Tag Archives: Parent

Podcasts

MUST-HEAR: Michele Bachmann gives the best speech ever

5 Comments
Rep. Michele Bachmann

My favorite Congresswoman stole the spotlight in Iowa when she lectured for the Family Leader Presidential Lecture Series. She’s back to the passionate arm-waving that I always liked so much.

The MP3 file is here. (17 Mb)

Shane Vander Hart from Caffeinated Thoughts has a great summary of the speech.

Excerpt:

Bachmann started her speech sharing her testimony saying she understood the Gospel for the first time at age 16 after growing up in a Lutheran Church and then she gave her life to Christ.  She said that it “changed her life forever.”  She said she had a hunger for the Word after then, and explained that the Holy Spirit “lifted the veil” from her eyes so she was then able to understand it.  She participated in YoungLife and another Bible study when in high school.  That first year in Christ was, Bachmann said, “was the defining year of my life.”

In college she participated the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship at her school, and cited Francis Schaffer’s film, How Now Shall We Live, made an impact on how she lives out her faith.  During law school at Oral Roberts University Law School she did advocacy for better homeschooling laws.  She and her husband, Marcus, homeschooled their five children in their early years.  She got involved in public schools as they did foster care for 23 kids since they were not allowed by Minnesota law to put those kids in private school or to home school them.

She noted a change in public schools where “knowledge, facts, and information” were taking a back seat to indoctrination.  She noted the 2000 Goals to Work standard implemented in the public schools that was a federal program implemented in all 50 states.  She advocated for its repeal in Minnesota – the first state to do so.  She said later this is where she got her start in politics.

She highlighted her prolife advocacy in the Minnesota Legislature – a requirement to fund prolife groups if they were going to fund Planned Parenthood and a woman’s right to know act.

[…]On marriage, she commended Iowans for booting the three Iowa Supreme Court justices up for retention last fall.  She said that Minnesota could possibly vote in favor of a Marriage Amendment now that Republicans  She noted that Congress can limit the subject matter jurisdiction for Article Three courts federally denying them an opportunity to rule on marriage. “This is the first time in recorded history that we have seen marriage in society defined as anything other than between one man and one woman.”

[…]On life she said that she and her husband has done more than just talk about life, but have tried to live it out through being sidewalk counselors and taking unwed mothers into their home.  Quoting Francis Schaeffer she, “life is the watershed issue of our time.”  Bachman proclaimed her commitment to life, “I will not give up until we give life the position it deserves in the United States and is protected from conception until natural death.”

She explained how taxes has impacted the family where in the 1950s would pay approximately 5% of their income to taxes.  She said now some families can pay up to 50% which explains why we have fewer one income families.  She noted the spending which has fueled anti-family tax policy.  She said the first thing on the House’s pro-family agenda was to rein in spending.  Regarding education reform, she noted how the Supreme Court has recently ruled that tax credits for private religious schools is constitutional.  She also said that she’d abolish the Federal Department of Education. She also called for the abolishment of the United States Tax Code.

[Note: commenter Francine notes that Michele says that this is the first time that marriage has been redefined to not be between men and women – the summary is in error about what she said]

She ends the speech with her concern for the fact that over 40% of children are beig born without a mother and father in the home, and she blames bad fiscal policies for this injustice. She makes the connection between left-wing fiscal policies and social breakdown. It’s so important that social conservatives understand that big government, high taxes, excessive regulation and massive spending are major causes of virtually all of our social problems. The breakdown of the family is what makes soul-destroying secularism possible.

There was also a press conference after the speech.

The MP3 file is here. (3 Mb)

Shane also covered the press conference.

Excerpt:

During the press conference that was held after Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann’s speech in Pella, IA for The FAMiLY Leader’s Presidential Lecture Series, she was asked to elaborate on the bill in Minnesota she helped to get passed that allowed funding for prolife organizations basically putting them on the same footing as Planned Parenthood.  During her answer she mentioned that she said that she introduced a similar bill in Congress.

She was also asked about what programs would she be open to abolishing other than the Federal Department of Education.  She listed the Department of Energy and the Department of Commerce as ones that have been discussed in Congress.  She said “anywhere we can abolish we might as well cut back and abolish.”  Saying in particular that our private sector has the capability to handle our energy needs.  She was asked about her disappointment with the House budget deal and where she would like the House leadership to put up a fight.  Bachmann said, “defunding Obamacare, this will change our country forever.”  She noted later that some may not be willing to take on budget battles in the future, she said that we have to… she said, “we have to change course.”

I have been pushing Michele Bachmann on this blog since the beginning two years ago, because she represents what I consider to be an ideal Christian woman. She is everything that I have ever hoped a Christian woman could be in my wildest, wildest dreams. I could not give any politician a more ringing endorsement. I hope with all my heart that she will some day be President of the United States.

Related posts

She explained how taxes has impacted the family where in the 1950s would pay approximately 5% of their income to taxes.  She said now some families can pay up to 50% which explains why we have fewer one income families.  She noted the spending which has fueled anti-family tax policy.  She said the first thing on the House’s pro-family agenda was to rein in spending.  Regarding education reform, she noted how the Supreme Court has recently ruled that tax credits for private religious schools is constitutional.  She also said that she’d abolish the Federal Department of Education. She also called for the abolishment of the United States Tax Code.
News

New study finds that fathers and marriage reduce drug use in children

1 Comment

From the Heritage Foundation.

Excerpt:

Teen substance abuse is once again on the rise, according to a national study of adolescent drug and alcohol use released this week. The annual release of the Partnership Attitude Tracking Study (PATS) showed an alarming increase in adolescent substance abuse since 2008.

According to the study (PDF), teen illicit drug use and prescription drug abuse have significantly increased in the past three years. Marijuana use among adolescents increased 22 percent from 2008 to 2010, with nearly 40 percent of teens using the drug within the past year. Ecstasy use is also on the rise, increasing from 6 percent in 2008 to 10 percent in 2010. Likewise, 25 percent of teens admit they’ve taken medication not prescribed by their doctor, and one in five has used a behind-the-counter pain reliever without the direction of a doctor. This new data is especially worrisome, as it suggests that teen drug use is climbing again after a relative decline over the past decade.

Unfortunately, adolescent substance abuse is not reserved to the halls of high schools or prom after-parties. The nationally projectable study found an increase in alcohol use among young teens and even pre-adolescents. Almost two in three teens who admit to drinking alcohol said they had consumed their first full drink at age 15. Shockingly, 25 percent of the same group said they had first imbibed at 12 years old or younger.

[…]Whether teens have regular contact with their parents, especially with their fathers, can have significant impact on illicit drug and alcohol use. For instance, a child growing up in a divorced family is four times more likely to try illicit drugs by the time he or she is 14 than the same child raised in an intact, married family. Children who live with both parents and have close relationships with their fathers are less likely to smoke, drink alcohol, or use marijuana regardless of many other socioeconomic factors.

Religious practice also seems to have a positive effect on teens’ engagement in risky behavior. Adolescents who express personal religious beliefs and whose families regularly practice their faith are at lower risk for substance abuse. Fewer than one in 10 teens from an intact, religious family report ever using hard drugs, while more than one in five adolescents from non-intact, non-religious homes have abused illicit substances.

(I removed the links from the excerpt, but every assertion they make is linked to research)

I found this very interesting, especially since I was recently responding to a post that William Lane Craig posted on Facebook. Bill wanted to know why so many people seem to be incapable of considering both sides of a debate and judging who won the debate based on the arguments and evidence presented. This is relevant because in his two most recent debates, the atheists either presented no arguments or they did not attempt to refute his arguments or rebuttals. Bill’s question made me think of all the other factors that cause people to be unable to consider the case for Christianity on the merits, in a debate situation.

I replied to Bill that there were social forces that were breaking down children’s ability to consider both sides of questions so they could make their own decisions, instead of doing what their teachers and peers tell them to do, and this was especially bad as families break down and fathers are ejected from the home by women who chose to have sex with or marry men who are not qualified to be fathers, because they are not capable of being moral/spiritual leaders.

I wrote:

To answer Bill’s original question in the post, I think you have to point out what the public school system is doing to students. The public schools are not encouraging students to learn both sides of current issues so that they can debate them. They have a definite point of view that they are pushing, from the authority of the red pen.

For example, do you think that most public school teachers give equal time to proponents of vouchers or other school choice alternatives? Heck no. They have to be in favor of bigger government and higher taxes – that’s how they get paid. And you can see the same thing in debates about sexual ethics, moral relativism, moral equivalence, evolution, global warming, anti-capitalism, and so on.

They have an agenda. And when you have an agenda, you don’t present issues as having two sides that have to be judged on the merits. Instead, the public schools typically present one side with emotional stories or slogans, and the other side is derided with insults or made out to be a bogey-man. That’s the reason why the atheistic students cannot assess who won the debate. They have been trained in the schools to think one side is correct without ever have to assess the other side.

My favorite economist (Thomas Sowell) puts it well in this column:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226865/de-programming-students/thomas-sowell

I think it’s high time for Christian apologists to realize that it takes more than the kalam argument to defeat an atheist. You have to think of the dimension of family, and the schools, and even the laws and policies that incentivize certain behaviors that, one adopted into a lifestyle, make Christianity unpalatable because of its ethical demands.

Consider the impact on having a FATHER in the home on religious belief:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=14-01-026-f

And further consider that fatherlessness is correlated with atheism:
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2008/vanhove_vitzreview_jan08.asp

Now – the question to ask is – what policies promote having a father in the home. Well, no-fault divorce and welfare programs certainly do not promote having a father in the home, for example. So the reason why so many people cannot judge a debate may not be as simple as saying “Bill Craig is a bad debater”. Bill Craig is an excellent debater. But if there are other circumstances at work due to bad policies that make children incapable of even considering the other side, then what can Bill Craig do? Well, Bill Craig could write about policy, I suppose, although we have other scholars for that. But we should all be thinking about it.

I’ve written before about how liberal women choose big government policies that will provide them with financial security regardless of who they choose to have sex with or marry. Liberal women like big government because it relieves of the responsibility to be prudent when choosing men. Tomorrow I am actually going to be explaining, with research, how liberal women actually resent the idea that they would have to conform to choice of sex partner/husband to any traditional male roles or to any courting rules. So long as liberal women continue to vote for big government and choose men based on superficialities like physical appearance, clothes, air of confidence and tone of voice, we are screwed as a society.

Men conform themselves to women’s expectations. If the ability to be a protector, provider and moral/spiritual leader are not the criteria that women use to choose men, then men will change into what women want. Women are the deciders. Men adapt to women’s expectations. That is why it is so important for women to put down the women’s magazines and pick up the research showing the importance of fathers, and specifically, the importance of fathers who have rationally-grounded, well-evidenced KNOWLEDGE about moral and spiritual matters. So long as women view men who have knowledge as “too strict” and “no fun”, children will be damaged.

Speaking of Facebook, if you want to be my friend on Facebook, my Facebook page is here and you can follow the blog here.

Commentary

Interview with Doug Giles, father of two extraordinary daughters

7 Comments

From the Daily Caller. (H/T Pearcey Report)

Summary:

Like most parents, Clash Radio host and Townhall.com columnist Doug Giles is proud of his children. His daughter Hannah helped take down ACORN in 2009, when she partnered up with James O’Keefe to produce revealing undercover videos. Giles’ other daughter, Regis, started the campaign “Girls Just Wanna Have Guns,” which, among other things, aims to instruct young women on how to protect and defend themselves against predators.

He has every reason to brag about his no-nonsense girls, both of whom partially inspired his new book, “Raising Righteous and Rowdy Girls,” which provides 14 chapters on how to rear females in today’s world. The Townhall.com contributor advises parents to teach their girls classiness and the value of intellect, but it’s not all work and no play for the Giles clan. Giles thinks it’s important for young women to know how to hunt, fight, rebel, date decent guys and even party.

Sample questions:

TheDC: So what makes a “righteous and rowdy girl?”

DG: Well, a common misconception among evangelicals, which I’m one of them, is that if your daughter is righteous, she has to be this petty-coat wearing damsel in distress who says, “Oh my, I need a knight in shining armor to come and rescue me.” The problem is that there are no knights in shining armor. A lot of the guys have bought into the misandrous fly and they’ve become more feminine or effeminate and more of  a dandy instead of the historic Clint Eastwood type who can kick butt and take names.

So I wanted to want to show that girls can be righteous, they can be classy, they can excel in academics and at the same time they can have a rowdy good time rebelling against this cultural swill that is shoved up their tailpipe and down their throat 24/7 by this Godless culture. The rowdy aspect is, like in my book, I teach them again how to fight, how to shoot guns, how to protect themselves, because especially in the state of Florida, I believe nearly 80 percent of the abductions that occur with young people happen to females, so I don’t like that. I want to make sure my kids don’t have that scenario play out on them and they become victims of some weirdo.

If you’re going to put your kids in public school or university, there’s such anti-American sentiment there that I didn’t want my kids to be some sponge and that professor be the Super-Soaker who tries to erode what my wife and I have taught them, so the rowdy aspect comes into play where we tell our kids they have a right to rebel, question, and rage against the machine to be the James Dean, Harley Davidson-wearing rebel against secularism, socialism, slutification and the wussification of our culture. Yes they can be righteous to where they can live clean lives, but that doesn’t mean they live in some kind of sterile environment separated from culture. They can infiltrate the culture with comedy, class, wisdom, intellect, but also with a rebellious attitude that says we’re not going to allow our nation go down the crapper because it’s what everybody else is doing.

TheDC: So did your daughters go to public school and have to deal with this sort of propaganda and anti-American agenda from their teachers?

DG: Yeah, absolutely. They went to public school all the way until high school and then we yanked them. It’s so bad down here that the best schools look like Leavenworth. I mean literally, strewn with barbed wire, there are cops parked up on the sidewalk right by the doors, it’s 186 percent overcrowded, so we said screw this. The girls started homeschooling with Florida Virgil School and they just excelled academically. But they were part of the mucked-up mix for several years and during that time period, they would hear all this stuff that we hear on Fox News, just America completely denigrated. If you didn’t dance to their call, you were made to be the weird person. I just refused to have my daughters feel like that when traditional values, Judeo-Christian world view, and conservative principles and capitalism caused America to be the great American experiment, so I made certain that as much as I could from their little tiny hearts and little tiny minds that they were educated to our great foundations, to our Christian worldview, and when they heard the other stuff coming from the teachers ridiculing those things, that they had the right and the moxie to question that and confront it when it was served to them on a regular basis.

I guess I’m going to buy this book! I don’t think that any Christian women will allow me to parent children like this though – they think that strong fathers who set goals for their children are “bullies”.