The Right To Life

Posted on March 30, 2008 by Kirk

A few weeks ago I was asked how conservatives are able to simultaneously support the death penalty and oppose abortion. This is a valid question and the answer is found in the discussion of when an individual gains, or loses, their right to life. Although I have my opinion (which I will naturally share), I cannot give a definitive answer here. However, I can, perhaps, shed some light on the question and open the avenues for constructive debate.

The social conservative accepts the view point that a person receives the right to life at (or very shortly after) conception and may lose that right when they choose to maliciously take away (or destroy) the life of someone else. Conversely, the social liberal follows the perspective that a life is not a life until it is born, that the “state” knows better how to care for a life than do the parents, and that, once life is attained, the right to that life can never be taken away for any reason, regardless of the choices that person makes.

In my ongoing quest to encourage people to vote the issues, rather than turning our race for our nation’s presidency into another popularity contest, I hope that voters will find the candidate that best matches their own position on this important issue and votes for them. Obama and Clinton both feel that a woman has the right to choose not to have a child well into her pregnancy and so it is important to them for women to be allowed to terminate the life of an unborn child. McCain, on the other hand, believes that we must protect these, our most vulnerable, citizens and, therefore, abortion should be curtailed. The right to not have a child ends at conception.

What many people may not be aware of is that Senator Barbara Boxer (California’s most liberal and most expensive senator in history), has legislation in process that would not only further extend the right to murder children under Roe v. Wade, but would remove the ban on partial birth abortions signed into law by President Bush.

For more information on saving unborn children and stopping Sen. Boxer and others like her visit the National Right To Life Website.

Posted in Election 08, morality | Comments Off on The Right To Life

The Real Racists in Politics

Posted on March 24, 2008 by Kirk

With an African-American and a woman running for President, it seems unlikely that we could get through the entire campaign without discussing race and gender equality issues. It seems that both have waited for the other to bring it up, but Hillary drew first blood (albeit vicariously) and Barack has since been on the defensive. What has really hurt him, however, are the comments of his pastor, Rev. Wright, and (even more so) the response to that by the press and others. To his credit, Obama has been attempting to run his campaign outside of the race issue, but he was finally forced last week to discuss it at length. The jury is still out concerning the effectiveness of his speech, but it seems to be somewhere between “the best speech on race ever given” and “completely ineffective” depending on who you listen to.

Dinesh D’Souza wrote a great book on the topic, which I read some years ago, The End of Racism. He seems to confirm my own experience that racism now exists, mostly, for the sake of racism. Although there are still individuals with unjust biases towards those of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds from themselves, the barriers that once existed because of color and creed simply do not continue to exist in this country in the form which they once had. Don’t misunderstand me, there are still barriers. But the barriers that now exist are dependant upon an individuals financial status much more than anything else.

Of course there are those who seem determined to perpetuate racism as the cause of all things bad in America. Rev.Wright, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are chief among them. The so-called “Hip-Hop Culture” leads the way in making sure any person of color continues to feel oppressed and repressed. More significantly, they want to make sure that people stay angry and continue to point fingers and place blame.

Not only was Geraldine Ferraro wrong, but she illustrates what is so wrong with the liberal racism. They believe that a black man could not be president without relying on his color to propel him into the spotlight. They believe people of color could not get jobs or educations based on abilities, so they offer affirmative action to compensate. In the public schools we continue to be forced to analyze test scores and general performance according to race and then develop programs designed to help the “lower performing” races.

What is ironic is that when people claim that the need for special programs based on race no longer exists, they are labeled racist and it creates such an uproar that we simply stopped trying to fight it. So racism continues for its own sake.

Truth be told, I don’t mind a woman president, but I don’t want one who wants to be a “woman president.” I don’t mind a president who is black, but I don’t want a “black president.” I don’t want Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to be president because I disagree with their politics. One of the reasons I disagree with their politics is that their policies will perpetuate the divisions in America; along race lines as well as others. The real racists are those preventing the nation from moving past racism by promoting anger, hatred and blame.

Posted in economy, Education, Election 08, morality, press and media | 1 Comment

Credentials for home-schooling?

Posted on March 14, 2008 by Kirk

There’s a lively debate festering on Stephen Frank’s site concerning the new home-school credential requirement. It’s amusing to see Chiara and Richard arguing about education while both misspelling in their posts.

I am an educator in both a public high school and a private Christian university. Some of my credential students are earning credentials in order to be better equipped to home-school their own children or those of family members. I would point out that I started having students with this objective before the state began talking about adding this requirement.

I have had several students in my high school classes who have returned to public school after being home-schooled for a time. While there are some great examples of home-schooled children achieving amazing success, many others return way behind and do not know how to learn. Their parents are not trained educators and simply do not know how to teach. The children suffer.

I support the right to home school our children and I see many reasons to do so, but if we want our children to be well equipped for college (or life), why wouldn’t we want to be better equipped ourselves to provide them with a complete and adequate education? Contrary to what many people seem to believe, teaching is not so easy that anyone can do it well. However, it is a skill that can be learned and a teaching credential program is the best way to develop that skill.

There are many problems within our public education system and particularly in California. Home-schooling (as well as private facilities) must continue to be available as an option to avoid the liberal bias and anti-Christian values (or lack of values in general) forced upon us in public schools. Additionally, the traditional classroom is not always the best place for every student to learn. However, we must ensure that home-schooled children are educated properly and completely.

Truth be told, having children poorly educated by untrained parents is paramount to child-abuse. Parents have the right to educate their children, but children have the right to be properly educated. A credential program does not tell the potential teacher what to teach, it teaches them how to teach. The new requirement will ensure that any parent wishing to home-school their children will be trained in the pedagogical aspects of teaching and learning.

 

Posted in Education | 3 Comments

I’m not angry…

Posted on March 11, 2008 by Kirk

Really, I’m not, but perhaps I should be.

California used to have the best education system in the country and, probably, the world. Now it ranks among the worst. We have so many “special” programs that distract from teaching a well-balanced education that teaching has become of relative lessor importance in school. Don’t get me wrong, I really believe that the best teachers in the world are probably teaching in California public schools, but our hands are tied by bureaucracy. Powers that be have decided that the answer is found in testing the kids into comas. This takes even more time away from actual teaching and learning. In our district it has been suggested for several years that we change our calendar to start earlier and finish our first term before Christmas break (this would put midterms in the second term before Spring break and finish the school year before Memorial Day), it finally made it to a ballot, but never got around to being decided on. It just seems that so little about the bureaucracy of education has anything to do with what is best for students and their education. Meanwhile, The California Teachers Association has spent so much time lobbying for costly special interest and their own liberal agenda that they forgot to fight for education and now we have to cut $4 billion from education and still raise test scores. I’ll stop short of blaming the CTA for the whole problem, but I will say they didn’t do their job and now we are in a mess.

I’ve always said that a house is not worth twice as much just because it is in California. It turns out I was right. The falsely inflated housing market has been falling flat on its face for two years now. People can’t afford the homes they live in, but the mortgage industry convinced many of us several years ago that, since home values are going up so fast, financing more than a house is worth now is a safe bet… guess they were wrong. Now people are losing their homes because interest rates on adjustable loans are going up and many expect the government to save them.

The problem is that people don’t seem to realize that the government gets its money from the people. Government can’t pay the damages (and there are damages) without raising taxes and the people can’t afford the tax increases. Consequently, the state is left with the only other option of cutting expenses. Government employees, including teachers lose their jobs. Classes are going to be packed with more students than teachers can teach and test scores, as well as other indicators of learning, will plummet. Teachers will be blamed.

Fuel prices have exaggerated the price of everything else, from travel to clothing to food. Liberals want to blame President Bush, but that’s just what they do. The problem is OPEC, and it always has been. Alternative fuel sources is the answer, but the cost of those is still prohibitive because anything “new” is expensive. Gas is cheaper in Brazil and they have been using ethanol for years. They also don’t import any foreign oil. It’s ridiculous that we still do.

Truth be told, our economy is a mess and it has been before. It cannot be blamed on any one person or group, but it will not get better if we expect the government to fix it. The government has never been able to fix the economy. Historically, everytime they try to force an economic fix on the nation it has backfired and made things worse. Socialism doesn’t work. We don’t need new programs or government mandated economic policies. The folks usually do a pretty good job of getting out of the messes the government buries us in and we’ll do it again this time… if we can just keep the government out of they way.

Posted in economy, Education | Comments Off on I’m not angry…

Free press?

Posted on March 2, 2008 by Kirk

It always strikes me as odd when people think they get rights without responsibility. Our nation’s press has seen themselves this way for a long time. The New York Times has become an editorial rag, rather than a news source. Our “trusted” television network news organizations have twisted the facts (or ignored them completely) to further their own agendas. The “scoop” outweighs wisdom and, often, the facts. I would like to say that this is a new phenomenon, but it’s not.

Back in the the 80’s I remember Peter Jennings of ABC News covering the Iran Contra hearings. (I still can’t figure out why Congress has proclaimed themselves the judiciary branch and able to hold hearings anyway, but that’s another topic.) For “National Security reasons” countries were given letter codes and individuals number codes during the televised hearings. I was just a young pup at the time, but I still recall Peter Jennings whispering “remember, ‘G’ is China” and wondering why he thought giving that information to the television audience was more important than “National Security.”

It’s not just the US press either. Recently, Prince William’s location in Afghanistan was given up by the press. Not only did this
put him in danger, but it gave the location of hundreds of other soldiers to enemies who watch the news. Who needs intel when they can just watch television or read the newspaper to find out where the troops are? The security of individuals and the war effort against terrorism took a back seat to getting the story out first. Troops had to be moved, William had to come home, realizing that his presence there had now become a liability to his fellow soldiers, but the press got their story.

The situation was discussed on O’Reilley the other night and one guest was a reporter from Las Vegas. He didn’t break the story, but he did say that it had to be done. His opinion was that if they didn’t tell the story, it would be censorship. In case you missed the ignorance (and arrogance) here, let me remind you that the censorship laws refer to the government limiting the press, not to the press limiting themselves. The intent of the “free press” is to protect the people from a corrupt government, not to endanger people, or the country, with careless reporting. In fact, a little self-censorship would do the press and the rest of us, a lot of good.

There is an old saying: “your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.”
Truth be told, it would do the world some good if the press would remember that just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Any freedom ends when it infringes on the freedoms of someone else.

Posted in press and media | 2 Comments

Hillary shows her true colors

Posted on February 25, 2008 by Kirk

I have been watching the woman who would be queen self-destruct the past few weeks. Her desperation has motivated her to turn her campaign to personal smear tactics. Issues have little to do with the democratic primaries since Obama and Clinton do not differ by much. Concern has been expressed that Hillary will try to get Michigan and Florida delegates to the table and that she will employ the super delegates to win the nomination. Some say that she will not do this because it will destroy the Democratic Party.

Excuse me!? Are you paying attention to who we are talking about here? She has more concealed business deals than a mob boss and she has barely avoided prosecution at least twice. She used state employees to hunt down her husband’s affairs, not to call him out or make him clean up his act, but to blackmail the women into silent submission so he could be president. Don’t think she did that for him. No, it was for her. Her husband’s presidency was only a stepping stone to her own. Hillary Clinton may be the single most ambitious person of our time. She doesn’t care about the Democratic Party, her husband, or this country. She cares about Hillary Clinton being president.

She speaks of experience as if she has any of her own. She mocks her opponent’s campaign style because she has nothing left in her arsenal. She asks the people who they want answering the Red Phone at 3AM when a international incident occurs (and if she is president it will).

Truth be told, I want someone answering that phone who I do not know for sure is a cheat and a liar.

Posted in Election 08 | 2 Comments

Conservative? Now What?

Posted on February 12, 2008 by Kirk

First let me say that I am not yet giving up completely on Mike Huckabee, but I am a realist. Huckabee would need to get all of Romney’s delegates and win a sizable majority from here on out to win the nomination. That combination is not likely.

I would also like to go on record as saying that, from a conservative view point, things are not as bad as the press would have us believe. McCain may not be the most conservative candidate, but his positions are definitely on the conservative side of the spectrum. In fact, McCain supports winning in Iraq and continuing the fight against terror. He supports the current tax-cuts and wants to keep them permanent. He is opposed to same-sex marriage and government paid health care, and, although he has varied his exact position (as Romney has), he is pro-life and thinks that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. So what’s the problem?

Here it is. John McCain has issues with border security and his illegal immigration plan involves a form of amnesty (by another name). Frankly, his abilities to control the border in Arizona leave much to be desired and his “negotiations” with dems on “cross-party” legislation look more like he just lay down and let them take a steam-roller over him. To his credit, he seems to have heard the voice of the people concerning the border and illegal immigration and, although he hasn’t declared a change in position, he is now professing a change in priority. However, he desperately needs to learn that “negotiating” does not mean smile and nod while you let the other side do what ever they want.

Dennis Miller said the other day that the country seems to be “47% left, 47% right, and the elections are won in the 5% in the middle.” Forgiving the math error, McCain is better able to win the 5% in the middle than either Romney or Huckabee and maybe even better than Clinton or Obama. I have previously mentioned that I don’t like the idea of voting for an “electable candidate” over voting by issues, but I do believe in picking someone who is the closest to my view of the choices that are available. McCain is way closer than Obama or Clinton. This means we could end up with a GOP president (at least that is more conservative than the alternative).

Does this mean that true conservatives should surrender their positions and compromise in order to elect the most conservative choice we have? No! What it means is that conservatives have to fight the fight for family values and secure borders through the system with every tool we have available to us. If Clinton or Obama are elected we will be hard pressed to avoid government health care and all the other “programs” these liberals want to tax us to pay for. The tax burden will put our economy into a tailspin and the war on terror will escalate until it is being fought on American soil and, possibly, in our own back yards.

Truth be told, if McCain is president, we will have a safer country (and world), more conservative judges who will protect the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage, and lower taxes than either democrat he may be running against would provide.

Posted in Election 08 | Comments Off on Conservative? Now What?

Should we rethink this?

Posted on February 4, 2008 by Kirk

By this time Wednesday we may know who will be representing each party in the general election next November, but maybe not. We will certainly know which, if any, of the propositions will have passed in California. Most of you have already decided which way you will vote so I will spare you the last minutes propaganda concerning the issues behind the issues and the plans behind the candidates. I have done quite a bit of research and watched many of the other commentators and I think I know who supports what and why. If you want my additional insight, email me.

One thing that strikes me is the more frequent discussion surrounding a candidate’s ability to win. I have heard it from both parties, but most commonly from the democrats… “We have got to get a democrat in the White House.” My question is why?

For that matter, why do we “have to have a Republican” in office either? I understand the philosophical differences between the parties, but I am not always convinced that the candidates do. Way too often I have heard commentators reflect that they “really believe [insert name here] is the best candidate, but I just don’t think they can win.” What a sad nation we have become. How we have destroyed the process. What a shame that we have perverted the intent of our founding fathers to the extent that the election of the leader of the most powerful nation on earth to a popularity contest. As a high school teacher I have often pointed out the difference between running for Student Body President and running for actual political office, but it really isn’t that different after all. At least not any more. We are not so concerned with who is best equipped to lead our nation (and the world), than with what team they come from.

The system we have in place is based on the popular vote guiding a well-informed electorate in choosing a leader. However, it is more like an misinformed public not really effecting a corrupt electorate in choosing someone who best represents the currently most powerful lobbyists and special interest groups. In actuality, I think we are all special interest groups, but I digress. With the information age in full swing, we really have no need for the electorate system. We should still have the voting chapters, but only as a means for counting. It is time to let the people really decide. Of course, that would require people to vote the issues and not the candidates, and we are right back where we started.

Posted in Election 08 | 2 Comments

How to insult a Republican…

Posted on January 28, 2008 by Kirk

Call him a liberal. This seems to be the tact of both Romney and McCain as they battle for Florida’s winner take all delegates primary tomorrow. The fact is that there is no true conservative in the race. McCain, however has several failed efforts to negotiate with liberals to his credit (sarcastic tone intended).

The task falls to the voter to choose between a moderate like McCain or Giuliani, each of whom would be strong on the war on terror, but lean far left of most conservatives, a social conservative like Huckabee, or a fiscal conservative like Romney. It may be that the only way to get a true conservative on the ballot in November would be to morph Mitt and Mike together. If their social and fiscal strengths could be combined we might have something a majority of people could get behind. They would, however need to convince the American people that they are both capable of fighting the good fight on terror and national security.

On the Dem side, the “anybody but Hillary” crowd needs to kick it into a higher gear. Obama has the likability factor, but the Clinton “machine” is still getting the votes. South Carolina was encouraging, but she still leads in national polls, whatever that means. It may be that Obama is so far left that a moderate Congress (if we could get one) could control his policy more easily than they could a Clinton… any Clinton. Of course, you can never tell about the Hillary Clinton. Nobody knows where she really stands, maybe not even her.

Truth be told, if it ends up being Clinton against McCain, I may look at the Unity 08 ticket.

Posted in Election 08 | Comments Off on How to insult a Republican…

A brief word on the California propositions

Posted on January 21, 2008 by Kirk

Super Tuesday is two weeks from tomorrow and, in California, we will also be voting on several propositions. You really should read them before you vote, but here’s some things I have observed.

You can no longer determine who supports or opposes what because they create an organization to serve their purpose. You also have to look very carefully to follow the money. The propositions seem simple this time around, but they are not.

Be careful on 91. There is no argument against it, but the argument for it says it is not needed and please vote no. I suppose it was too late to remove it from the ballot, but I am curious to see how many votes it gets.

Prop 92, in effect, separates Community Colleges from K-12 education and out from under the influence of the CTA. I would normally think that to be a good idea, but the proponents of this law are students wanting to lower their own costs. No one else seems to think this is a good plan because it doesn’t consider where the expense of educating these students will come from and it virtuaslly removes community college cost from the influence of inflation. California Community Colleges are already the best deal in education in the nation and low income students already get their fees waived.

You have to ask yourself who really benefits from Prop 93. It changes the term limit law to allow elected officials to remain in the same branch of the state legislature for 12 years. It is true that it lowers term limits from 14 years to 12, but it allows current elected official to stay in their current position for 12 years. This dramatically increases the time in office for many of those currently “representing” us. Honestly, if you can’t get anything done in 2 terms (8 years) in the Senates and 3 terms (6 years) in the Assembly, you probably shouldn’t get re-elected anyway. I am not one to use the “slippery slope” argument, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see an attempt to change something again 10 years from now to allow these career politicians to stay in office again. We passed term limits for a reason. We should probably leave it alone.

The Governator and four large Native Tribes negotiated a deal of mutual benefit to the tribes and the State. The results of these negotiation are Props 94, 95, 96, & 97.  Here the opponents are the tell-tale indication. Nevada casinos don’t want to risk losing customers to those who would stay home in California. The Casino Workers’ Unions are not provided enough of a grip on the Indian Gaming employees by these propositions. These are the major groups against these propositions which allow the tribes to increase their income potential by expanding their business on their land in exchange for more income for California.

Truth Be Told: I vote for propositions that raise money without raising taxes. I vote against anything that raises taxes or doesn’t provide a tax free method for paying for itself. One more rule… if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Posted in Election 08 | Comments Off on A brief word on the California propositions