I’m No DW, but…Posted by Rick on October 2nd, 2004
The Dude drove up in his trustworthy Ranchero. The car wasn’t in the best of shape, but it got him where he needed to go.
“I’d like to trade in my car,” said the Dude to the salesman.
“Okay, let’s go look at the new Windsurfers. We have a brand new convertible if you’d like something that can change with your mood. They’re very popular in New England.”
“Well, to be honest, I’d like something that can really fly. Why don’t you get me one of them F-18 Constitutions.”
“Uh, sir, you can’t just buy a fighter jet. Why don’t we just look at the Windsurfer.”
“What kind of moron do you take me for? I hate Windsurfers! Besides, they flip too easily when you’re drivin’ real fast.”
“Sorry sir, I didn’t mean to infer anything. It’s just that it’s quite impossible to sell you a plane, especially one with machine guns. We only sell Windsurfers here. What’s wrong with your Ranchero?”
“Listen, the Constitution is the only vehicle that meets my standards. I believe that religiously. I need perfection in my vehicle. That’s something that my Ranchero and your Windsurfers don’t have.”
“Well, I don’t think I can help you. We don’t sell what you want.”
“Just to soothe my conscience, let me pay for one.”
“What? You want to pay us for a plane? That doesn’t make any sense.”
“I want all you companies to know that your cars don’t meet my standards and that there’s a real market for fighter jets.”
And with that, the Dude handed the salesman a check and sped off into the wild blue sunset.
Last I heard, he was driving a Windsurfer.
October 3rd, 2004 at 11:26 am
I guess that’s one way to look at the election, even if it’s not a very good analogy. First, the Constitution was there first; the other ideas imposed themselves over time. Why not the fighter jet if that is what was GIVEN in the first place? The others, you have to buy them. The Constitution is not what meets our standards, but is the standard we are to meet. Second, I seriously doubt that you will find many in the Constitution camp who are going to roll over and take up the Democratic position. That’s ridiculous.
October 3rd, 2004 at 1:19 pm
The Constitution in the story isn’t referring to the document of the Constitution. It’s referring to something else. I could just have easily called it an F-14 Liberty or a Green Machine.
October 4th, 2004 at 6:57 am
Part of it comes down to a theology of peace. Sure, you can critique Bush on what he’s doing in Iraq, but I firmly believe that Kerry would not bring peace in Iraq or America.
Bush at least gives us peace in America, and generally speaking, he gives the church a chance to cultivate itself as its own polis.
I can’t see voting for Peroutka as anything other than a moral misjudgment.
I’d rather fight my battles within the church and build up the church rather than battle the government on moral issues.
When we build up the church, then we can build up the culture. Only then would I see voting for Peroutka or Buchanan or any third party as a legitimate moral and political option.
October 4th, 2004 at 10:28 am
Weird. I was responding to Josh, but now I don’t see his comment. Maybe I’m delusional (surely I’m delusional).
October 4th, 2004 at 11:12 am
My two comments disappeared. Off to school…
October 4th, 2004 at 9:54 pm
1.3 million babies don’t find the current arrangement peaceful at all.
So much for that theory,
Bret
October 4th, 2004 at 9:59 pm
Look what your Republican vote will buy you.
GUEST OPINION: “Mental health and world citizenship – the history of government involvement”
Dennis Cuddy, Ph.D.
illinoisleader.com/opinio…sp?c=18554
Monday, August 16, 2004
OPINION — In a recent article, I related that the Bush administration’s Secretary of Education Rod Paige last October 3 declared that the U.S. is pleased to rejoin UNESCO where we could develop common strategies to prepare our children to become “citizens of the world.”
Then on June 21 WorldNetDaily.com published, “Life With Big Brother: Bush to screen population for mental illness,” describing President Bush’s “New Freedom Initiative” that would have every citizen receive a mental health screening.
What one needs to guard against is the use of mental health to pursue world government.
The theme of the administration of President Woodrow Wilson was “The New Freedom,” and it pursued the ideals of Philip Dru: Administrator, written in 1912 by President Wilson’s chief adviser, Col. Edward M. House, who wrote of “socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.”
Education would be a primary vehicle for achieving the objective, and John Dewey, the father of progressive education, promoted socialism. He said the society or group is most important, and that independent individualists have a form of “insanity.”
By the late 1940s, Dewey’s progressive education was becoming dominant in American public schools. And in 1948 an International Congress on Mental Health was held in London with publication of a document, “Mental Health and World Citizenship,” declaring that “world citizenship can be widely extended among all peoples through the application of the principles of mental health.”
The Congress promoted the U.N. as the vehicle for promoting this objective, and UNESCO’s director-general Sir Julian Huxley the same year wrote in UNESCO: Its Purpose and its Philosophy that “political unification in some sort of world government will be required.”
The 1950s and 1960s saw the growing strength of Dewey’s progressive educational philosophy and mental health advocacy, and in 1965 the Joint Commission on Mental Health of Children was established.
In 1969, the Commission released its report, which stated: “As the home and church decline in influence…schools must begin to provide adequately for the emotional and moral development of children…. The school… must assume a direct responsibility for the attitudes and values of child development. The child advocate, psychologist, social technician, and medical technician should all reach aggressively into the community, send workers out to children’s homes, recreationfacilities, and schools. They should assume full responsibility for all education, including pre-primary education.”
In the 1970s, a representative of HEW (U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare) approached North Carolina Governor James B. Hunt, Jr. about developing a model for child health care around the nation.
The N.C. Plan was called, “Child Health Plan for Raising a New Generation,” and included establishing a “health care home” for every child, stating “responsibilities belonging to child and family are required.”
The plan was released in 1979, the same year the N.C. State Health Plan was adopted, linking in two places religion with mental illness and mental retardation.
In the same year (1979), Bill Clinton (supported by Hillary Clinton) began Arkansas’ Governor’s School for the Gifted and Talented, modeled after the first Governor’s School in the nation which was established in 1963 in N.C.,[The Governor's School] was funded in part by the Carnegie Corporation and was attended by the writer of this article. We were given various psychological tests, which, I believe, looked at us as guinea pigs to be remolded for the Brave New World of the future.
When Hillary Clinton became First Lady of the U.S. in 1993, she was in charge of a health care task force, about half the members of whom were connected with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
On the NBC’s Today Show (January 23, 1990), Dr. Michael Lewis of the New Jersey Robert Wood Johnson Medical School had claimed: “Lying is an important part of social life, and children who are unable to do it are children who may have developmental problems.”
What Hillary Clinton’s task force was proposing was basically socialized medicine. Hillary’s friend, former N.C. Gov. Hunt, became director of RWJ’s Mental Health Services for Youth program.
And regarding a January 4-5, 1996, symposium in Frankfurt, Kentucky, attended by attorney Kent Masterson Brown, the attorney said: “He (former Gov. Hunt) came to Governor Wallace Wilkinson in Kentucky and told him that RWJ would like Kentucky to become part of this mental health program for youth, and said we’ll give you $100,000 to plan a program….That’s what they do. I mean, you think that’s just buying legislation. Well, it is.”
The next year, early in 1997, former Gov. Hunt was chairman of the National Education Goals Panel and promoted the Early Childhood Public Engagement Campaign that actor Rob Reiner and others were starting, with the Carnegie Corporation once again playing a critical role. (The Carnegie Institution in 1904 had financed the establishment of a biological experiment station related to eugenics at Cold Spring Harbor, New York.)
The NEGP indicated a desire for the creation of a nationalized system of childcare from age zero based upon the principles of brain research (mental health). Roy Roemer, Governor of Colorado at the time, stated: “The ideal system would be… in every community or county you have an organizational structure that is responsible for the zero to 6, zero to 3 age level for the child…. And then finally put in a hooker and say, ‘Hey, you don’t get any payments from state on their highways until you do this job.’”
It may be this same type of coercive tactic that is used to facilitate the current New Freedom Initiative. Mental health screenings may be attached to the current vaccines most children are required to receive to attend public schools. And for older people, they may be asked by insurance companies to “voluntarily” accept the screenings if they don’t want their premiums to increase.
In 2001, President George W. Bush worked with U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy to pass the federal “No Child Left Behind” legislation, which includes provisions for expanding school-based mental health programs. This fits with the report of The New Freedom in Mental Health Commission, which stressed that “schools must be partners in the mental health care of our children.”
Where is all this leading? In the third volume of Arthur Calhoun’s A Social History of the American Family, published in 1919 and widely used as a social service textbook, one reads:
The new view is that the higher and more obligatory relation is to society rather than to the family; the family goes back to the age of savagery while the state belongs to the age of civilization. The modern individual is a world citizen, served by the world, and home interests can no longer be supreme…. As soon as the new family, consisting of only the parents and the children, stood forth, society saw how many were unfit for parenthood and began to realize the need of community care…. As familism weakens, society has to assume a larger parenthood. The school begins to assume responsibility for the functions thrust upon it…. The kindergarten grows downward toward the cradle and there arises talk of neighborhood nurseries….Social centers replace the old time home chimney….The child passes more and more into the custody of community experts….In the new social order, extreme emphasis is sure to be placed upon eugenic procreation…. It seems clear that at least in its early stages, socialism will mean an increased amount of social control…. We may expect in the socialist commonwealth a system of public educational agencies that will begin with the nursery and follow the individual through life….Those persons that experience alarm at the thought of intrinsic changes in family institutions should remember that in the light of social evolution, nothing is right or valuable in itself.
Relevant to this, Clinton administration official Mary Jo Bane said almost 30 years ago that “in order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.” (Tulsa Sunday World, August 21, 1977)
And about that same time, HEW Executive Assistant Eddie Bernice Johnson (who would later become a Congresswoman from Texas) advocated the licensing of parents before they would be permitted to have children. Licensing of parents has also been proposed by Prof. Gene Stephens (The Futurist, April 1981) and Dr. Jack Westman (Licensing Parents, 1994).
Under the American socialism planned for our future, government will increasingly control our lives via mental health screening and education, among other means. Only if the American people resist these efforts as soon as possible will we be successful in thwarting the plans of the power elite.
© 2004 Dennis Cuddy – All Rights Reserved. First posted on NewsWithViews.com. Reprinted by permission
October 5th, 2004 at 11:38 am
Uh huh, and a votes for Peroutka will buy you John Kerry. Do I have to tell you what that would imply for all the above categories?
October 5th, 2004 at 1:49 pm
And of course that is the point.
Kerry and Bush will bring us the same exact type of evil. For example rumor is that if Bush get re-elected and gets to appoint a Supreme it will be Alberto Gonzalez… who would be the first Hispanic Supreme. Problem is that Gonzalez is pro-abortion.
THEREFORE we should honor Christ with our vote and either not vote at all for being bound with chains and found to be supporters of abortion, or we should vote for somebody who isn’t part of the Levithan machine.
Nice Blog,
Bret
October 5th, 2004 at 2:11 pm
I guess you take that turn him the other cheek a little too literally.
A kidnapper said to his captive, “You can either have me punch you in the arm as hard as I can, or you can have Mike Tyson punch you in the stomach as hard as he can, for 20 minutes. Which do you choose?”
The captive snapped back, “Neither. I want to punch you both in your stomachs.”
He couldn’t really stomach their reply back to that comment.
October 5th, 2004 at 4:12 pm
A kidnapper said to his captive … “You can either drink the Hemlock or you can swallow cyanide.”
The captive knew the eyes of the other captives was upon him. He knew that they would follow his leadership and so realizing how futile the choice was he chose the way of a Christian.
He replied to his captive …
“I will not help you by killing myself. Should you wish me dead you will have to do it yourself.”
Then turning to his people before his Kidnappers bullet found his temple he shouted
“Never given in to the oppressor. Never.”
Bret
October 5th, 2004 at 5:28 pm
Ah, but neither Bush nor Kerry will kill us. They will only get in our way a little bit or a lot. We’re to cultivate our polis while doing anything we can do get the government off our backs. We can’t elect Peroutka or any other 3rd party candidate. A vote doesn’t do anything by itself. I’ll vote for Bush, who will allow the church to function and will allow us to have “right wing ideology” without being thrown in jail or called a hatemongerer.
October 5th, 2004 at 6:12 pm
Here is where we divert. I know the intent of the Levithan, which Bush and Kerry wish to embody as President, does desire to kill the faith. Now, the fact that God will always keep his Church does not negate Levithan’s desire to eradicate the faith nor does it eradicate our responsibility to not cast our lot by voting for the enemy.
Voting Republican will not get the government off your back as that ONE article I posted reveals. (I could direct you to many more).
A vote does this much … it yokes us with the one we cast it for. Scripture clearly teaches not to be unequally yoked. Christians who vote for the God hating Republican partying are violating the command not to be unequally yoked.
Finally who say’s we can’t elect Peroutka? Polling Data? If we are going to be that wed to polling data I am not sure why we even bother to have an election. Christian responsibility is not to do right according to the polling data but according to God’s standard.
Bret
October 5th, 2004 at 6:55 pm
Okay then. Maybe we should remit our citizenship too.
October 5th, 2004 at 7:29 pm
One is going to damage you more than the other even if they both damage you. It’s like the analogy Wilson uses…they’re both speeding off the cliff even if the Republicans are driving at 40 and the Democrats are driving at 70.
But let’s be realistic. The slower drives you a few more seconds. And a few more seconds can be the difference in changing the direction of the car.
Or the direction of the hearts of Americans. We need to quit looking at the fact that we’re going off the cliff and buy ourselves some time and use that time effectively.
If we elected Peroutka tomorrow, he’d be impeached by Friday.
October 5th, 2004 at 8:25 pm
Your assessment that Elephants jump over cliffs at a slower rate than Donkeys is not an accurate assessment because these animals are working in concert together to jump off the cliff.
To change the analogy,
Consider the frog in the Kettle analogy. The Democrats extreme is mollified by Republican correction so the frog finds the increase in the heat tolearable. If the Republicans refused to mollify the Democratic extreme the chances are indubitably higher that the frog might jump out of the pot. But no … the Republicans ensure that the frog stays in the pot by slightly lessening Democratic extremes. This is called conservative today but its effect is only to insure that our frog will acclimate itself to the increase in heat so that when the next extreme in heat is mollified by Republican ‘temperance’ he will once again remain where he is at.
This is not progress. This is not buying time. This is making frog soup with the co-operation of the frog. And those who vote for either major party are responsible in this concerted effort.
It’s time for the frog to quit helping with his own demise and quit voting for the Leviathan system.
Bret
p.s. – The citizenship response is lame. Scripture consistently tells us we have dual citizenship. It does not consistently tell us to boil ourselves.
October 6th, 2004 at 5:44 am
My point is if you want to claim being equally yoked because you vote for Peroutka, you’re just as equally yoked in your citizenship.
And the difference is that (hopefully) we’re smarter than frogs. sure, a lot of us aren’t, but the majority of the people that would even consider a third party option are smart enough to notice they’re in boiling water. Voting for the guy that could possibly pull you out isn’t the same as pulling yourself out.
October 6th, 2004 at 7:00 am
I would say the act of voting for somebody else besides the ones who want to boil you is a first step towards jumping out. It makes no sense at all to vote for people who love the taste of frog soup.
Besides what else are we supposed to do to pull ourselves out? You’re certainly not suggesting that we might dare to go so far as to take to the streets and throw off our chains?
Republicans have every bit as much intent as Democrats to kill us dead.
A vote for the major parties is far from wisdom,
Bret
October 6th, 2004 at 7:49 am
Okay, a vote for Peroutka is an attempt to throw a chain off. That attempt will get you more chains. Personally, one chain is enough. I think we need to get strong enough to throw chains before we start trying to do so.
October 6th, 2004 at 9:14 am
And, let’s face it, Peroutka is not the most upstanding, moral, respectable candidate in the first place. If you are going to cast a Constitution Party vote for purity’s sake, you should get yourselves a better candidate. I know, your sick of putting Howard Phillips up every time, but Peroutka?
October 6th, 2004 at 5:46 pm
If you wait to fight until you know you can win you will never fight.
Bret