Saturday, December 31, 2005

cText Looks Back At 2005

The New Year is upon us, and as this is another momentous occasion, I have elected to not write a political post that might stir up unrest during this holiday season. Therefore, I believe the best course of action is simply to take you through a brief tour of 2005. Perhaps this year will be remembered for its natural disasters in this and many other parts of the world. Hurricane Katrina nearly destroyed the city of New Orleans, while a 9.0 earthquake devastated Southeast Asia (although the earthquake happened in 2004, the story of this event was mainly a 2005 event).

Whether you are against democracy in Iraq or not, you can’t help but be amazed at the progress the Iraqi Republic has made. The first multiparty election in Iraq in 81 years occurred in January. The recent elections in December put America to shame, with the new republic turning out over 70% of its eligible voters. Sadly, voter turnout is down from recent years when, under gunpoint, Saddam attained 99.99% voter turnout.

A smaller yet nearly as significant occurrence happened in 2005 known as the Terri Schiavo case. This lady, who was starved to death by court order, brought to the American forefront the reality that euthanasia, a process popularized by Adolph Hitler, is still alive and well in America.

The death of Pope John Paul II ended the guidance of one of modern history’s most influential and beloved religious individuals. Pope John Paul II’s successor was Joseph Ratzinger, one of John Paul II’s most trusted aides. The new pope, Pope Benedict XVI, is known for believing in the authority of the Bible (to the disgust of liberals).

Another passing of the guard has occurred in the United States Supreme Court. With the passing of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, liberals hoped to upset the left leaning court with yet another liberal judge. Though the Democrats in Congress filibustered, eventually Chief Justice John Roberts was confirmed. In the same year, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her intention to resign. Though her replacement is not certain, it is believed 3rd Circuit Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito will succeed her.

Many other notable events happened this year such as record iPod sales, sluggish Hollywood sales, intelligent design curriculum in classrooms, my new snowboarding record speed of 47 mph, Michael Jackson’s legal problems, and the excellent blog Common Sense Commentary began. It has been a fun year, as is the case with most years in this brief life. I leave you now for the remainder of the year. Have a happy New Year folks. Try not to party TOO much!


PS – As a side note, I wanted to thank every one of you who voted for Conservative Textbook in the Homeschool Blog Awards. Although I did not win (that honor went to The Common Room and Legal Redux), I heartily appreciate everyone who supported my blog. Thank you all so very much (and there’s always next year!!!!).

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Selective Tolerance

Make sure to vote for Conservative Textbook. I am located under the Current Events Homeschool Blog category. Thanks for your support!

I have discussed this topic so many times it is not even fun anymore. However I feel as though it is my duty to continue to pound this issue in the hopes of opening peoples’ eyes to the realization that liberals are, without a doubt, some of the most intolerant people on the planet.

Columnist Ann Coulter recently spoke to students at the University of Connecticut. As is customary at a university, a group of liberal college students gathered to protest this conservative speaker. While Coulter was giving her speech, these enlightened and intelligent liberals screamed “you suck, you suck” and other less than civilized comments. Eventually the ruckus became so intolerable that Coulter simply ended her speech and began a Q&A session.

The question now becomes, how does this demonstrate diversity of opinions and tolerance on the part of the Left? As we all know, diversity and tolerance are the crown jewels of liberalism. How does this picture of Coulter being shut up fit into that picture? In fact, how does the intimidation of Rebecca Beach, food being thrown at Mr. David Horowitz, and Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado at the People’s Republic of Boulder play into all this? The answer is quite simple – selective tolerance.

Selective tolerance is the idea that we can tolerate everyone’s opinion, except those opinions that don’t agree with our opinion. At first glance, this seems ludicrous. At second glance, this seems even more ludicrous and intolerant on the part of the tolerant liberals. In fact, this proves that liberals are indeed not tolerant to any opinions that go against their cherished ideals of big government, little personal freedom, and a bill of rights for terrorists.

On the other hand, we have conservatives. These people tend to be characterized as racists, bigots, stupid, and worst of all, intolerant. However, upon closer look, when was the last time you ever saw conservatives at a university shouting down a tolerant liberal? I honestly can’t think of a single incidence. Believe me, I would have heard of one if one had occurred. You see, Coulter and the University of Connecticut are not reported in the news. But if we had a conservative group shout down a pundit from Air America (the liberal radio network that steals money from children), the media would proclaim it louder than Howard Dean can scream.

Of course, that again shows how liberals are tolerant of all opinions except those that disagree with their opinions. You see, since the media tends to be run by liberals, it is natural for liberals to be able to get away with shouting down Coulter; it would never be natural for conservatives to be able to get away with shouting down a liberal. That again is another example of selective tolerance.

As I have said countless times, it just goes to show you that liberals are very tolerant of those who don’t disagree with them. Of course, they are not tolerant of those who do not agree with them. Selective tolerance sums it up nicely.

Another fine lesson from the Conservative Textbook.

PS - Want to read something amazing? Check out this post on Common Sense Commentary.

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Vote For Conservative Textbook

Hi folks. I have entered the Homeschool Blog Awards 2005. This may come as a slight surprise to some of you, so I suspect I should explain some things.

Over the past year, I have kept my education low key in the interest of keeping people focused on my articles, not my background. However, I believe it is high time that I reveal my background to you all.

I am home schooled. I have been home schooled since kindergarten. In the fall of 2005, however, I started to take classes at a community college. My current (senior year!) schedule now consists of 3 home school classes and 2 community college classes.

I hope this little post explains some of my views to you, and also makes my participation in this awesome contest much easier to understand (up until this point, as I said, no one ever knew where I went to school for my high school classes).

Please vote for Conservative Textbook. I am listed under the Current Events Homeschool Blog category. To vote, please click on the below button (the top one works as well). Thanks a ton!


PS – Please follow ALL the rules (but then, I’m talking to the best readership on the Internet, so I don’t even have to remind you guys of this).

Here are the rules.

1. No voting by email.
2. No anonymous votes. Please use a valid email or blog URL.
3. You can only vote once. Duplicates will be deleted and votes disqualified.
4. You can only vote for ONE blog in each category.
5. A blog can only win in ONE category vote.
6. In the event of a tie, both blogs will be given the award in that category.
7. In some categories, both a teen and a parent blog may be chosen.
8. Voting will end on December 26, 2005 at Midnight EST.
9. Winners will be announced as soon as all votes are counted and verified. No later than January 1st, 2006.

Also, thanks to all those hard working bloggers who have taken time to make this contest possible.

Saturday, December 10, 2005

General Dean

It feels good to be back, behind my silver Apple PowerBook G4, surfing Firefox, listening to punk/rap music that annoys my parents to no end, and munching on unhealthy junk food. Thanks everyone for bearing with me while I was away studying for my finals. Just as a side note, I got some very nice grades as a result.


The soft-spoken Dr. Howard Dean has been doing quite a bit of backpedaling ever since a small interview he did some time ago. Dr. Dean, Chairman of the Democratic Party, said, “The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong.

More recently Dr. Dean has stated that his above quote was taken “a little out of context.” Of course, we all know that is the John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, excuse, not the Howard Dean excuse (was John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, ever quoted right by his allies in the press?).

However, Dr. Dean has again been caught with his hand in the money jar. His quote came from a recorded interview with WOAI News in San Antonio, Texas. There is no possible way his quote could have been taken out of context. However, Dr. Dean, having seen how foolish his quote really was, is now trying to blame the GOP for twisting his words.

But let us continue on with Dr. Dean’s interview since we have seen that Dr. Dean now regrets bowing to the Far Left.

"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years. Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops.

This is Dr. Dean’s tactical solution. I know we have more than 80,000 troops in Iraq. If we can’t win this war, let’s just leave right now and take all our military forces out, not just the National Guard and Reserves. Why sacrifice another life for a failed cause? If this whole war is a lost cause, we should get out of Iraq this instant, just like Murtha says.

Next, Dr. Dean explains that we ought to redeploy troops to a neighboring country to fight terrorists. I don’t see how this will fix our problem. The terrorists will just follow us to that country (whatever country that may be), attack our troops, and turn this new country into another “lost cause”. Seems to me like this won’t improve our position at all. In fact, all it will produce is the death of the Iraqi republic.

But we must remember, everyone on this good Earth, including the Far Left, misunderstood what Dr. Dean meant in the first place. Therefore, we must discard every single thing Dr. Dean said in this interview. It makes me wonder what else Dr. Dean would like to retract if it was put in his face?

Another fine lesson from the Conservative Textbook.

Saturday, December 03, 2005

Parental Rights

Hi, this is Chelsea! I am filling in for Caleb while he feverishly studies for his upcoming finals (December 6, 2005). Good luck, Caleb. I know you will do well on your finals. He'll return to you in time for the next post (December 10, 2005).


Who has the ultimate responsibility for the welfare of a minor? The minor? The judicial system? The medical providers? The parent? I can see all sorts of hands going up. Who assumes financial responsibility and long term care of a minor if a performed medical procedure has complications? Now watch our group point to the one primarily responsible for a minor- the parent.

So why is the US Supreme Court hearing oral arguments in the Ayotte v Planned Parenthood of New England? This case presented by the attorney general of New Hampshire will determine whether states can continue to require parent notification of an abortion performed on a minor. This disputed New Hampshire law was passed in 2003 by the legislature requires parent notification of an abortion if the daughter is under the age of 18 years. If a doctor determines the female minor’s life is at risk, an immediate abortion can be performed without parental consent. If a female minor is unable to get parental approve, she can request a judge to intervene and then obtain an abortion. Sounds like a reasonable but compromising law to me- I am pro-life and do not believe abortion is an option. Nonetheless, after this bill was passed in 2003 by the legislature, a federal judge struck it down. Any guess where this judge sits on the abortion issue?

Again my question is- who is responsible for the well being of a minor? Some may argue that if parents don’t allow their daughter to have an abortion, her welfare is threatened by carrying the pregnancy to full-term. There are fewer risks of carrying a pregnancy through full term with today’s technology than having an abortion. There are also options for the child of a young mother. A young single girl/woman has a lot of different issues to deal with once she finds she is pregnant. Having an abortion will only increase the problems the girl/woman is facing now. Post abortion syndrome is a real diagnosis that requires counseling and prayerful support in order to deal with the guilt. Why would any parent or adult counselor want to encourage a young girl/woman to follow a path with future problems? A minor in this situation needs her parent’s love and counsel- not a short-term fix of an abortion.

The New Hampshire law in question is not about abortion rights. The law clearly permits abortions. What is in jeopardy is the parent’s right to know if their daughter plans to have an abortion. Let us hope (and pray) the US Supreme Court will see the critical issue at stake here. The federal government was never designed to be the parent. Let parents be parents!

By the way, it was after these oral arguments that Charmaine Yost of the Family Research Council pushed Kim Grady, NOW president, away from the microphone. I guess Ms. Grady feels only her opinions should be heard. So kudos to Mrs. Yost. Now if we could only get the US Republican senators to push the Democrats away from the microphone. Hasta la vista, amigos.