Friday, April 15, 2011

A Rebel's Cause-A Mother Speaks

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
This Sunday Christians around the world will observe Palm Sunday and the Triumphal Entry of Christ into Jerusalem. Within days religious leaders and politicians would turn on Him, while the drama of an eternal plan played out on the stage of humanity.

Next Friday, we will remember the death of Christ, dying for the sin of all mankind. And then, on Sunday, the Resurrection, without which there would be no hope, no life, no redemption.

We encourage you to attend services at a biblical Christian church this weekend and next, as we observe these two most holy events.

The Triumphal Entry

(John 12:12) The next day the great crowd that had come for the Feast heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. (13) They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, "Hosanna!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Blessed is the King of Israel!" (14) Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as it is written, (15) "Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion; see, your king is coming, seated on a donkey's colt." (16) At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that they had done these things to him.


A Rebel's Cause

Stephanie Wilson

I'm truly not a rebel by nature. But there are times when I value freedom more than my peace-keeping natural instincts. And I must admit, if I were to be completely honest, I'm not a big fan of people telling me what to do ... all the time.

First, seatbelts. I know ... they save lives, etc. And yes, I always make sure the children in my car wear them, no exceptions. Me? Not so much. When I see a police officer, yes, it snakes out from its hiding place. And yes ... I do know about the 'practice what you preach' sentiment and I agree, most of the time.

This morning I was perusing the daily news wire, as I always do, and I came across an article from the Chicago Tribune that once again brought out the rebel.

A Chicago elementary school has now banned lunches brought from home. Truly! Children are no longer allowed to bring their own food from their own home. They are also not allowed to bring certain snacks.

Okay, I get the "certain snacks" requirement. Healthy snacks were always enforced at my son's schools due to food allergies and the sugar effect on young, active children.

But ... no lunches?

"Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices," said the Tribune.

Keyword -- "their own ... food choices."

Now, I'm a mom who obsesses over fruits and vegetables. When my son was just a toddler I found all kinds of creative ways to sneak them into a variety of foods. And for the most part, it worked.

I'm also the mom of a boy just entering puberty who when asked by his Grandmother what he likes to do on our side of town replied, "Find places to eat." He is growing like a weed.

So while I believe wholeheartedly in healthful food choices for children, absolutely critical for brain development and physiology, I absolutely reject the idea of "choice" being stripped from the parents as to what their children can and can not eat while away from home.

"Some of the kids don't like the food they give at our school for lunch or breakfast," said Little Village parent Erica Martinez. "So it would be a good idea if they could bring their lunch so they could at least eat something." No arguments there. Institutional food has rarely been appealing. Think back to your college days.

We know that sugar effects children. We know, first hand, the highs and lows of eating too many refined carbs. But imagine the effects of hunger. If the children won't eat what the school serves, they go hungry. Not an option. Mother's the world over know you have to sometimes give "a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down."

The issue was raised in the Chicago Tribune article, "Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch." An argument that cannot be ignored -- a question that must always remain in our parental minds. It usually is about the money.

The larger question at play here is, who is more qualified to raise your child? Who has the best interests of your child at heart? You ... or a government institution? And yes ... I do realize there are exceptions.

There has to be a place where we stand up and say 'enough.' I'm tired of trying to please the swinging pendulum of a politically correct standard ... that isn't. Just when you think you've complied, the rules change. I think, as I get older, I am learning that for me, for my family, the all things in moderation approach is what works for us.

It isn't the government's responsibility to feed my child, to discipline my child, to raise my child. It doesn't take a village -- it takes me. And I must, now more than ever before, be engaged in my child's life, his education, his health, his social life.

The village -- its what gives flavor to his world and life experiences, color in the artwork of his life. But the structure, the bones of his existence, his framework ... must come from us.


  1. Enough is enough. The government does not need to be in every aspect of our lives. Give it a break

  2. Where will the government stop with its intrusion into our personal lives. I believe THat is what led to the American Revolution. Personally I'm sick of it. All this could be taking us to another political revolution. I hope so. Great article. Thanks.

  3. Excellent. Thank you.

  4. 8:40am

    When you talk about another revolution, I'm assuming you're a tea partier. Remember that the original Boston Tea Party was a protest over the government LOWERING taxes on the East India Co. They feared the lower taxes on that giant company would make smaller local tea importers not competitive and would give the East India Co. a monopoly.

    So, if you want to follow the original tea party's lead, you'll need to include higher corporate taxes in your platform.

  5. Wrong assumption 9:55. I am not a Tea Partier, I'm simply tired of the government intruding into every part of my life. It's intrusions are not making life better, its making it worse. Please tell me you are not suggesting that raising taxes and expanding the government will solve the problems.

  6. We now know the truth. The Tea Party was really about citizens wanting higher taxes. Amazing.

  7. No, the Tea Party wasn't about the citizens wanting higher taxes on themselves. They didn't want the East India Company to get a tax break. Look it up.

  8. Stephanie, I so agree with you. Thank you for speaking for all of us that don't want our children raised by the government. God gave us these children and with them a responsibility to raise them. On one hand they support, with our money, aborting unwanted children and on another think they have the right to feed them not only their philosophy but their food?? At some point more and more people will find a way to remove them from public school. I am afraid where all of this is leading in our country and our culture.

  9. 10:09

    Yes, higher taxes for some could go a long way toward solving the deficit.
    1 - increase taxes on income over $250k
    2 - lower taxes on middle class and below
    3 - end the cap on social security contributions
    4 - corporations should start paying their share and stop hiding money offshore

    And if you're worried about taking money away from the 'job creators', jobs are create by consumer demand and consumers with money to spend. If you want to give a tax break to them for each job they actually create, that's fine, but they have to prove they actually created a job (in this country), because that's not what they're doing with the tax breaks we already game 'em.

  10. 11:10 Sounds like a great plan. There are a number of countries around the world who are doing just that. We can make America just like them or you can just move to France or Greece and maybe your relatives who stay in this country can send you a few dollars from time to time.

  11. Key word--"their own food choices" More and more of our choices are being taken away by the government. Nanny State comes to mind---no tryanny.

  12. 11:17

    Actually, I was thinking more like Canada because it's close. But my preference would be Norway, it's far more socialistic and doing absolutely great! Germany is doing great too and they have a progressive tax rate up to 45%. In reality, I think my relatives would be wanting to follow me, especially as they got close to 65 and were about to be turned over to the for profit insurance market with a measly voucher in their hand.

  13. Actually, Germany isn't doing great. Recently their government announced that multiculturalrism is creating all kinds of problems for them and they are going to have to address it. I believe their words were "multiculturalism has failed."
    Canada sounds good because its close. Is that why so many Canadians travel to the US for their medical needs. Please don't try to tell me that's not true. I know some Canadians. They do not like their system---at all.

  14. 12:39

    Multiculteralism? Yikes. Oh, well at least they're doing great financially with their big tax rates and all. But, ok, I'll pick one of those socialistic Scandinavian countries. They are the happiest people on the planet anyway.

    In reality, survey after survey shows that Canadians are very happy with their health care system. Efforts to privatize it have failed miserably at the choice of the people. If you're looking for anecdotal evidence, I can easily find you tons of Americans who don't like our system---at all. But they're just unhappy because they can't afford to see a doctor at all. Don't they know it's the best health care system in the world?

  15. 12:06 Looks like your agenda fits you and another country. Be our guest. Leave. You also like to color history your way rather than the actual way.
    "The colonies refused to pay the levies required by the Townsend Acts claiming they had no obligation to pay taxes imposed by a Parliament in which they had no representation. In response, Parliament retracted the taxes with the exception of a duty on tea - a demonstration of Parliament's ability and right to tax the colonies. In May of 1773 Parliament concocted a clever plan. They gave the struggling East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea to America. Additionally, Parliament reduced the duty the colonies would have to pay for the imported tea. The Americans would now get their tea at a cheaper price than ever before. However, if the colonies paid the duty tax on the imported tea they would be acknowledging Parliament's right to tax them. Tea was a staple of colonial life - it was assumed that the colonists would rather pay the tax than deny themselves the pleasure of a cup of tea. "

    It would be nice, for all of us, if this shuts your mouth but I'm sensing you are not interested in the truth only your private agenda.

  16. @12:39

    Bzzzzt! Wrong answer. The "Multiculteralism has failed" quote is from David Cameron, PM of the United Kingdom, not Germany. In Germany, the economy is actually doing very well, booming in fact.

  17. Great post. Keep up the good work.

  18. Government Greed!

    Will they stop at nothing? Do they really think they can (and should try) to build their treasure city at the expense of everything that people have?

    It's the greed that's the problem in government. It's a serpent that knows no limits to it's own desires. Given it's own way it will eat up everything and destroy everything.

  19. 2:35pm

    I'm very interested in the truth, especially when it challenges my own beliefs - that's the nature of a liberal. I love to learn new things that challenge old perceptions - even mine.

    So it is with the Boston Tea Party. I used to believe the history book version myself. However, the Boston Tea Party was very secretive since the participants were in costume, didn’t speak to each other and didn’t even know for sure who the other protesters next to them were. This was intentional. Further, they were sworn to secrecy for 50 years after the event.

    Recently a first hand account was discovered written by participant George Hewes. He makes it very clear that they were protesting the corporate domination and deplorable activities of the East India Co. Here’s some text from the flyer circulated by ‘Rusticus’ prior to the event:

    “Their (referring to the East India Co.) Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. They have levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenues of Mighty Kingdoms have entered their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin. Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but [because] this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them at so high a Price that the poor could not purchase them.”

    Further, the protesters were upset that the government was in concert with this corporation giving them tax breaks and other favorable status to help them maintain their monopoly and control.

    The Boston Tea Party was a protest against a giant domineering corporation. Very admirable. I think we could use some of that spirit again.

  20. Government can't but help feed on it's greed for more money and will look for ways to get more out of the minority, hoping to use the majority to secure the votes they need.

    They're looking to go after the rich for more.

    We have a spending problem in America.

  21. 3:45pm

    Warren Buffet summed it up this way, "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning."

    Do you think it's right that Paris Hilton pays a lower tax rate than I do because she makes her income sitting around the pool waiting for the dividend checks?

    We need to cut spending AND increase revenue. The rich did just fine in the 50's and 60's when the top marginal tax rate was as high as 90%. The USA did fine too, those were some good growth years, lot's of job creation.


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.