Environmentalists sign petition to ban WATER!!! (Video)

Comedians Pen and Teller decided to circulate a petition banning the evil substance Dihydrogen Monoxide; otherwise known as H2O... you know... WATER!!!

I wish I could say this video was surprising to me. But it just goes to show how little these folks think about their environmentally friendly causes. All you have to do is employ Al Gore style fear tactics and the enviro-whackos will jump right on board.

Study says behavioral problems linked to time spent in daycare

I have always wondered how a parent could lead themselves to believe that they could so easily be replaced by a minimum wage, daycare worker. Well now there is a study that supports the fact that nobody can do a better job of raising children than can their parents.

MSN is reporting:

The findings come from the largest long-term study of child care and development conducted in the United States. The 1,364 children in the analysis, had been tracked since birth as part of a study by the National Institutes of Health. The study was aimed at resolving disputes over whether daycare is harmful has found that subtle effects on behavior and vocabulary can last until fifth or sixth grade.

There were no differences in math, reading or other skills.

And the more time children spent in daycare centers before kindergarten, the more likely their sixth grade teachers were to report such problem behaviors as “gets in many fights,” ”disobedient at school,” and “argues a lot.”

Now this is not to say that the effects of being in daycare don’t last beyond the sixth grade. Keep in mind that this is an ongoing study. And the subjects have yet to reach high school or junior high.

The researchers also go on to state that the most important factor in how these children progressed was the quality of parenting they received.

Griffin said attention from parents is far more important to how a child turns out than day care or schooling.

As a former classroom teacher and the husband of a former teacher’s aide, I can unequivocally tell you that this is the truth. Children who’s parents are fully engaged in their lives prove to be more confident, more obedient, more respectful of authority and less likely influenced by peer pressure.

But I also love how they go out of their way to make parents feel better who put their children in daycare with statements like:

…these effects were very subtle, said Dr. James Griffin, who oversaw the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development study. The researchers said the increase in vocabulary and problem behaviors was small…

or

If you went into one of these classrooms, you wouldn’t be able to say ’this child, this child, and this child attended center-based care

I can also tell you without a doubt that these statements are false; at least to those of us who did not put our children in daycare. There is no substitute for a child having his/her parents active and engaged in his/her life. And I don’t know how parents can do that if their children are in daycare from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., five days a week.

I am not saying that there aren’t situations where parents don’t have a choice. But all too often they do. How many parents do you know that drive two expensive, brand new cars and live in a big house that claim to have no other choice but to put their children in daycare? I believe that it is a question of priorities.

When my kids were born, my wife Sobna chose to stay home with them. Not because we were well off, but because being there for our children was a priority for us. Then, when they went to pre-school, she went to work as a teacher at their pre-school. And when they went on to elementary school, she would also make the transition to becoming a teacher’s aide there. And now that they are both at the middle school age, Sobna has once again become a stay at home mom. And once again, not that we are wealthy or even well off. But our children; not our stuff are the priority for us.

So, as a result, we drive older vehicles and live in a small house. And that is fine by us, because we don’t see it as missing out on anything. We see it as an investment in the most valuable treasure we will have… our children!

Craig has gotten to know some prominent conservatives, such as...

White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow

Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman

Pennsylvania Gubernatorial candidate and NFL Hall of Famer, Lynn Swan


Syndicated Talk Show Host and Author, Hugh Hewitt

Pro-Family Activist, Jerry Fallwell

What’s the Purpose of Marriage?

I was asked by one of my readers to discuss the following question, outside of the context of religion-“What’s the purpose of Marriage?” This is a question that can be answered in a myriad of ways. Since the beginning of civilization this institution has come to carry religious, cultural and legal significance. And while one cannot fully understand the purpose of marriage without discussing all three; for this conversation, I will focus primarily on the purpose of marriage as defined by legal precedent.

How is marriage defined?

Black’s Law Dictionary Fourth Edition had three definitions of marriage.

The first definition was a “... condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life ...”.

Subsequent editions inserted “or until divorced”.

The second definition in Black’s Fourth was “A contract, according to the form prescribed by law, by which a man and woman, capable of entering into such contract, mutually engage with each other to live their whole lives together...”

Please note that the legal definition refers to a man and a woman. As a matter of fact, since the beginning of time, marriage has always been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.

• Marriage: “That honorable contract that persons of different sexes make with one another.” A New General English Dictionary (1740).
• Marriage: “1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife . . .” Merriam-Webster online, April 20, ( 2005).

Now this is not to say the people don’t change the definitions of words. But in order to properly deduce what the authors of the follwoing legal opinions are trying to say, we must understand their words in the context in which they used them.

What role should government play in marriage?

When discussing the purpose of marriage from a legal standpoint, we must first understand government’s relationship to marriage. According to Meister v. Moore (1873) Marriage is not a right conferred by the state.

…everywhere is considered a civil contract. Statutes in many of the states it is true, regulate the mode of entering into the contract, but they do not confer the right.

And the reason that the state cannot confer this right is because the courts have deemed that it finds it roots in a power above even their own. As stated in 1892 by the Washington State Supreme Court regarding. McLaughlin’s Estate

marriage is a natural right, which always existed prior to the organization of any form of government, and all laws in restraint of it should be strictly construed in consequence thereof. It is held it should be the policy of the law to sustain all such contracts and relations whenever possible, and that this should always be done ...[590 marriage has] its origin in divine law”

So why does government regulate and promote marriage?

Legal precedent tells us that it is to create the optimum environment to have and raise children. As stated in Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 1971)

The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”

The same logic was part of the Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942):

Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

Understand that this does not mean that the only people who can get married are those who desire to have children. In this case, the law has and educational function- to tell what is normative. And while not all opposite sex couples will produce children, it is still normative for them to do so. However, it is impossible for any same sex couple to naturally produce children. Therefore, it cannot be normative.

So why does the state ascribe certain rights only to married couples?

Well first of all , it is wrong to think of these benefits as rights. A better description would be to call them incentives.

In Maynard v. Hill (1888) the court acknowledged that just how important marriage is to society:

“Marriage... having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature... the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations... for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress... It is a relation for life...”

This means that how we handle this institution as a society will have a lasting effect on generations to come. This is why every effort to change the definition of marriage has failed. In Williams v. North Carolina (1942) the court ruled against efforts to legalize polygamy because of the effect it would have on the children.

That choice in the realm of morals and religion rests with the legislatures of the states... Within the limits of her political power North Carolina may, of course, enforce her own policy regarding the marriage relation-an institution more basic in our civilization than any other. But society also has an interest in the avoidance of polygamous marriages and in the protection of innocent offspring of marriages deemed legitimate in other jurisdictions.


And according to the US Supreme Court in Maynard v. Hill (1888) marriage is not a right granted by the state. It is an institution that the state has an interest in regulating and promoting. And that interest is rooted in protecting the offspring:

“marriage is a thing of common right... any other construction would compel holding illegitimate the offspring of many parents conscious of no violation of law”

This is why the court quoted Skinner when it opted to once again to preserve the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in Loving v. Virginia (1967).

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

So what is the purpose of marriage?

While there are other cultural and religious purposes for marriage, when it comes to regulating marriage, the state has made it clear. The purpose is to create the most positive environment to have and raise children.

Things that should never appear in a school yearbook: drugs, alcohol, violence, gangs and God”

There a lot of things that have no place in a High School Yearbook. And at Liberty High School in Brentwood, California it appears that God is one of them.

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting:

After years of banning God from its award-winning yearbook, a Brentwood high school recently reversed the policy. But the change of heart came after the book went to the printers, so a conservative religious-liberty group is threatening to sue to get the school to pay $21,000 for a partial reprinting that would include God.

The dispute arose after the yearbook staff at Liberty High School changed a parent's ad for his son's graduation from "May God bless your life" to "May He bless your life."

The Sacramento-based Pacific Justice Institute is demanding that the school spend the $21,000 needed to reprint the ad as the parent originally ordered it.

The ad, placed by Jeff Renner, was ordered in January as a tribute to Renner's son, a senior. About 75 pages of the 450-page yearbook consist of parent advertisements honoring seniors with photos, quotes and farewell wishes.

Until two weeks ago, the yearbook staff had a policy banning references to drugs, alcohol, violence, gangs and religion.

How does religion come to fall into the same category as drugs, alcohol, violence and gangs? And why isn’t sex on the list? This is just one more example of the education establishment’s hostility toward God. It is time that these educators get a civics lesson regarding free speech and religious freedom. And that is exactly what the Pacific Justice Institute is going to help them get. Unfortunately for them though, it will come with a $21,000 price tag.

The bottom line is, when a school district creates a public forum for free speech, it cannot engage in discrimination based on religion," said Brad Dacus, president of the institute. "If this is not resolved, a lawsuit would be in order."

Next week the district superintendent plans to meet with Renner to work out a solution. The district offered to refund his $175 ad fee, but spending $21,000 for reprinting has not been approved, at least not yet, Halloran said.

"It would be nice to be able to give in to all the wishes of parents," Halloran said. "Unfortunately we can't. Although in this case, it might be that we spend the money."

In the name of “not offending anyone” school districts have repeatedly usurped the rights of Christian students and their families to exercise their free speech rights. I am glad to see that they are standing up and speaking out.

Violence is rampant in the City of Sacramento, so City Council goes to the movies? That’s An Inconvenient Truth!

As youth violence runs amuk on streets of Sacramento, one would think the city council would put every available resource to work to address the issue. NOT!!!

Instead they have chosen to host a free screening of Al Gore's award winning science fiction film “An Inconvenient Truth”.

Western Alliance member Stand Up and Speak out is reporting the following:

I managed to come across the news that the Sacramento City Council is hosting a screening of “An Inconvenient Truth”. Here’s the flyer that they are passing out:

As can be seen, not only are they hosting this screening, but it is during their evening session. Of course, “an inconvenient truth” is a greater priority to the council than Sacramento gang violence, crime, flooding, and other growing problems.

I wish I could say that I was surprised by this. But after spending hours debating the Patriot Act, the War in Iraq and a the impeachment of President Bush; the Sacramento City Council has proven that they have no problem wasting taxpayer dollars to share their two cents on issues that are clearly outside of their authority to address; all the while ignoring key issues that they do have the authority to address.

They can’t find a way to get an arena built, but they want to stop global warming? Stupid is as Stupid does!

Craig DeLuz joins the Gallery of Hope…

I have been a regular blood donor for over 15 years. It’s not something that I really talk about or have ever made a big deal over. I just always thought it was an easy way to help people and get some orange juice and cookies in the process.

Well, I have been honored by our local blood bank BloodSource to be a part of their Gallery of Hope.

As described on their website:

The exhibit is the culmination of nearly two years of creative work. Twenty-two, 26”x 36” framed, black and white photographs capture life in the faces of the subjects, people who give blood and people who have received blood.

"Through this project the BloodSource brand has evolved. The images - pictures that tell incredible stories through smiles and through the eyes of people - are found on walls at BloodSource blood centers, used in brochures and publications, in public service announcements, and even in larger-than-life format on the exterior of BloodSource bloodmobiles," said Leslie Botos, Vice President, Public Affairs at BloodSource. "When we started with this project we never dreamed that it would truly tell the BloodSource story."

The coolest part of this experience is the fact that my picture has been put on one of their mobile blood donation buses. Pretty cool huh?

Nunez says what California Republicans Can’t- “Post-partisanship?” Pfft…

If there was ever any doubt that Post-Partisanship meant anything other than doing what Democrats want; California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez has officially put that to idea rest.

The San Jose Mercury News has a story today in which the Speaker made it clear that it was the Democrat agenda not a bi-partisan agenda that got advanced last year.

Nuñez also commented skeptically about Schwarzenegger's newfound advocacy for what the governor calls ``post-partisan'' politics. While in Washington, Schwarzenegger repeated the phrase he coined earlier this year, referring to himself as a governor who accepts ideas from all sides.

``What he's talking about sounds good theoretically. I think in practical terms the way I read it is it's just semantics. Post-partisanship -- what does that mean? I don't know. It's some word he made up,'' Nuñez said.

``But I think he has a claim, in some ways, to that new term because last year we got a lot of things done. But you know we did it because we reached across the party aisle . . . Remember, everything we got done were Democratic issues.''

I was really hoping that some Republican in DC would speak up and say something about this, but it was a Democrat who finally spoke up. Maybe Speaker Nunez is tired of the Governor getting all the credit for the all that got done last year.

Could it be that he wants credit for getting a Republican Governor to go along with his agenda?