→ Nathaniel Darnell Responds to Michael Farris

So it’s with grief that I am compelled to humbly but firmly publicly address your recent post publicly criticizing Congressman Paul’s positions on the 10th and 14th Amendment. Your post asserted that without SCOTUS’s faulty 14th Amendment jurisprudence—one that has opened the door to abortion and sodomy and a host of other evils—we would not have the right to homeschool. This is simply not true.

Nathaniel Darnell’s response to Michael Farris. Nathaniel has a law degree, and he knows what he’s talking about.

→ Why Michael Farris is Wrong about Ron Paul

I just came across this particular Facebook post from Michael Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) and Patrick Henry College. It doesn’t surprise me at all given his previous posts regarding his belief that Ron Paul is dangerous and unsuitable for the presidency. While he has done great things for home schooling in this country, Farris is someone who believes that Lincoln was justified in his position and actions against the southern states before and during the Civil War (which seems difficult to comprehend in light of the way Lincoln trashed the Constitution, judicial system, due process, and the 10th Amendment during his presidency). I say this based on personal correspondence that my dad had with him a few years back, along with his own published writings. But lest you think I am only trying to kill the messenger, let’s look at his argument.

This is a good read and take on the situation.

Today Michael Farris, founder of HSLDA came out with both barrels blazing against Ron Paul. It deeply saddens me to see this turn of events. I have nothing but respect and admiration for the commitment Mr. Farris has to defending homeschooling. As a friend of mine said,

I could fill my page saying nice things about Mr. Farris and all he has done to secure and promote homeschooling freedoms in the US and around the world.

source

But here, I deeply disagree with Mr. Farris:

Ron Paul is an enemy of the legal principles that the homeschooling movement has used successfully to defend our freedom to teach our own children.

Look, just because bad law has been used and argued successfully in favor of homeschooling does not mean it is not bad law. Mr. Farris is making an argument of expediency rather than principle. Farris seems to hold the 14th amendment up very high; and it has helped him to win many battles in favor of homeschooling. But all the more do liberals use the 14th amendment, including organizations like the ACLU. Indeed, the 14th amendment has been used to take power away from the states. This is why I agree with Ron Paul that the 14th amendment has been greatly abused.

It saddens me to see that Mr. Farris is such a “one issue” voter that he cannot see the bigger picture. He would take the approach that states rights should be sacrificed so that we may take our issues on homeschooling to the federal level. The problem is that things on the federal level hardly ever work in our favor. We need to get these issues back in the realm of the states where they belong.

I’m afraid that Mr. Farris, while well intended, is arguing the wrong argument. He would argue for the federal government’s ever encroaching powers so long as it suited his purpose. Dr. Ron Paul is the champion of liberty here. And just because one of the steps on the road to reducing the size, scope, and power of the federal government cuts down one of the primary ways Mr. Farris has been arguing for homechooling at the federal level does not mean that Ron Paul is anti-homeschooling. I dare say, given Paul’s stand for liberty, that he is very much for the rights of parents to homeschool their children. Remember that Ron Paul wants less intrusive government, not more. Mr. Farris wants a federal government with a broader scope of powers so that he can argue in favor of homeschooling at that level, and it’s like using a jackhammer to drill a hole in drywall for hanging a picture, it’s just not really going to work out well.

And let me bring up another point, what things require a constitutional amendment anyway? Why do we need them? What happens that makes them seem necessary.

I am making a point here… The problem is not that we don’t have the right laws in place. The problem is not that we need amendments to the constitution to get things where they need to be. The reason we have the problems in our country that we are dealing with now is because of the evilness and rebelliousness of men’s hearts. We don’t need more laws to secure our freedoms. And we all know that all the laws being written today do nothing to secure our freedom, but are actually trying to take away our already granted constitutional freedoms. No, we do not need more laws and more amendments. We need for men to repent and believe the Gospel.

I’ll link here to a few things. First, to Mr. Farris’s original post on Facebook:

Mr. Farris blasts Ron Paul

And next to a piece by Bojidar Marinov which I mostly agree with. I say mostly, because in his sixth point, Mr. Marinov is a little less charitable to Mr. Farris than I think he should be and attributes motives to Mr. Farris that I don’t think he has.

Bojidar’s response

And now read Mr. Farris’s follow up. Note in the comments (if you have time to wade through such garbage) that some more things come out about Mr. Farris’s issues with Ron Paul. He cites his issues with Ron Paul over his stance on Israel. This flows out of the bad theology that most Christians in America are slaves to.

Michael Farris’s follow up

And finally, one more bit from Mr. Marinov responding to Mr. Farris’s followup.

Bojidar follow up

→ The Fallacy of Attacking Ron Paul on Abortion

The purpose of the state is supposed to be to protect life, liberty and property and to settle disputes. Today, we have a government that protects killing, and at times, even finances it. The growth and scope of our government is totally out of control and fails the test for a limited government in a free society. ~ Ron Paul, Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue

…

It seems apparent to me that nationalizing the issue of abortion resulted in over 50 million abortions since 1973. States that would be saving babies right now (were Ron Paul’s legislation passed when Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency) have been able to do nothing but pass incremental measures seeking to slow down, but not end, the death of these babies who reside in their mother’s wombs. That is why I can’t understand why ARTL and others are determined to keep the issue in thrall to the same courts who brought about this tragedy.

A most excellent read, please click through and read it.

→ Law to prohibit TSA from dressing like cops

The STRIP Act, proposed in the US House of Reps, would require TSA employees to stop dressing like police officers, because they aren’t cops, and when they give orders to travellers, travellers assume that these are the orders of real law enforcement officers, rather than minor bureaucrats

I’d rather just get rid of the TSA… but baby steps, baby steps.

→ The trouble with my uncle, Rick Santorum

As we ponder the results of the goings on in Iowa, here’s something else to ponder.

If you want another big-government politician who supports the status quo to run our country, you should vote for my uncle, Rick Santorum.

…

Another important reason I support Ron Paul is his position on foreign policy. He is the only candidate willing to bring our troops home, not only from the Middle East, but from around the world.

Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate trying to win the election for a reason other than simply winning the election.

Listen to the man!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

→ Rethinking the Pagan Origins of Christmas

However, as I have had a chance to read more, think more and reconsider whether the dubious pleasures of being a cynical, condescending, self-righteous jerk is worth the cost of God’s eternal judgment (it isn’t): eventually I concluded that I needed to re-think these issues from the bottom up. First, there IS a legitimate theological question on whether or not it is ethically appropriate for Christians to celebrate Christmas, since we have no explicit command to do so. But as I am going to try and demonstrate in this essay, in reality, MOST of the reasons given against Christmas are misinformed at best; and sometimes are mere rationalizations to justify something a bit unsavory in our characters. So if you think you already KNOW all about “Christmas” and its “Pagan past” maybe I can help you to rethink some things.

This is, all in all a great article and I highly recommend that you read it!

I remember seeing Andy McKee doing this song in a different video several years ago when I was still trying to be a guitarist. The talent is amazing.