First they came for the bakers, now... your children.

They always sugar-coat it.  They'll call it "a law for the protection of German children" or something like that.  It's presented as a good thing.

But it's actually a power grab.  An extension of the government's power over the people.  It should be clearer and clearer that the government views our bodies as their property.  If you smoke, they will make you pay penalties for doing so, in the form of higher "sin" taxes and insurance premiums.  People who drink or are overweight are facing the same trajectory.  The government wants to keep its herd healthy.  It's for your own good.

And they want them thinking right too.  The government, corporate media, and the entertainment industry don't want to have to retrain the minds of people as adults.  You need to know how to think so you know what to buy.  The herd needs to be taught what pasture to graze on. 

Now from California comes a new concept of government's power:  Managing parenthood. 

Yes, the relationship between parents and children is no longer encapsulated in the idea of "the family."  Under this new concept, government will view parents simply as the "keepers" of children, in a relationship not unlike that of a puppy mill.  Government must be present to make sure that the keepers do the right thing by their charges who, after all, belong to the government.

The legislation is California Senate Bill 18.  Supporters claim it is about "protecting children" and about fashioning a "bill of rights" for minors.  In fact, it seeks to create a strict government framework regarding parenting that overrides the views of parents on how to raise their children and instead establishes state standards for doing so.  These standards go so far as defining what is or isn't a "healthy relationship."

A clinical psychologist who practices in California writes:

This is a very scary bill that the California legislature is trying to pass.  There's a lot more to it than what's on the surface.  

If the government does not agree with some "religious views" concerning gender or sexual orientation, then parents' rights to teach their children these "religious views" could cease, because they do not line up with what the government considers "politically correct". Therefore, promoting views, such as gender is God-ordained, and such as marriage is to be between a man and woman, could potentially be considered "unlawful".  

For more information on this legislation, see:

We fully expect this legislation to come to New Jersey.  The Western World, informed by Judeo-Christian thought, is fading before our eyes.  We have entered an era when a new religion is establishing its dominance.  It cannot live side by side with the old, anymore than Christianity could co-exist in the public space once occupied by pagan cults.  As this new paganism has succeeded, it has replaced words like "tolerance" with commands to "accept", "affirm", and "celebrate".

Conservative thinkers like Steve Lonegan have long argued that it is difficult for someone who isn't a social conservative to be a fiscal conservative.  What he means is that the values inherent in the Judeo-Christian world view -- values we once took for granted, like thrift -- have been replaced by the immediate gratification promised by the pagan impulse.  So debt replaces thrift as a good thing.  And good "fiscal conservatives" make arguments for why the military must pay for elective (i.e. medically unnecessary) sex-change operations.  Back when we won wars on terms of "unconditional surrender" the military turned boys into men.  Now they turn men into women.

Look, we've been had.  We all believed them when they said that all they wanted was "marriage equality."  "Just give us this," we were told, and "we will be satisfied."  But that's not how it went, did it?  No, these folks are in the business of removing Judeo-Christianity from the public space and replacing it with something else, just as a whole other set of folks are bent on removing the idea of the "West" and replacing it with a caliphate.

We have been warned about this before, in another context, by that good liberal, Mrs. Lillian Smith.  A Southern writer, she was a pioneer in the battle to end segregation. We recommend her book, The Winner Names the Age.  In it, you will find this passage she wrote when she accepted the Charles S. Johnson Award for her work:

“It is his millions of relationships that will give man his humanity… It is not our ideological rights that are important but the quality of our relationships with each other, with all men, with knowledge and art and God that count.

The civil rights movement has done a magnificent job but it is now faced with the ancient choice between good and evil, between love for all men and lust for a group’s power.”

“Every group on earth that has put ideology before human relations has failed; always disaster and bitterness and bloodshed have come.  This movement, too, may fail.  If it does, it will be because it aroused in men more hate than love, more concern for their own group than for all people, more lust for power than compassion for human need.”

“We must avoid the trap of totalism which lures a man into thinking there is only one way, one answer, one option, and that others must be forced into this One Way, and forced into it Now.”