Do you have children or grandchildren? You might be interested in this. And not in a good way.

Hubby and I have a new great-niece, who just turned one year old.  For her birthday, I went to the book store to find a nice picture book (we will not be giving her any toys, just books for birthdays and Chanukah). What I found was not very nice, in my opinion.  It seemed to me that most, if not all, recently-written kids’ books are written with some kind of political theme in mind.  We have known for many years that the “educational” establishment has been indoctrinating our young people with the standard Progressive world view, including diversity, inclusion, homosexuality, environmentalism, feminism, and “gender-fluidity”, among many other disgusting themes.  Don’t we remember the furor surrounding the book Heather has Two Mommies, that was featured in some elementary schools a while ago?

I found it interesting that, for the last weekend in December, the Seattle Times and Wall Street Journal both did features on new “literature” for today’s “woke” kids.  The title of the Seattle Times story was “12 groundbreaking books for young readers of all genders“. (emphasis mine).  The point of view is right there in the title, you don’t even have to read any further.  Some of the titles are My First Book of Feminism (for Boys); From the Stars in the Sky to the Fish in the Sea (written by a “trans-gender woman”); Mae Among the Stars, written about a black woman who went into space, “to push back against sexism and racism”; Stories for Boys who Dare to be Different: True Tales of Amazing Boys who Changed the World Without Killing Dragons, written to push back against “toxic masculinity”; and “The Best Man”, urging boys NOT to become “masculine”.  Hey, parents, this is what your kids are being urged to read!  Your boys are being taught that to be a boy, who does boy stuff, is a bad thing! Your girls are being taught that if they do not end up as scientists or astronauts, it’s because of Sexism.

9781941367629_p0_v8_s600x595

In the Wall Street Journal, their children’s book editor Meghan Cox Gurdon says, in her piece entitled “You’re Never Too Young to Take a Stand”:

“When posterity looks back at the children’s books of 2018, it will notice a strong political current that, as in a river, progresses in one direction.  Posterity will observe, for instance, that the presidential election of two years before continued to have a downstream effect in the form of numerous picture books that celebrate certain ways of seeing the world and offer a rebuke to others.”

She cites picture books that have themes of acceptance of immigrants, tearing down all barriers, and acceptance of same-sex marriage.  Yes, little kids are learning about homosexuality and same-sex marriage!  She mentions a young-adult book about a dystopia that includes bad US government interning Muslim citizens, and the good American teen who helps a fugitive escape from a prejudiced land to Canada.  And she mentions  all the books of 2018 that featured the female Supreme Court Justices, and no mention of the males.  Girls Good; Boys Bad is the refrain.  And her final mention is a book entitled Woke Baby.

So, instead of looking for new books for my little niece, I will be buying her the well-loved books of the past, including Babar the Elephant, and Madeleine.  Parents, be very careful out there when choosing literature for your kids.  Read everything first, and make sure that what they are reading isn’t as subversive as all these books seem to be.

Progressives. This.Is.Who.They.Are.

Thanks to James Freeman of the Wall Street Journal (in his Best of the Web newsletter yesterday) for excerpting this “Pravda on the Hudson”, AKA New York Times, Op-Ed, by someone called Todd May.  The title of the column is “Would Human Extinction be a Tragedy?”  Emphasis mine.

One might ask here whether…it would…be a good thing for those of us who are currently here to end our lives in order to prevent further animal suffering.  Although I do not have a final answer to this question, we should recognize that the case of future humans is very different from the case of currently existing humans.  To demand of currently existing humans that they should end their lives would introduce significant suffering among those who have much to lose by dying.  In contrast, preventing future humans from existing does not introduce such suffering, since those human beings will not exist and therefore not have lives to sacrifice.  The two situations, then, are not analogous.

My response to this is something like “you go first”.  This is so horrific in so many ways, it almost hurts to think about it.  As if each living person’s “existence” affects no one but himself, and future humans would be of use to only themselves (and a threat to the survival of the planet).    Well, today’s progressives already support the prevention of new humans (birth control), and their sacraments are the obliteration of existing humans (abortion and assisted suicide).  I guess this is just taking that kind of thinking to its logical conclusion.  Progressives really hate humanity, and believe that animals deserve to thrive more than people do.  Disgusting, just throughly disgusting.

(poundsign)LoveWins! Really??

For the past week, homosexuals and their advocates and supporters have been literally dancing in the streets, since five lawyers in black robes “gave” them the “right” to government-sanctioned “marriage”.  That ruling, and a couple before it, has taken the issue out of the hands of the People, and in the case of Proposition 8 in California, has gone against the express will of the people.  Even before the momentous ruling from On High in Washington DC, the effects were already being seen, and they aren’t pretty (small-town bakers fined $135,000 for declining to bake a cake for a homosexual “wedding”, etc.).  One thing the homosexual activists are NOT is gracious in victory.  The very next day, a city newspaper, the Harrisburg Patriot-News, issued a directive worded like this: “As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the Editor in opposition to same-sex marriage”. [Many thanks to James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal for bringing this and following comments to our attention-he is a true patriot]  In the paper’s opinion, letters to the editor opposing same-sex “marriage” are the equivalent of “hate speech”, or sexist or racist opinions that they refuse to publish (which is their right).  Does this sound like love to you?  These are the folks to tell you to “teach tolerance”.

First Amendment to Fall: Freedom of Speech.

For the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed, same-sex “marriage” is an issue that does not have two sides.  He tells a media blog that “We firmly believe that for a number of issues, including civil rights, women’s rights, anti-racism, and LGBT equality, there are not two sides”.  Ridiculous.  Taranto says, “But how could there have been a decision without an alternative to decide against?”  Sounds a lot like “my way or the highway” to me.

In the months ahead, religious believers in the US are going to find their freedoms severely curtailed as a result of this ruling.  There has already been extensive talk of denying religious institutions their tax-exempt status if they decline to officiate at homosexual “weddings”.  Rod Dreher of Time.com says “Orthodox Christians Must Now Learn to Live as Exiles in Our Own Country”.  That doesn’t sound much like love to me.

The ACLU (always a very liberal institution) has already declared that it no longer favors religious freedom, in a statement about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act this op-ed in the Washington Post:

    “The ACLU supported the RFRA’s passage at the time because it didn’t believe the Constitution, as newly interpreted by the Supreme Court, would protect people such as Iknoor Singh, whose religious expression does not harm anyone else. But we can no longer support the law in its current form.”

This from my friend Nick Stuart on Ricochet, about what’s next for churches:

“What if we lose our 501c3 status? What does that mean for the ministry, for our contributors? Are our finances in good enough shape that we can meet that challenge? What’s the plan if that does happen? What’s the plan if we lose our property?
How do we support members who face losing their livelihoods in consequence of standing for biblical teaching?
How do we support the pastor and/or members who find themselves facing criminal charges for standing for biblical teaching?
Are we prepared to be named as defendants in a lawsuit for discriminating against homosexuals?
How do we support students who will be subjected to false teaching on the subject of marriage in their public school, and likely face ostracism, and possibly suspension or expulsion, if they speak up for biblical marriage? How do we support their parents? Is it time to get serious about starting a Christian school and/or supporting families who choose to homeschool?
How do we support families with children who claim they are homosexual, pansexual, transsexual, and who want to procure a same-sex marriage, or live together in a polyamorous grouping? If the kid is a church member and wants the ceremony in the church what’s our position?
What effort do we make to educate our members and attenders on biblical teaching on marriage? What about members and attenders who are offended by biblical teaching on marriage?”

There has already been talk of polygamy (a polygamous group has already applied for a marriage license in Montana), and there’s a story of a young woman boasting about marrying her biological father.  No limits, now.

Second part of the First Amendment to Fall: Freedom of Religion

It seems that there will no longer be simple differences of opinion on the subject of homosexual “marriage”.  If you are against it, and in favor of Traditional Marriage (the NORM for the past 5,000 years of human history), be prepared to be persecuted, hounded out of your job, dropped by your Facebook “friends”, silenced in the public square and the media, and sued for everything you are worth as a “bigot, homophobe”.  Well, we Christians and Jews have been persecuted before, and we have survived.

This is Positively Eerie

Right now, I am reading a wonderful book by Daniel Silva, one of my favorite authors.  It’s a thriller starring his Israeli spy, Gabriel Allon, and involves the theft of one painting, in the service of finding another famous painting by an Italian Old Master painter.  One of the villains is the terrorist dictator of Syria (even though his name is never mentioned, and he never appears).  In the telling of a story about a horrible massacre in Syria, Gabriel mentions a government photographer, whose smuggled photographs document the brutalities of the regime.

I also am an avid reader of the Wall Street Journal.  A couple of weeks ago, the paper ran a story about that same photographer, and how he smuggled out of the country many of his photographs, before he defected to the West himself.  Now Daniel Silva must have written his new novel at least a year ago (publishing cycle takes about that long), and I was flabbergasted to find the photographer’s story, which I had just read about in the WSJ.  Definitely an eerie coincidence.

A New Daily Link Here at Calling-all-RushBabes

http://on.wsj.com/SSWiWJ

Above is a link to Best of the Web Today, a daily column written by James Taranto, discussing issues of the day, and highlighting interesting news from around the Web.

It might be very interesting being James Taranto’s girlfriend-you’d be laughing all day long. He’s very smart, and really knows how to turn a phrase.

An Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg,
I commend you for your success in helping start Facebook, and making it the 600-pound gorilla of social media, used by millions of people all over the world. This has made you a multi-millionaire (billionaire?), who can afford just about anything you want.

Last week, I was reading the Wall Street Journal about your upcoming sale of millions of shares of Facebook stock, expected to generate a taxable gain for you of approximately $2.3 Billion! In the next sentence, however, the Journal pointed out that, between Federal and State taxes, Government will confiscate 53.8% of that gain!

Mr. Zuckerberg, doesn’t it bother you at all that Government takes over HALF of your earnings from the business you started and helped nurture to its behemoth status? Do you even know about this? Do you think that it’s a good thing for you to have to sacrifice that much money that you acquired honestly? Now, I know that what you have left is more money than most US citizens can even imagine having, but it might be worth your while to object to that much evaporating before you even see it.

It makes me very angry that our government thinks that IT can claim that much of anyone’s earnings. But I guess that you Liberals just love big government, and have no problem with them confiscating your money. Maybe you think that the money the government takes from you is used to improve the lot of people less fortunate than you are. Let me disabuse you of that notion. Most of YOUR money goes into the pockets of government bureaucrats, who administer various programs that suck up your earnings, while having little practical effect on society except to do things like dictate what kind of light bulbs you are allowed to buy.

Happy New Year, Mark.