My Heart Sings

There is a myth out there in homeschooling circles. It's the myth that every child in the family loves each other all the time. They are always kind to each other, speak sweet words, and never argue. I won't even address the perfect actions and manners in public.

That's what it is: a myth. Let me say that again. IT'S A MYTH!!!!

However, sometimes we do get to see moments of glory in our children, that if I weren't homeschooling, I would not get to see. For instance:

Today, Ponygirl was fussing at Princess for using "her" e-book. Then I turned right around and fussed at her for hoarding something that was not "hers" to begin with.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, does it.

Anyway, I just noticed a few seconds ago that the house was very quiet.

This makes me nervous, but more on that later....

So, I go check on everyone and what they are doing. Ponygirl is sitting on the basement steps WITH Princess at this moment, and letting her read the e-book and even helping her read the harder words.

What can I say? My heart sings for moments like these. Glimpses of heaven as it will be. No pain, tears, death, or arguing.

A mother's heaven.

The Still Small Voice

"Mommy, will you cuddle with me?"

Most mothers will tell you that those are their favorite words in the English language. Not me. I cringe when I hear that. Not outwardly, but it means I must do something I detest: Choose.

Dishes are piled up in the sink downstairs, the floor needs to be swept; I'm tired, worn out from being police, judge, playmate, chauffeur, doctor, you name it. I feel over done.

I really hate choosing. Because I want to get the chores done so I can snuggle on the couch with Hubby, have a sweet snack, or just read a bit before falling asleep with my clothes still on; anything, but it's "me" time. Even doing the chores every night I get to be alone and be in the quiet. Maybe even hear the still small voice of God calling my name.

The only problem is that the still small voice tells me that Princess will be 6 next month. She's growing up faster than I can see. Reading, writing, even doing math well above her age. While I am very very proud of what she has done, I don't get very much time with her. She'll be grown and gone before I know it. My time is so short, and if I don't grab it, I'll miss it.

These are the whispers I hear from the still small voice of God.

So I snuggled. Maybe not as long as she would have liked (she would prefer that I sleep with her all night every night), but I loved and kissed and hugged and told her I love her the yellowest. She is my sunshine and I think she is one of the cutest things in the whole world.

She went to sleep with a smile on her face; and that, my friends, is the still small voice of God, right there.

Go snuggle,
Bee

Keep your eyes on the Controls

Superhero is 7 1/2 and I swear he is my mechanical engineer. He loves to take things apart, and someday he will be able to put them back together just as well!

One of his interests is airplanes, and I have told him that when he is a little older, I will let him study for his pilot's license. So, being the good homeschool mom I am, I rented the Moody Science video, "Sign Posts Aloft", thinking it would be a great video for learning about airplanes.

Wrong.

It scared the crud out of me and my younger children. You see, it is a video demonstrating the value of flying by your instruments rather than relying on your own senses and instincts. The video revealed several emergency calls from pilots as they crashed into the ground thinking they were level because they were flying through fog or a cloud. You heard the terrifying cries of the pilots just before they died. Wow, that scared us all!

The point, however, was well taken. Apparently, when you fly a plane and cannot see the ground, your senses play tricks on you. The video narrator conducted an experiment that I have seen in person wherein a pilot in very good health was blindfolded. Then he sat in a chair and was twirled around. At first, he could tell he was turning, but as his equilibrium kicked in, he thought he had stopped spinning. He hadn't. When they did stop the chair, the pilot thought he was spinning the other way.

The point of the experiment was to illustrate that we cannot always trust our senses. In the instance of flying aircraft through fog or clouds, pilots must trust their instruments, even if their instinct and/or senses tell them differently.

I believe there are times in your life when your spiritual and emotional senses lie to you. The flight of life can seem easy when you see the horizon. Children behaving, school going well, jobs are secure, relationships are balanced. But what happens when children get sick, jobs are lost, friends betray and spouses don't live up to your expectations?

When life throws you a curve ball and your senses starting whirling like this pilot's had, you must cling to what you know. When you feel alone, betrayed, angry, scared, you name it, you cannot trust your emotions or your other senses. You must rely on unchanging instruments; things in your life that will always be true.

God's "controls" is the Bible. His words are written down for us to have when nothing makes sense, when we don't understand what is going on and cannot see what step to take in front of us for all the fog.

God is unchanging. In James 1:17 it says, "Every generous act and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights; with Him there is no variation or shadow cast by turning." That does not mean that he only gives gifts that are perceived to be good, but as Romans 8:28 states, "We know that all things work together for the good of those who love God: those who are called according to His purpose".

So, even though a "gift" may not seem to be good, God's unchanging nature assures us that He will work it for our benefit. That is why we need to keep our eyes on Him and on His unchanging nature. His instrument, the Bible, is the instrument we need to keep our eyes on, for it will never change, and it will always bring us in for a safe landing.

Keeping my eyes on the controls,
Brandie

The Anger Monster Within

Have you ever wondered, dear reader, why it is that when you buy a new car, you suddenly see that car on the road every where you go? I remember when I bought my first van, and apparently everyone else had gone out and bought one the same day.

Well, it seems I am a trend setter. You see, circumstances in our house have reached such proportions as to keep me from blogging for months. That is a long time for someone who loves to write. Circumstances I am referring to are issues within myself that have to deal with anger management.

I am not an angry person. For those of you who know me personally, you know that I am a fairly easy going person with a pretty cool head. But for some reason, there has been a monster sleeping within me that seems to come alive. It also seems to have a propensity to enjoy engulfing small children.

It seems that the only people on this earth that are able to wake this monster within are my own lovable monkeys. They don't mean to do it, I just think they like to play with the monster, so they ask it to come out and play. The only problem is that they don't ever seem to remember that this monster does not play nice.

So what does this have to do with new cars? Well, as I was praying for God to make this monster move away, I started noticing advertisements for webinars, books, DVDs, and tapes dealing with parental anger. Did you know, up to 50% of homeschooling moms describe similar symptoms of anger and rage coming out in their everyday lives? Even those like me who tend to be level headed people most of the time.

Weird! It's like God was trying to tell me something!

So, how has it been? Well, actually, it's been pretty good around here. The monster comes out to play less often. It still thrives on the anger my children seem to give it, but it comes out less and less, and thanks to me (and my trend setting abilities), now you too can have help when you need it.

The website I have found to be the most helpful has been the National Center for Biblical Parenting. They even have "Parenting University" an online seminar you can watch and learn in 5 minute segments.

The Coolest Hallelujah Chorus Ever

You watered what?

Sometimes as a homeschooling parent, I find that my children have learned lessons that I didn't even think had gotten through.

None of my children have really taken to gardening. Sure they enjoyed the planting of the seed and liked the idea of eating something from the garden, but as the heat index goes up, down goes their enthusiasm. So, unless I push through and weed myself, we don't usually end up with much at harvest time. Most goes to the rabbits and chipmunks.

Well, the other day, "Ladybug" very excitedly told me she watered her garden.

Garden? What garden?

Well, she dragged me up to my room and pointed to my bed. "Look, Mommy! I even watered the seed!"

Well, my worst fears were confirmed when I looked, and indeed, she had taken an acorn from the front yard and "planted it" on my nice white down comforter.

And she had indeed "watered" the acorn. Three times from what she told me...

Sigh.

Oh well, off to the dry cleaners with that. At least it's warm enough now to do without for a couple of days.

At least she learned her gardening lesson.

Right?

1 Corinthians 13 for Homeschoolers

(Copied by permission)

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and teach my children Latin conjugations, Chinese and Portuguese, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal, and no matter what I say, they will not hear me. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know my children’s bents and God’s plan for their lives, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and am the keeper of the teacher’s editions and solutions manuals, and if I have all faith, so as to move mountains, and even keep up with my giant piles of laundry and dishes, but do not have love, I am nothing, even if all the people at church think I’m Supermom. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and my formal dining room gets turned into a schoolroom and our family vacations look more like educational field trips, and if I surrender my body to be burned, never having time to get my nails done, put makeup on or even take a bath, but do not have love, it profits me nothing, because all my family cares about is the expression on my face, anyway.

Love is patient with the child who still can’t get double-digit subtraction with borrowing, and kind to the one who hasn’t turned in his research paper. It is not jealous of moms with more, fewer, neater, more self-directed, better-behaved or smarter children. Love does not brag about homemade bread, book lists, or scholarships and is not arrogant about her lifestyle or curriculum choices. It does not act unbecomingly or correct the children in front of their friends. It does not seek its own, trying to squeeze in alone time when someone still needs help; it is not provoked when interrupted for the nineteenth time by a child, the phone, the doorbell or the dog; does not take into account a wrong suffered, even when no one compliments the dinner that took hours to make or the house that took so long to clean.

Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness or pointing out everyone else’s flaws, but rejoices with the truth and with every small step her children take in becoming more like Jesus, knowing it’s only by the grace of God when that occurs.

Love bears all things even while running on no sleep; believes all things, especially God’s promise to indwell and empower her; hopes all things, such as that she’ll actually complete the English curriculum this year and the kids will eventually graduate; endures all things, even questioning from strangers, worried relatives, and most of all, herself."Love never fails. And neither will she. As long as she never, never, never gives up.

Misty Krasawski is the overly-blessed mom of eight children whom she homeschools in sunshine-y Florida. She has been clinging ferociously to the hand of her Lord since she was knee-high to a grasshopper, homeschooling for the past thirteen years, and has eighteen more years ahead of her with the children who are glad she will have done most of her experimenting on those who went before. Her wonderful husband Rob has much treasure laid up for him in heaven for having been called to such a daunting task. After the house goes to sleep she can sometimes be found gathering her thoughts at http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/MistyKrasawski.

"Miss Me Yet?"

Here is an interesting billboard that has been popping up all over the internet and news media.

Made me laugh so hard I almost fell off my chair.

You see, dear reader, I am a complete "W" fan. Yes, I admit it. I am one of a few (seemingly) people that believed that President Bush was a good man who lead our country through a very difficult time.

No other President in history had to deal with what he did. He lead this country like he cared about it. He never apologized for his actions, he did what he thought needed to be done.

He never (and still doesn't) defend his decisions to the media, who hated him. The main stream media, and even some conservative talk shows ripped him to shreds and he never defended himself. I wish he had.

The secret is that he doesn't care what the media thinks of him. They called him stupid. He didn't stand up and say that you can't fly a fighter jet if you're stupid. They called him a "red neck". He said, "Yup!" They said he was hell bent on a personal vendetta. He didn't bother to answer.

Was he perfect? No. He never claimed to be. Did he make some wrong judgments? Yes, I think he did say that. But his intent was never a personal agenda. And he NEVER got mad about people disagreeing with him, like other people we know. Here is the link to the story of the billboard, I think it's worth a read.

The Parental Rights Amendment

This is a copy of Parental Rights.org talking points memo stating the reason for the Parental Amendment that is going through Congress as we speak. You can go to their web site and find out whether or not your Congressmen are cosigners of the bill. There are several cosigners in the house, but not very many in the senate.

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment will preserve the time-honored principles of parental rights in the actual text of the Constitution, just as the Bill of Rights preserves other fundamental rights.

Section One: The liberty of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children is a fundamental right. Section one is rooted in several Supreme Court cases, and without exception:

• Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) – “It is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life.”
• Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) – “The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”
• Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1944) – “It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.”
• Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) – “The values of parental direction of the religious upbringing and education of their children in their early and formative years have a high place in our society…. The primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.”
• Moore v. East Cleveland (1977) – “Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition. It is through the family that we inculcate and pass down many of our most cherished values, moral and cultural.”
• Santosky v. Kramer (1982) – “The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State” (emphasis added).
• Washington v. Glucksburg (1997) – “In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the “liberty” specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights…to direct the education and upbringing of one’s children.”
• Troxel v. Granville (2000) – “[T]he interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court….In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the care, custody, and control of their children.”

Section Two: Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served. Section two is similarly established by the Supreme Court:

• Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) – “[T]he essence of all that has been said and written on the subject is that only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion” [i.e., a fundamental right].
• Quilloin v. Walcott (1978) – “We have little doubt that the Due Process Clause would be offended if a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children’s best interest.”
• Parham v. J.R. (1979) – “[H]istorically, it has been recognized that the natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children…. The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition.”
• Santosky v. Kramer (1982) – “Until the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship.”
• Washington v. Glucksburg (1997) – “The Fourteenth Amendment forbids the government to infringe…’fundamental’ liberty interests of all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.”
• Gonzalez v. O Centro Espirito Benficiente Uniao do Vegetal (2006) – “The government must “demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law ‘to the person’ – the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of [a fundamental right] is being substantially burdened.”

These sections simply restate the Supreme Court’s long-standing rules on the constitutional, fundamental rights of parents.

Section Three: No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

• Geofroy v. Riggs (1890) – “The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States.”
• Reid v. Covert (1957) – “To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their power to the National Government and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier.” It was not the intent of the writers of our Constitution that domestic law be passed under the treaty power.

Section Three of the proposed Parental Rights Amendment merely protects parents and the States from unintended consequences arising from Article VI as it stands in today’s international world.

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment will preserve the time-honored principles of parental rights in the actual text of the Constitution, just as the Bill of Rights preserves other fundamental rights.

Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s traditional standard that parental rights
are a fundamental constitutional right?

Do you agree that it is valid to put into the text of the Constitution those rights
that run the risk of being eroded in the near future?

Do you agree it will be wiser to protect parental rights in the early stages of erosion than to wait until they’re “on the brink”? We cannot afford to wait until parental rights are being violated on a wide scale before we protect them. We must exercise the foresight of our forefathers by protecting these rights and our sovereignty now!

This is exactly the reasoning and wisdom behind the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in 1791. Today,
parental rights are at risk as well.

Domestic concerns:
In Troxel v. Granville (2000), the Supreme Court issued a fragmented six-way decision in which
only Justice Thomas used the “strict scrutiny” test to reach his decision. Justice Scalia held that because parental rights are ‘implied rights,’ they are not afforded judicial protection at all.
In the wake of this confusion, lower courts routinely fail to accord to parental rights the same high legal standard applied to other fundamental rights. There exists the real possibility that the next parental rights case to reach the Supreme Court could result in a decision even further removed from our heritage of protecting these liberties.

International concerns:
If ratified, the proposed UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) would override all state
law in the area of family law, based on Article VI of our Constitution (the Supremacy Clause).
Since nearly all U.S. family law is state law, this would constitute a massive power shift from
the state to the federal level, ultimately under the authority of a U.N. committee. More importantly, the entire tradition of fundamental rights outlined above would be over-turned
for a system where government is obligated to interfere in any family decision in order to ensure
“the best interest of the child.” ‘Implied rights,’ such as those found to be implied in the Fourteenth Amendment, would not hold up to a ratified treaty. (“The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States.” – Geofroy v. Riggs (1890), emphasis added.) Even if this treaty is defeated now, it or another like it can be brought up at any time for ratification. Only Section Three of the proposed Amendment permanently removes this threat to fundamental parental rights. Many judges in federal and state courts already cite “customary international law” to justify applying international standards to domestic cases. This allows our nation to be bound by the CRC even if we don’t ratify it.

“Liberty once lost is lost forever.” -President John Adams

The Birthday Queen

Tuesday I am the birthday Queen.

It only happens once a year, and I indulge every moment of it. The biggest difference this year is that I am going to be 39.

Yes, dear reader, I am entering into my last year of childhood. I am told that next year I am expected to grow up. Be an adult. Live responsibly, etc. etc. etc.

So, since I have one year of youth left in me, I've made a list of things to accomplish this year, and you can keep track of my progress.

1. I will run in (and finish) at least one 5K race this year.

2. I will learn how to Kayak, and take Brian (and maybe some others) out to a lake.

3. I will go camping this year with at least one of my children (don't promise all of them).

4. I will attempt to keep at least one room clean in my house for an entire month (may not hold me to this).

5. I will hit my goal weight (8 more pounds to go) and stay there until my next birthday (and beyond). I'm going to get my skinny picture soon....

Ok, that's enough. There are many other things I WANT to do, such as take a trip with the kids along the eastern seaboard, Creation Museum, National Parks, but I think this is the most do-able for the moment.

Just wait until I hit 40. Watch out world......

Confessions of an Insane Woman

What is it that drives a person to compel oneself onto a large rotating band of rubber while staring out a window for 30 minutes?

I am, of course referring to the insane pursuit of jogging. Some call it running, some call it just plain stupid. I was one of the latter until recently.

To be exact, just 3 short weeks ago, I was fantasizing about running down a beach in slow motion, hair beads flying back and forth.....oh! Wrong picture...

Actually, I was wishing I had what it takes to be a runner. I have always wanted to get past the "I hate this, when can I stop" stage and reach the euphoria that so many of my friends have reached.

Now I am part of the pack.

Well, more like I am in the back of the pack. So far back you can't really see me unless you use a telescope. But trust me, I am there.

I haven't hit that magic point when I can say that I actually love it, but I like it a lot more than I ever thought I would. In fact, I ran for 3 straight minutes today.

Don't laugh!! I know you're laughing out there...

But just 2 weeks ago, I couldn't even run for 60 seconds.

Now if I can just live through my training sessions, I'll be ready to run 5K races in the spring. I have no idea where I'll be in the pack at that point, but again, I'll be there.

Sick Day

Today we are taking a sick day.

O.K. so we're actually taking a "Mommy feels like she's been hit by a truck" day. We have canceled all "fun" activities this week, and are hunkering down at home with hot tea, crackers and a few movies the kids can watch while Mommy lies comatose on the couch praying that nobody asks her for anything they can't get for themselves.

I noticed with some guilt this morning that I'm not so sympathetic when my kids are sick.

"Just because you have pneumonia, doesn't mean you can't do long division!" feels a bit cheep at the moment. Well, to be fair, it wasn't pneumonia, just a cold. But I bet it felt like it to her.

I know that when the kids are sick, I expect them to do a little bit of what they usually do, even if it isn't up to the same standard. But when I'm sick all I want to do is lie in bed and to be left alone. Don't talk to me, ask me for anything, and whatever you do DO NOT ARGUE!

When Hubby was sick last week, he came home from work, and took a nap. When I'm sick, I can't stay home from work.There is something not right about that!

I know I am whining. I am so blessed to be at home with with my four wonderful children that I adore more than life. I wouldn't trade my life for anything!

But can I just take a nap?

New Obama care

Here is an excellent article I came across that discloses exactly why I am against the health care reform. It is not because I am better off than anyone else, or because I am a conservative. It is because of the same reason that I wouldn't have my "female exams" done by my doctor employer. There are some things that should remain private!


article at Morningstar Ministries.

Happy reading,
Brandie

Which One Are You?

Something very interesting happened today. The drought is finally over in Georgia (yeah!) and with the temperatures soaring, it felt like a sauna. Yuck! So I had a choice. Take my four kids (three of which cannot swim on their own) to the pool or let them run in the sprinklers. Hmmm...

So I'm turning on the sprinklers by hand because the wires going to the timer aren't working (long story, all about a rat. I'll tell you sometime). Then I spy movement in the hole.

Now, you have to understand, I'm extremely afraid of putting my hand down dark holes in the ground to begin with. Black widow spiders abound around here, no need to say more. But I didn't expect to see what I saw.

A snake.

Yes, a snake. Not very big, but a snake none the less! I was poking my stick in the hole trying to weed out any potential spiders when I saw movement in the bottom. We just stared at each other, too surprised by the other's presence to do anything.

It was at this moment that I thought about who I resemble more: Steve Irwin or Jeff Corwin?

Steve Irwin (RIP) was known to take crazy chances and grab the snake by the tail with his hand. He was spit on, bit and squeezed purple on more than one occasion.

Jeff Corwin, on the other hand, always uses a snake stick. Jeff is much more careful and calculated.

Both can be flashy and daring, but one is planned and one could be careless.

My husband is definitely Jeff Corwin. He is calculated, logical and careful. He has an immaculate driving record (and is handsome to boot).

I, on the other hand, tend to be impulsive and shoot from the hip. Yes, I'm lots of fun and can be very entertaining, and the two personalities can compliment each other very well, but I'm not very logical at times!!!

So what do you think I did?

Well, I'm also a homeschooling mom, so I yelled for my kids to come out and see the cool snake. They all came and got to witness it going deeper into the hole away from the likes of us. Then I did my Steve Irwin thing and turned on the sprinklers (yes, I put my hand down the hole and turned it on by hand).

Fortunately, it was just a rat snake. I didn't know what it was at first, but I knew it wasn't poisonous.

Sometimes, I just gotta be me!

Still two handed,
Brandie

P.S. Remind me next time to tell you the story about the rat that I blame for having to turn on the sprinklers by hand in the first place.

Interesting article

I have posted a letter here from Newt Gingrich regarding the Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor. I know that Newt spoke very quickly in calling her a racist, and he even admits this in his letter. I found it to be very fair in dealing with the questions arising from this nomination. You read below and then decide.

June 3, 2009 | Vol. 4, No. 22

Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor:
You Read, You Decide

by Newt Gingrich

Shortly after President Obama nominated her to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, I read Judge Sonia Sotomayor's now famous words:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

My initial reaction was strong and direct - perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor's fitness to serve on the nation's highest court have been critical of my word choice.

With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word "racist" should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable (a fact which both President Obama and his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, have since admitted).

So it is to her words - the ones quoted above and others - to which we should turn, for they show that the issue here is not racial identity politics. Sotomayor's words reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system - that everyone is equal before the law.

The Central Question: Is American Justice No Longer Blindfolded?

The fundamental issue at stake in the Sotomayor discussion or nomination is not her background or her gender but an issue that has implications far beyond this judge and this nomination: Is judicial impartiality no longer a quality we can and should demand from our Supreme Court Justices?

President Obama apparently thinks so. Other presidents, Republican and Democrat, have considered race and gender in making judicial appointments in the past. But none have explicitly advocated the notion that judges should substitute their personal experiences for impartiality in deciding cases. And certainly none have asserted that their ethnicity, race or gender would make them a better judge over a judge from a different background.

Here is how President Obama explained his criteria for appointing judges earlier this year:

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old - and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."

No Group Has Benefited More From Impartial Justice Than the Less Fortunate

With these words, President Obama is cleverly inviting his critics to come out swinging against empathy for the less fortunate among us. But Americans are smarter than this.

We understand that the job of a justice is to enforce the law, not the rule of empathy. And we understand that when a judge substitutes his or her personal experiences for the law, the law becomes what he or she wants it to be, not what the people, through their elected representatives, have decided it should be.

Most tragically, it is this principle of judicial impartiality - of justice, not just for the rich and the powerful, but for all - that has most benefited the vulnerable and the downtrodden in America.

No group has needed or continues to need justice - that can't be predetermined by wealth or privilege - as much as the less privileged. President Obama doesn't seem to grasp that, by weakening judges' adherence to the rule of law, he is also weakening the very foundation of equal justice for the less fortunate Americans he wants to help.

The "Court of Appeals is Where Policy Is Made"

How does Judge Sotomayor come down on the issue of a judge's fidelity to the law?

Here is what she told a Duke University Law School audience in 2005 (emphasis mine):

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is - Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating."

Is Judge Sotomayor Being Quoted Out of Context? You Read, You Decide

If Judge Sotomayor, by her own words, believes the judge's bench is "where policy is made," what kind of law can we expect her to make as a Supreme Court Justice?

The Berkeley Law School speech in which Judge Sotomayor made the comments that I quoted at the outset of this newsletter - that a "wise Latina" would make a better judge than a white male - has been widely cited.

The White House is now claiming that critics are taking Judge Sotomayor's comments in that speech out of context. So in the spirit of "you read, you decide" I am linking here to Judge Sotomayor's speech in full.

As you read it, see if you agree with those respected legal scholars who have concluded that the speech as a whole isn't as damaging as the Judge's "wise Latina" comment - it's worse.

"Our Gender and National Origins May and
Will Make a Difference in Our Judging"

Here are some excerpts from the speech (emphasis mine):

• "I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that."

• "Whether born from experience or inherent psychological or cultural differences...our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

• "Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases....I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Again, you read, you decide. Read Judge Sotomayor's speech in full here. Then let me know what you think at Newt.org.

"Equal Justice Under Law" Is Chiseled in Stone on the Supreme Court

The central principle of American justice - and perhaps the single, great idea of America - is equal justice before the law.

This idea is expressed in the words "all men (and today we would say all men and women) are created equal." It means that Americans stand before the law, not as members of groups, but as individuals.

"Equal justice under law" is in fact chiseled in stone on the front of the Supreme Court building - and for good reason.

When a judge disregards the rule of law and applies a different standard to certain groups - or, as the President would say, shows "empathy" - he or she violates this central American principle.

One Group's "Empathy" is Another Group's Injustice. Ask Frank Ricci.

When a judge views Americans as members of groups and not individuals, one group's "empathy" becomes another group's injustice.

Nowhere is the injustice that results from judging Americans as members of groups and not as individuals more evident than in Judge Sotomayor's ruling in the case involving Frank Ricci, a New Haven, Conn., firefighter.

Ricci quit his second job and studied 13 hours a day in 2003 for a civil service exam he hoped would earn him a promotion to lieutenant in the New Haven Fire Department. And when Ricci took the exam, all his hard work seemed to pay off. He got one of the highest scores. But because no African-Americans scored high enough on the exam to be promoted, the city of New Haven threw out the results of the test and promoted no one.

Frank Ricci, 16 other white firefighters, and one Hispanic firefighter sued the city, claiming they were denied promotions on the basis of their race. A district judge dismissed the case, and a three- judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. One of those judges was Judge Sotomayor.

An Opportunity to Have a Debate About
Equal Justice for Americans Like Frank Ricci

The Supreme Court is currently hearing the Ricci case, and a ruling is expected next month, likely in the midst of hearings on Judge Sotomayor's nomination.

Legal experts expect the Supreme Court to reverse Judge Sotomayor's ruling. But however the high court rules, this is a moment for America to have a full, honest and open debate, not just about the impartiality of our judges, but about equal justice before the law for Americans like Frank Ricci.

Which Judge Sotomayor Will Show Up on the Supreme Court?

In fairness to the judge, many of her rulings as a court of appeals judge do not match the radicalism of her speeches and statements. She has shown more caution and moderation in her rulings than in her words.

So the question we need to ask ourselves in considering Judge Sotomayor's confirmation is this: Which judge will show up on the Supreme Court, the radical from her speeches or the convention liberal from her rulings?

It's no small question. Judge Sotomayor is 54 years old. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is 89. Judge Sotomayor has the potential to spend more than 30 years on the Supreme Court. There, unlike on the court of appeals, she will have no reason to show caution. On the high court, Judge Sotomayor will not have to worry about a higher court overturning her rulings. As a Supreme Court Justice, she will do the overturning.

The stakes are very high with this nomination. Has President Obama nominated a conventionally liberal judge to a lifetime tenure on our highest court? Or a radical liberal activist who will cast aside the rule of law in favor of the narrow, divisive politics of race and gender identity?

You read, you decide.

Joel Rosenberg Part 2

By Joel C. Rosenberg

(Washington, D.C., June 8, 2009) -- To be honest, it's taken me several days to process President Obama's speech in Cairo. But let me offer a bit of analysis now that I've had a little more time to think about it carefully.

First, the good news:

* It was important for the President of the United States to reach out to moderate Muslims -- to the Reformers, as I describe them in Inside The Revolution -- and explain America's desire to understand them, encourage them, and help them succeed. The vast, vast majority of the world's 1.3 billion-plus Muslims are not Radicals. They may not necessarily love the U.S., or Israel or the West, but they are not jihadists. They don't want their children to be suicide bombers. They don't believe in genocide. They want to live in peace and freedom. They want the opportunity to carve out a better life for themselves and their children. This is empirically true. And it should be acknowledged by President Obama as it was repeatedly by President Bush.

* It was important for the President of the United States to speak out on religious freedom and the fundamental human right for all people everywhere to be free to choose their religion for themselves. He did so, and it was good.

* It was also important for the President of the United States -- especially one now openly acknowledging his Muslim roots and his upbringing in the Muslim world -- to stand before a Muslim audience in an Arab capital and defend Israel's right to exist and explain the horrors of the Holocaust. He did so. And then, of course, he went on to the Nazi death camp at Buchenwald with Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel and German Chancellor Angela Merkel to denounce such evil against Jews and against humanity, and vow never to let it happen again. "We've seen genocide," President Obama said at Buchenwald, a speech that was written as a corollary to Cairo. "We've seen mass graves and the ashes of villages burned to the ground; children used as soldiers and rape used as a weapon of war. This places teaches us that we must be ever vigilant about the spread of evil in our own time, that we must reject the false comfort that others' suffering is not our problem and commit ourselves to resisting those who would subjugate others to serve their own interests." This was good.

Now, the bad news....

[To read the rest of this analysis of the President's Cairo speech -- as well as to read analysis of yesterday's elections in Lebanon -- please go to the weblog by clicking here.]

Interesting Political Quote

From Joel Rosenberg, author of, "The Last Jihad." This is from his flash traffic email. Click here for the entire article.

"The Saudis -- home of the Sunni brand of Islam -- are absolutely terrified at the prospect of Iranian Shia Muslims (whom they consider heretics) going nuclear. They don't believe the U.S. has the will to stop Tehran in time, or perhaps even the true desire. They fear the White House may have made the calculation that a nuclear Iran is inevitable (like North Korea) and maybe not so bad after all. They are not alone. Egyptian leaders and numerous Gulf state leaders feel the same way. They are nearly panic-stricken that the U.S. will cut them loose and allow a nuclear-armed Persia, their historic enemy, to dominate the epicenter. Interestingly, there is an historic and unprecedented convergence of self-interest forming between Israel, Egypt, the Saudis and the Gulf state Arabs against Iran. They want Washington on their side against the apocalyptic, genocidal death cult that is currently running Iran. But thus far, President Obama appears to be convinced that he can sit down with the Iranian leadership, have a few carmel lattes with them, and convince them to give up their atomic ambitions. That's what worries these Arab leaders, as it should. Should be an interesting week."

Interesting in deed!

Islam Day?

On Wednesday, Hawaii's State Senate overwhelming approved a bill to celebrate "Islam Day" on September 24th.

Hmmm...

Is it just me, or does this seem bizarre? My own beliefs notwithstanding, I don't understand why any state entity would approve a day to celebrate one particular religion over another, especially given the furor over so-called "separation of church and state" that seems to only be applied to Christianity.

I mean, you would never hear of a "Christian Day" or "Jewish Day" or "Buddhist Day". What about "Voodoo Day", or "Hindu Day"? I could go on, but I think you get the point.

The bill seeks to recognize "the rich religious, scientific, cultural and artistic contributions" that Islam and the Islamic world have made. It does not call for any spending or organized celebration of Islam Day.

Then what's the point?

People generally get all bent out of shape and inside out over the idea that we are a Christian nation with Christian foundations. They argue that government shouldn't have anything to do with religion.

Apparently not Hawaii.

Get Yours Today

In my hands I hold two of the greatest statements of human liberty ever written: The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

As a practical matter, the Declaration of Independence, adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776, publicly announced to the world the unanimous decision of the American colonies to declare themselves free and independent states, absolved from any allegiance to Great Britain. Yet it is also the definitive American statement of the conditions of legitimate political authority, the ends of government, and the sovereignty of the people. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, called it "the fundamental Act of Union of these States."

To this day, some 200+ years after the American revolution, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution serve not only as powerful beacons to all those who strive for liberty and seek to vindicate the principles of self-government, but also as a warning to tyrants and despots everywhere. They are the highest achievements of our political tradition; they still define us as a people and a nation. Taken together, these great documents represent the heritage of our Country.

taken from the forward of the "Pocket Constitution" from the Heritage Foundation. Get your free copy here.

Freedom isn't free.

Quiet Time

What is quiet time, you say? Well, it's supposed to be a time to wind down during the day. A time when the chaos dims, when you can reconnect with God or just plain take a nap.

Needless to say, that doesn't happen very often around here. Here's what quiet time looks like at my house.

Stage 1. When my kids are too young to climb out of the crib, I can just put them in bed and walk away. That works well until the inevitable day when I hear a "thump" and wailing coming from the baby monitor. They have learned how to climb out of the crib but have not learned about gravity yet. We then progress to stage 2.

Stage 2. I let them play in their rooms and shut the door. Of course I have to do damage control in their rooms which takes all the next day until quiet time again...*sigh*... Now, I can keep them in there until they learn how to turn the knob on the door, or until they can dismantle a baby gate, whichever comes first. Then they come down every five minutes asking me if they can get up yet. That's when we get to stage 3.

Stage 3. At this point, I give them the remote control and tell them I'm going to take a nap. This works well because They have a pre-determined list of shows they can watch, and I get a little sleep. Of course by the time I get to this point it's time to get up and make dinner...