. I wonder what ulterior motives HSLDA has for endorsing Huckabee, because I’m certain its not because he would be the best candidate for home schoolers.

While governor of Arkansas, Huckabee increased state involvement in education. Despite the fact that he did support parents’ rights to home school their children (by supporting one act in 1997), one cannot overlook the fact that he increased taxes in order to increase state involvement in education.

Additionally, from “Homeschoolers for Ron Paul:”

…Huckabee is not as strong a supporter of homeschooling as his campaign might suggest. It is true that he demonstrated his support for homeschooling in 1997 when he signed into law a House bill favoring homeschooling. Huckabee saw to it that a good deal of publicity surrounded this event. Prior to the 1997 legislation, home schooled students had been required to receive a passing grade on annual tests. Currently students are only required to take standardized tests along a schedule similar to that of the public schools, and they are not required to pass the tests. In addition parents are not asked to pay for the testing. In other words, the 1997 law provided relief for home schooling families, but didn’t represent a dramatic change.


However, this reform occurred only at the beginning of his governorship (1997-2007) and Arkansas laws pertaining to homeschooling were already very restrictive. In the following ten years no additional relief was provided to home schooling families, and in fact, more restrictions followed. A home schooling family who didn’t want to have their child tested could still be charged with truancy. In 1999, additional legislation was enacted in Arkansas and signed by Governor Huckabee that imposed greater rather than less restrictions on home schoolers. The restrictions could potentially cause problems for students whose families are undecided. The 1999 legislation called for a two-week advance statement of intent to home school or truancy charges would be filed. In addition the restrictions do not permit students to be withdrawn from school for the purpose of home schooling if the students are facing disciplinary violations. The compulsory attendance law was also revised during Huckabee’s governorship to require that attendance in school be required beginning at age 5, not 6, as previously. In an article entitled “Homeschoolers Lose Ground” of July 20, 2007, HSLDA itself stated its vigorous opposition to this legislation. In other words, Huckabee’s avowed support for homeschooling must be seriously questioned.

During the Iowa debate, Huckabee said that, while he doesn’t believe the Federal Government should be directly involved in education, he still feels that the feds should act as a marketplace of ideas. I’m not even sure what that means, but something tells me that it would still entail (unconstitutional) federal involvement in education.

Huckabee also sought and received the endorsement of the National Education Association in New Hampshire. While addressing the group he said, “I’m astonished there are not more Republican candidates here. Do they not think education is important? Or are they just afraid of the NEA? I don’t know.” So, Huckabee apparently equates education in America with the NEA, also known as the single greatest threat to school-choice in the United States.

The NEA has repeatedly fought against home schooling in the US, and, if it were up to them, there would be no home schooling allowed in the United States. And these people endorsed Huckabee. Tell me why in the world it would make sense for the NEA and the HSLDA to endorse the same candidate?

Many are attributing Huckabee’s rise in the polls to widespread support of home schoolers, and this I just don’t understand. My hope is that home schoolers across the country will do their homework (if you’ll pardon the pun) and check Huckabee’s record. The simple fact that he was endorse by the NH NEA is reason enough to assume that he is not a friend to home schoolers.


As Hillary Clinton becomes the first woman to have a real shot at the White House, and not long after Nancy Pelosi became the first female Speaker of the House, feminists across the country are salivating at their dream being realized. They are not so excited about having a woman in the White House for the sake of there being a woman in the White House, rather that they will have nearly all of Washington in the hands of the far-left, promoting what they claim are “women’s issues.”

Feminism as a movement has become something altogether different than what its foremothers intended. In the beginning, “feminist” meant primarily getting women the right to vote – something to which I am clearly not opposed! These women wanted us to have a voice, and for them I am truly thankful. It is because of these women that I have an education, my very own blog, the opportunity to vote for Ron Paul in 2008, and – if I must – the ability to get a job.

These women – the original feminists – still had respect for their husbands. They accepted the responsibility to stay home and raise their children, and truly wanted little more than a voice for women. Then something happened.

During the 1960’s, women’s lib teamed up with the sexual revolution and a whole new women’s movement was born. Women were told that they could have sex without consequences and, during the 1970’s, that they could “have it all” – both a family and a high-powered career – joining the workforce in droves. The attempt to balance work and family continued throughout the 1980’s, then in the 90’s women began to realize that there were sacrifices that must be made in order to “have it all.”

Somehow, in the midst of this “women’s lib for the common woman,” the women’s movement was taken over by the far left. The women’s movement of today isn’t so much about “equal rights for women,” but a liberal agenda through which women would be made dependent on government rather than their husbands.

Fewer women identify with “feminism” nowadays, for they see feminism as a radical fringe-movement bent on lesbian rights and androgynous she-males taking over the board room (and the White House). All of us, however, are suffering the consequences of the modern feminist movement.

As a stay-at-home mom, I am either belittled as an uneducated blight on women’s rights or accused of being one of the wealthy few who can live on one income. I am neither. I graduated from college with a degree in philosophy and had every intention of attending law school (with the brains and the test scores to do it). I, however, made the choice to get married, have children, and fulfill my God-given role as wife and mother. I didn’t make the choice the modern feminists wanted me to make.

I, along with most stay-at-home moms, am also not wealthy. The highest number of stay-at-home moms are a part of households that earn between $20,000 and $25,000 per year (The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism, 187). The last time I checked, $25,000 per year is hardly “wealthy.”

What feminists don’t want to admit is that women would actually choose to stay at home. Choosing to stay home and raise children just doesn’t make sense to a woman who thinks the ultimate joy in life is doing what the boys do. Surely we stay-at-home moms must be too stupid to work or oppressed by our power hungry husbands, right?

Then again, even if the feminists concede that we’re not uneducated or wealthy, women like Leslie Bennetts tell us that we’re facing destitution by forgoing our careers raise children.

Men and women are suffering under the ever-growing government that is the feminist ideal. Higher taxes, more government programs, and a generally bloated federal government are the dreams of the modern feminist. Government education and subsidized day-care centers “allow” women to head to the workforce, while government-run health care and increasing business regulations give women the “freedom” to work where they choose. Unless, of course, they choose to stay home.

Hillary’s feminist dream of an “America for women” will be a nightmare for women like me. If you send your kid to daycare, you get a tax deduction; I stay at home and get lost income. The higher taxes it takes to pay for socialized medicine will mean my husband will bring home less money. Business regulations to urge “equality” for women means that – if something were to happen to my husband and I need to find a job – I will be less likely to find the kind of job I would be able to find if I was male. The push for increasing public education and eliminating the notion of school choice means that my decision to home school will be more expensive and potentially dangerous, as the NEA wields more power and labels homeschoolers “child abusers.”

So while the Democratic Party parades Hillary in front of the nation as the great savior for woman-kind, I shudder to think what my country will be like if – God forbid – she wins the White House. The former feminist ideal of opportunities and choices for women will be shattered in the name of New Feminism – a feminism that means only the choices the feminists want you to make are acceptable and my choice of staying at home to be a mom is made more difficult and less respected.

As much as I love politics, I have to say that having the first big presidential showdown little more than a week after Christmas is a bit, well, irritating.

I’m still all wrapped up in boxes and bows, having fun with fire engines, a baby grand piano (the Fisher Price kind, not a real one!), and even a rocking motorcycle, but here we are, eight days away from the Iowa caucus. Dang it, I’m not ready!

I even feel a bit sorry for the candidates, campaign staff, and their families for having to jump back on the presidential bus this soon after the holiday. It seems a little cold, and I’m not talking about the weather.

So, I’m going to take another day or two to have lots and lots of Christmas fun before getting back on the political bandwagon. Not that politics isn’t fun, but it sure can’t stand up to pushing an 11-month-old around in a giant fire truck! I might be ready to do some presidential thrashing by tomorrow, or maybe the next day, but until then you can expect nothing but painfully cheerful Christmas fun out of me!

This is a very interesting video on the history of the Federal Reserve:

As much as I fear economic collapse (which will eventually happen, I’m certain), and therefore hate to read about the pitfalls of our economic system, I’ll be using some Christmas money to order “The Creature from Jekyll Island,” which discusses the secret meeting that took place on Jekyll Island at which the Federal Reserve was crafted. Scary.

If you haven’t yet, go to Pledge for Paul and pledge to vote for Ron Paul in your state’s primary!

I had told myself when the story “broke” that I wasn’t going to talk about it. I wasn’t going to give him the satisfaction of free publicity. No one, however, will shut up about it, so I can’t help but throw in my two cents. Against my better judgment, here’s my take on Huckabee and his “floating cross.”

I’m not going to provide a link to the video, again, because I don’t want to give Huckabee the free publicity, but I’m sure you can find it on youtube if you really want to see it.

The video in question is a commercial airing in Iowa (and possibly elsewhere, I’m not sure) in which Huckabee wishes everyone a Merry Christmas. He says something to the effect of, “Everyone is so tired of the political ads…blah, blah, blah…shouldn’t we just celebrate the birth of Christ…blah, blah, blah…hope you and your family have a Merry Christmas…blah, blah, blah.” Huckabee is sitting in front of a bookshelf which, due to the angle and lighting, looks like a cross floating above his shoulder.

What I find terribly interesting about the media frenzy the ad has spurred, is that they are far more concerned about the “floating cross” than the fact that Huckabee actually referred to Christmas as the “celebration of the birth of Christ.”

The thing I find so distasteful about Huckabee in general and this ad in particular is that it’s so blatantly screaming, “Hey everyone!!! I’m a C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N!!! Christian Christian Christian!!! Yup, that’s me…CHRISTIAN Mike Huckabee!!!” Those who are truly “like Christ” don’t need flashing neon signs indicating their religious affiliation – you just know. You see it in their lives and, when it comes to political figures, in their policies. If you have to announce it to the world that you love Jesus it seems, well, rather like the Pharisees.

Sadly, ads like these and campaigns like Huckabee’s seem to work. So many people want an easy pick that they’ll just vote for the guy that said he loves Jesus and be done with it. I, however, am not fooled.

I’m not saying that Huckabee’s not a Christian – that’s not for me to decide. What I am saying is that I’m not going to vote for Huckabee simply because he seems to think he’s the most Christian guy in the field. He may very well be a good Christian fellow, but he’s also nothing more than a social conservative. He’s about as fiscally conservative as Hillary (actually maybe less so), and his immigration and environmental policies put the fear of God in me (no pun intended).

Interestingly, I wasn’t sure what Ron Paul’s religious beliefs were until just a couple of days ago. His policies are so in line with the Christian faith that I somehow knew that Dr. Paul was a Christian, but I didn’t know for sure until someone sent me his statement of faith.  I appreciate that Dr. Paul lives like a Christian without shouting his beliefs from the rooftops.

Again, I don’t know Huckabee’s heart, but experience has shown me that those who scream the loudest about their faith are the ones who don’t do such a good job of living that faith, and Huckabee’s policies seem to point in that direction.

The idea that there is a “consensus” in the scientific community on catastrophic man-made global warming is fading like the Arctic glaciers. Wait. Bad example. It’s fading like, like…well, it’s fading.

From a US Senate report: “Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming” Many of these scientists are current and former members of the UN’s IPCC.

This, as the US folds under pressure at the Bali conference.

We’ve talked about this before…I’m not saying that we shouldn’t take care of the environment; I think we should. We should not, however, be forced by our government to take action that will not only hurt our economy (e.g., a cap and trade system) but will also have little to no impact on the environment.

I keep praying that people will either come to their senses or the earth will hurry and begin cooling again, as it inevitably will. Of course, then the global warming alarmists will find some way to blame global cooling on carbon emissions, as well.

Next Page »