Hiya mike
http://capilanoparty.com/pink.php?dxxz=GGAP36901
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
Friday, May 24, 2019
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Monday, January 11, 2010
Can You Keep a Secret? So Can Congress.
Below is a great email from Tony Perkins
The House of Representatives returned to Washington this week to kick off the second session of the 111th Congress--after a first half that hardly left Americans begging for more. Although the Senate isn't slated to return until next week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will use these first few days to get a head start on the messy negotiations that await both chambers on the health care bill. Before the leadership can put this controversial issue in its rearview mirror, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have to navigate through the touchy process of merging the two bills. And right now, that "process" isn't scheduled to include Republicans. Instead of taking the legislation to conference, where members could iron out their differences in the open, a handful of Democrats have decided to hole up in the leader's office and hash out the $2.5 trillion plan on their own.
The move was so outrageous that it triggered a challenge from C-SPAN C.E.O. Brian Lamb, who admonished Congress to keep the process honest by broadcasting it. Interestingly enough, the idea wasn't his--it was the President's. As a candidate, Barack Obama promised eight times to air the final health care negotiations on C-SPAN so that "the public would be a part of the conversation and see the choices that are being made... We will work on this process publicly. It will be on C-SPAN. It will be streaming over the web." For now, however, the delicate dance will take place over the next few weeks in secret. Once the two bosses sign off on a compromise, the bill will head to the House floor, where it will have to pass by majority vote.
That could be tricky, given the major disparities of the two plans--like taxpayer-funded abortion, which the Senate bill allows and the House version bans. The two chambers also disagree on the timetable of reform. Both raise taxes immediately, but Speaker Pelosi would rather implement her plan sooner (2013) rather than later (2014). Also, the Senate plan hangs most of the price on the states, while the House relies entirely on the federal government. One thing the leadership can agree on is moving quickly to resolve their differences. Both sides see the handwriting on the voting booth wall and will do everything they can to make this bill a distant memory by Election Day.
The House of Representatives returned to Washington this week to kick off the second session of the 111th Congress--after a first half that hardly left Americans begging for more. Although the Senate isn't slated to return until next week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will use these first few days to get a head start on the messy negotiations that await both chambers on the health care bill. Before the leadership can put this controversial issue in its rearview mirror, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have to navigate through the touchy process of merging the two bills. And right now, that "process" isn't scheduled to include Republicans. Instead of taking the legislation to conference, where members could iron out their differences in the open, a handful of Democrats have decided to hole up in the leader's office and hash out the $2.5 trillion plan on their own.
The move was so outrageous that it triggered a challenge from C-SPAN C.E.O. Brian Lamb, who admonished Congress to keep the process honest by broadcasting it. Interestingly enough, the idea wasn't his--it was the President's. As a candidate, Barack Obama promised eight times to air the final health care negotiations on C-SPAN so that "the public would be a part of the conversation and see the choices that are being made... We will work on this process publicly. It will be on C-SPAN. It will be streaming over the web." For now, however, the delicate dance will take place over the next few weeks in secret. Once the two bosses sign off on a compromise, the bill will head to the House floor, where it will have to pass by majority vote.
That could be tricky, given the major disparities of the two plans--like taxpayer-funded abortion, which the Senate bill allows and the House version bans. The two chambers also disagree on the timetable of reform. Both raise taxes immediately, but Speaker Pelosi would rather implement her plan sooner (2013) rather than later (2014). Also, the Senate plan hangs most of the price on the states, while the House relies entirely on the federal government. One thing the leadership can agree on is moving quickly to resolve their differences. Both sides see the handwriting on the voting booth wall and will do everything they can to make this bill a distant memory by Election Day.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience
We encourage you to join us in signing The Manhattan Declaration.
This manifesto was issued by evangelical, Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon their fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join in defending them.
These truths are:
the sanctity of human life
the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
The document (which is available to read here) was drafted on October 20, 2009 and released November 20, 2009, having been signed by more than 150 American religious leaders. You can sign it too by going here.
This manifesto was issued by evangelical, Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon their fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join in defending them.
These truths are:
the sanctity of human life
the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
The document (which is available to read here) was drafted on October 20, 2009 and released November 20, 2009, having been signed by more than 150 American religious leaders. You can sign it too by going here.
Friday, October 30, 2009
October 31 - A Time for Christians to Celebrate
Did you know that October 31st is actually a wonderful day of celebration for Christians? I’m not talking about candy, ghosts or costumes. I am talking about the Reformation. Saturday marks 492 years of Protestant Reformation!
On October 31, 1517 in Saxony (in what is now Germany), Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church, which served as a pin board for university-related announcements. His theses were points for debate that criticized the Church and the Pope. The most controversial points centered on the practice of selling indulgences and the Church's policy on purgatory. Luther's spiritual predecessors were men such as John Wycliffe and John Hus. Other reformers, such as Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin, soon followed Luther's lead. Church beliefs and practices under attack by Protestant reformers included purgatory, particular judgment, devotion to Mary, the intercession of the saints, most of the sacraments, and the authority of the Pope.
I hope we will find time this Saturday to thank God for giving the reformers the strength to uphold truth and stand strong in the face of religion. These men and women found their strength in the unmerited grace of God and so should we!
“God has united you with Christ Jesus. For our benefit God made Him to be wisdom itself. Christ made us right with God; He made us pure and holy, and He freed us from sin. Therefore, as the Scriptures say, “If you want to boast, boast only about the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 1:30-31 (NLT).
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Congresswoman Granger Encourages Voters to Read House Health Bill
This morning the House version of the health reform bill, which includes a public option, was unveiled. Because this bill was written behind closed doors and because I want everyone to see the bill, I have provided a link to view the legislation here.
Sincerely,
Kay Granger
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
POLITICO Breaking News - Lieberman says he will join a Republican filibuster
POLITICO Breaking News:
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) says he will join a Republican filibuster against the Senate Democrats' health care reform bill unless the public option is removed.
For more information...http://www.politico.com/
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) says he will join a Republican filibuster against the Senate Democrats' health care reform bill unless the public option is removed.
For more information...http://www.politico.com/
Monday, October 26, 2009
WallBuilders Releases Texas Constitutional Amendment Voting Recommendations
Voting Recommendations for 2009 Texas Constitutional Amendments
Voting is currently underway on 11 amendments to the Texas State Constitution (early voting will continue through October 30, with general voting on November 3).
WallBuilders Recommendations
Proposition 1: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the financing, including through tax increment financing, of the acquisition by municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: The language of this amendment is so vague that it will allow cities and counties to enlarge infrastructure, increase the use of eminent domain, and thus elevate property taxes under the laudable excuse of helping military bases. Municipalities already have the right to use eminent domain, but this amendment would authorize them to finance an expanded use of that power. While the stated purpose of this amendment is laudable, the potential for abuse and misuse is too great.
Proposition 2: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property's value as a residence homestead."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: Currently, residential property is taxed on its "highest and best use," thus allowing excessive property taxation by taxing residential property as if it were commercial property. According to the Texas House Select Committee on Property Tax Relief and Appraisal Reform, "appraisal values increased from 200-400% in one year as a result of the 'highest and best use' standard." This amendment helps provide a limit on property tax appraisal hikes by ensuring that residential homes are appraised at a residential rather than a commercial value.
Proposition 3: "The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: This amendment provides for equal treatment among Texans, ensuring that property tax appraisals will be calculated by uniform standards and methods, thus reducing bias and manipulation in appraisals. Local decision-making on this tax issue will be eliminated by this amendment, but on this issue, equal treatment of all citizens under the law is a more fundamental and compelling principle than that of local controls.
Proposition 4: "The constitutional amendment establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: This amendment will increase spending on non-essential government services at a time when the economy is poor and there is a likelihood of a deficit in the coming legislative session. This is the wrong time for increased spending on non-essential governmental services; current educational resources should be focused on student education rather than research expansion. Furthermore, free enterprise already provides extensive and productive private research whereas government funded research often results in questionable projects and endeavors that would never withstand free-market scrutiny or competition.
Proposition 5: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations.
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: This amendment will help reduce government duplication and redundancy. Since rural counties with small populations often have a limited pool of qualified persons to serve on appraisal review boards, this consolidation will make it more likely that review boards will be staffed with competent and qualified personnel.
Proposition 6: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veterans' Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized."
Recommended Vote: No strong recommendation; weak NO
Reasoning: The Veterans' Land Board (composed of both elected and appointed officials) has been one government agency with a record of efficient operation. Currently, the Board must seek legislative approval every two years in order to issue low risk bonds, but this amendment will eliminate that bi-annual requirement. Based on the positive record of this Board, this amendment might possibly increase government operating efficiency. But on the other hand, for a board to seek a bi-annual legislative approval helps ensure accountability and maintains checks and balances, therefore remaining a sound principle of governance.
Proposition 7: "The constitutional amendment to allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: From the time of the Founding Fathers, state elected officials have been allowed to serve in state militaries (e.g., Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry). While this practice is not permitted on the federal level (the Constitution separates the civil authority from the military authority, and federal law reinforces that separation of power), it has been traditional at the state level. This amendment will permit Texas civil officials who wish to do so to also serve in the Texas State Guard.
Proposition 8: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in this state."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Veterans hospitals and veterans benefits are services provided by the national military and are under the direct supervision of the national Congress (a fact made clear by George Washington in his letter resigning from the Continental Army at the end of the American Revolution). While there is currently a proper resistance to federal intrusion into state powers, the issue of veterans is one that constitutionally should be maintained at the federal rather than the state level. Veterans do need excellent services and facilities, but it is the responsibility of the federal and not the state governments to provide the necessary excellence in this area. Opposing this amendment preserves the constitutional separation of powers between the federal and the state levels.
Proposition 9: "The constitutional amendment to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Constitutionally requiring that there must be public access to these beaches infringes the private property rights of those owning property along those beaches. The Open Beaches Act of 1959 already provides protections for easements along those beaches. This is an expansion of government power that infringes on private property rights.
Proposition 10: "The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Currently, Emergency Service Districts have great powers, including the power to levy taxes, and board members serve two year terms. Lengthening these terms would reduce public oversight over these board members and their extensive powers. These board members should be as accountable to voters as are members of the Texas and the U. S. House of Representatives and therefore should face elections every two rather than every four years.
Proposition 11: "The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: In 2005, the U. S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision wrongly allowed cities to depart from the tradition exercise of eminent domain for "public use" (i.e., to obtain private property for the construction of schools, bridges, roads, etc.) and instead to apply an expansive "public purpose" measurement whereby cities could seize private property and turn it over to economic developers who would generate increased tax revenue for cities. However, the Supreme Court did note that state legislatures could limit this power by defining "public use"; this amendment properly narrows the definition, thereby better protecting private property rights.
Here's what you can do:
1. Find your polling location! Early voting locations (open from October 19-30) may be different than Election Day locations (November 3). Because you never know what last-minute emergencies may arise, please early vote and encourage others to do the same!
2. Please pass this information on to others and encourage them to vote! You may also visit http://www.christianvoterguide.com/ for additional information.
Voting is currently underway on 11 amendments to the Texas State Constitution (early voting will continue through October 30, with general voting on November 3).
WallBuilders Recommendations
Proposition 1: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the financing, including through tax increment financing, of the acquisition by municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: The language of this amendment is so vague that it will allow cities and counties to enlarge infrastructure, increase the use of eminent domain, and thus elevate property taxes under the laudable excuse of helping military bases. Municipalities already have the right to use eminent domain, but this amendment would authorize them to finance an expanded use of that power. While the stated purpose of this amendment is laudable, the potential for abuse and misuse is too great.
Proposition 2: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property's value as a residence homestead."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: Currently, residential property is taxed on its "highest and best use," thus allowing excessive property taxation by taxing residential property as if it were commercial property. According to the Texas House Select Committee on Property Tax Relief and Appraisal Reform, "appraisal values increased from 200-400% in one year as a result of the 'highest and best use' standard." This amendment helps provide a limit on property tax appraisal hikes by ensuring that residential homes are appraised at a residential rather than a commercial value.
Proposition 3: "The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: This amendment provides for equal treatment among Texans, ensuring that property tax appraisals will be calculated by uniform standards and methods, thus reducing bias and manipulation in appraisals. Local decision-making on this tax issue will be eliminated by this amendment, but on this issue, equal treatment of all citizens under the law is a more fundamental and compelling principle than that of local controls.
Proposition 4: "The constitutional amendment establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: This amendment will increase spending on non-essential government services at a time when the economy is poor and there is a likelihood of a deficit in the coming legislative session. This is the wrong time for increased spending on non-essential governmental services; current educational resources should be focused on student education rather than research expansion. Furthermore, free enterprise already provides extensive and productive private research whereas government funded research often results in questionable projects and endeavors that would never withstand free-market scrutiny or competition.
Proposition 5: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations.
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: This amendment will help reduce government duplication and redundancy. Since rural counties with small populations often have a limited pool of qualified persons to serve on appraisal review boards, this consolidation will make it more likely that review boards will be staffed with competent and qualified personnel.
Proposition 6: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veterans' Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized."
Recommended Vote: No strong recommendation; weak NO
Reasoning: The Veterans' Land Board (composed of both elected and appointed officials) has been one government agency with a record of efficient operation. Currently, the Board must seek legislative approval every two years in order to issue low risk bonds, but this amendment will eliminate that bi-annual requirement. Based on the positive record of this Board, this amendment might possibly increase government operating efficiency. But on the other hand, for a board to seek a bi-annual legislative approval helps ensure accountability and maintains checks and balances, therefore remaining a sound principle of governance.
Proposition 7: "The constitutional amendment to allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: From the time of the Founding Fathers, state elected officials have been allowed to serve in state militaries (e.g., Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry). While this practice is not permitted on the federal level (the Constitution separates the civil authority from the military authority, and federal law reinforces that separation of power), it has been traditional at the state level. This amendment will permit Texas civil officials who wish to do so to also serve in the Texas State Guard.
Proposition 8: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in this state."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Veterans hospitals and veterans benefits are services provided by the national military and are under the direct supervision of the national Congress (a fact made clear by George Washington in his letter resigning from the Continental Army at the end of the American Revolution). While there is currently a proper resistance to federal intrusion into state powers, the issue of veterans is one that constitutionally should be maintained at the federal rather than the state level. Veterans do need excellent services and facilities, but it is the responsibility of the federal and not the state governments to provide the necessary excellence in this area. Opposing this amendment preserves the constitutional separation of powers between the federal and the state levels.
Proposition 9: "The constitutional amendment to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Constitutionally requiring that there must be public access to these beaches infringes the private property rights of those owning property along those beaches. The Open Beaches Act of 1959 already provides protections for easements along those beaches. This is an expansion of government power that infringes on private property rights.
Proposition 10: "The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Currently, Emergency Service Districts have great powers, including the power to levy taxes, and board members serve two year terms. Lengthening these terms would reduce public oversight over these board members and their extensive powers. These board members should be as accountable to voters as are members of the Texas and the U. S. House of Representatives and therefore should face elections every two rather than every four years.
Proposition 11: "The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: In 2005, the U. S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision wrongly allowed cities to depart from the tradition exercise of eminent domain for "public use" (i.e., to obtain private property for the construction of schools, bridges, roads, etc.) and instead to apply an expansive "public purpose" measurement whereby cities could seize private property and turn it over to economic developers who would generate increased tax revenue for cities. However, the Supreme Court did note that state legislatures could limit this power by defining "public use"; this amendment properly narrows the definition, thereby better protecting private property rights.
Here's what you can do:
1. Find your polling location! Early voting locations (open from October 19-30) may be different than Election Day locations (November 3). Because you never know what last-minute emergencies may arise, please early vote and encourage others to do the same!
2. Please pass this information on to others and encourage them to vote! You may also visit http://www.christianvoterguide.com/ for additional information.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Dick Cheney brings words of warning.
Dick Cheney gives a very important speech regarding foreign policy. Here are a few excerpts. Politico has the full text at the link below.
'Having announced his Afghanistan strategy last March, President Obama now seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission. ... The White House must stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger. Make no mistake: Signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling, while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy, endangers them and hurts our cause. Recently, President Obama's advisors have decided that it's easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President's chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn't asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.
'In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama's team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision – a good one, I think – and sent a commander into the field to implement it. Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It's time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.'
Does the size of government really matter?
The expansion of government. We've seen a lot of that lately. But does it really matter? Does the size of government really affect the way people view more important things-like their spiritual life?
Jim Tonkowich, from The Institute on Religion and Democracy, did a great job of answering this question in his article entitled "Rights, Religion, and the Soul of the Nation" which we have posted below:
“[T]he president’s audacious plans for the expansion of government—from the stimulus to health-care” writes University of Virginia sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox in a recent Wall Street Journal article, “are likely to spell trouble for the vitality of American religion.” Defending that thesis, Wilcox cites a recent study indicating that religiosity defined as “religious attendance, affiliation and trust in God” is inversely proportional to the size and scope of government. Large welfare states such as the Scandinavian countries of Sweden , Norway , and Denmarkhave empty churches. By contrast, the United States , the Philippines , and Brazil with more limited governments have large church-going populations.
Wilcox writes:
Public spending amounts to more than [50%] of the GDP in Sweden , where only 4% of the population regularly attends church. By contrast, public spending amounts to 18% of the Philippines ’ GDP, and 68% of Filipinos regularly attend church.
It seems axiomatic: if the government will give us this day our daily bread, why would we bother asking God to provide it? And why would we thank God for the things of life if we rely on the government’s apparent largess instead? Prayer , thanks, and praise have no place in a worldview that sees government as the solution to all life’s problems.
It is precisely this worldview, reliance on government that we are facing today. Wilcox observes:
A successful Obama revolution providing cradle-to-career education and cradle-to-grave health care would reduce the odds that Americans would turn to their local religious congregations and fellow believers for economic, social, emotional and spiritual aid. Fewer Americans would also be likely to feel obliged to help their fellow citizens through local churches and charities.
Put another way, as Georgetown University ’s James V. Schall has written, “Grace and charity have no place in a socialist world, the kind our current leaders seem partial to, even when they deny it.” Schall points out that in a socialistic world, everyone is owed everything by rights. Health care? It is a right. A college education? It is a right. An abortion? It is a right. A comfortable retirement? It is a right. Owning a home? That is a right too even if it is clear that you are a bad credit risk. That being the case, the thinking goes, denying health care, a college education, an abortion, a comfortable retirement, or a mortgage to purchase the home of choice is a breach of justice. “There ought to be a law!” and it seems that Congress and the Obama administration are only too happy to comply. If people have a right to these and assorted other things, justice demands that someone be required to fork them over.
In a socialist world, no charity can exist because there can be no need that is unfulfilled by the commonality’s duty. It is a world in which there can be no gratitude. I can thank someone for giving me what is really his. I cannot thank him for giving me what is by rights already mine.
This is precisely the worldview we deplore in our children. Two-year-olds come with a highly developed sense of personal rights as standard equipment. A toddler’s “Mine!” proclaims his or her belief in a solipsistic universe where there is only one being in the universe—the toddler—and that all things revolve around his or her needs, wants, and desires. But the idea that all things are mine by rights is infantile, something that we are supposed to grow out of on the way to adulthood where “my rights” take their appropriate place alongside my responsibilities and the rights of others. Wise parents challenge and eventually break the childish habit of demanding. They insist on “please” and “thank you.” They diligently teach their children to distinguish between “mine” and “my sister’s,” seeing to it that property rights are respected while sharing is encouraged. It is no small task, but the only alternative is toddler as tyrant.
George Will wrote in Statecraft as Soulcraft, “Democratic government must be a tutor as well as a servant, because citizenship is a state of mind.” The lessons being taught by our elected leaders today pose a clear and present danger to citizenship, religion, and, thus, to the soul of the nation.
Sincerely,
Jim Tonkowich
Jim Tonkowich
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)