San Diego – For a long time some have argued that new attempts to move us away from any sense of traditional morality is not leading to anything but simply making us more tolerant. After all, they argue, ideas of right and wrong are outmoded moralities of the past.
Others have argued that some new measure to give government more authority to control our lives and activities was not to establish a trend towards greater authoritarianism but simply a measure to help or protect us. After all, they argue, we cannot really protect ourselves from the abuses of bad guys of all kinds that scam us out of our money, pollute our food, or want to do us harm.
Others have argued that in the end, our protections under the Constitution were protected because we could simply vote the offending law makers out. After all, they argue, who would ever, in the land of the free, have the nerve to even suggest we disenfranchise the public?
But others have noted, with some alarm, that each measure that is allowed to pass under such guises adjusts and resets the base. So, following a quiet period when folks adjust to the new normal, then another measure can and will be proposed to subtly further eradicate our cultural mores, traditions, and freedoms and thus each one is taking us farther over the edge of a “slippery slope” from which there may not be a retreat.
Alarmists? Paranoiacs? Luddites? Fuddy-duddies? Perhaps, but let’s see what is happening right now, in Fall of 2011, on those slopes, slippery or otherwise.
California SB 48
Here is an interesting State Bill, ready to be signed into law by an approving governor which mandates that all social science curricula, including history books and other instructional materials, are to teach children as young as five not just to accept but also to endorse transgenderism, bisexuality, and homosexuality.
It does not get better the further your read it. This bill does not allow parents who object to having their children exposed to this material to ‘opt out.’ Now, remember, parents who object to their children doing something as morally repugnant as reciting the pledge of allegiance to our country can opt out, but not from this.
The bill was represented to the public as a measure designed to stop bullying. But mysteriously, despite that goal, the actual text of the law never even mentions bullying. Rather it openly seeks to regulate classroom instruction. It does this by requiring all public schools – including charter schools – to, in the Bill’s own words, “…include positive discussions of the sexual orientations of transgender, bisexual, and gay Americans in all social science courses.” The sponsors have repeatedly asserted that SB 48 mandates this provocative material for California students in all grades from Kindergarten to High School.
As a parent does this strike you as a good thing for five year olds? Or is it a case of the state mandating that the schools teach the official state philosophy? And even if you agree with it, with this precedent set what is to prohibit it from mandating, at a later date, teaching something with which you fervently oppose? This is not about whether or not you approve of those behaviors, truly that is irrelevant here; it is about whether or not you think that the State legislature has a right, on its own, to demand specific philosophical tenets be taught or prohibited in the schools.
This is a really good one. Wisconsin, the “Dairy State” has the toughest regulations on raw milk use and sale in the country. But now a Wisconsin judge has ruled that people in the Dairy State have no “fundamental right” to consume any food, own or use dairy cows or consume the milk their cows produce, without government permission. Specifically, on page four of his ruling are found these points:
- “Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd.”
- “Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow.”
- “Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer.”
- “Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice.”
You need to read those rulings very very carefully and try to align them with any vestige of a belief in freedom of property you may think still exists. Without freedom of property, there really is no freedom at all.
Election Suspension Idea
What is one of the very first things autocrats do? Right after they disarm the populace they suspend elections until they can figure a way to rig them to their own satisfaction. This is a process repeated over and over throughout history. Think it could never even be voiced here?
Think again. Democratic Governor Beverly Perdue of North Carolina, who is headed for defeat in 2012, created quite a stir recently when she said at the Rotary Club in Cary, North Carolina:
I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them — whatever decisions they make — to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that. You want people who don’t worry about the next election.
Remember a few posts ago I wrote and then wrote again that the issue is about FREEDOM and with it the very heart of what made America great, warts, scars, and all. Certainly not perfect but a place that most of the rest of the world wanted to come to and partake of our culture of opportunity. But opportunity can only exist in an environment of freedom.
Want to give up some more of the freedoms you thought were all shared by Americans and protected by the Constitution? Here are just three chances for you to do that by supporting these actions. And don’t even begin to think these three examples exhaust the efforts being undertaken to remake this country into something very different than the place that became that “shining city on the hill.”
These people, from King Barrack on down, do sincerely believe that this transformation needs to take place. They despise what we are and see it is anathema to their visions for such philosophical concepts as “social justice” and fairness. We are in the midst of perhaps the most important debate and conflict this country has ever faced. The civil war was simply to peel off some of our territory and not to transform the entire country; but this is. If you believe that the direction this is leading is not a good thing for us then as never before it is time to get involved.
And if you truly believe that we should become Democratic Socialists like much of Europe then you have the right to lobby for that change. You do not have the right, however, to throw away the Constitution, the national rule book, until you have, by the processes enumerated in it, changed the rules. To the extent that you try to circumvent those rules, you have made of me a serious opponent.