What Your Government really thinks about Thought Control

A German family has petitioned for asylum in the United States. The reason? In Germany it is illegal to home school your children. In Germany, in fact, the state has total control of the education of children, and educating children outside of the state system, period, is illegal.

Rather than submit to the state's control of what their children would and would not learn, the Romeike family fled to the United States. They are asking for asylum on the basis that the German law forces them to forfeit their rights as parents to raise their children as they see fit.


This article provides a thoughtful consideration of the German family's plight and their appeal. The thing I appreciate about this article, though, is the illumination it sheds on the current administration's view of state sanctioned thought control. As this article makes clear, the express intent of the German Government's stance on state sanctioned education is to “counteract the development of religious and philosophically motivated parallel societies.” In other words, to prevent and control independent thinking in the populace.

The fact that the Obama administration has no issue with total control of the state over what children can and cannot be taught is chilling. It goes against the basic tenets of many of the principles on which the Unites States was founded, and which we have historically defended. It violates many treaties that both we and the German people have signed, advocating personal freedom and the rights of parents.

This is one more in a continuing string of dangerous precedents being set by this administration, and I for one am not happy with the fact that Eric Holder, in the name of the Obamanation of  Desolation, is advocating against asylum for this family.

Sequestration: Is it really bad?

The media is reacting to the threat of sequestration as if it would lower the United States to the status of a  third world nation.

In my experience, any time the media makes something political sound catastrophically bad, it ends up being something I support.

I don't claim to be an expert on sequestration, but from a 30,000 foot view, my understanding is that sequestration is intended to force the U.S. Government to do something about its uncontrolled spending; and that's not a bad thing.

Automatic cuts, leading to austerity measures, are painful for a time. But in the end, if they help to "reset the bar" and actually lower spending, I'm all for it.

Yes, some federal employees are going to lose their jobs. Yes, some agencies may lose their funding. Guess what? THAT'S THE POINT! These things should have happened long ago, and should have been taken care of by true public servants in congress who actually care about our nation. Unfortunately, we have precious few of those - not enough to muster a majority vote in either the house or the senate.

So, I say, if sequestration is the only answer, bring it on. What do you think?