Pioneer Schoolhouse, Rockport Lincoln Pioneer Village and Museum, Rockport, IN

Front View

     Rockport Lincoln Pioneer Village and Museum was designed by George Honig, artist and sculptor, under the direction of the Spencer County Historical Society and the Rockport City Park Board and constructed in Rockport City Park from 1935 to 1937 with funds from the Works Project Administration.  It is a memorial to Abraham Lincoln’s fourteen formative years spent in Spencer County and consists of structures and artifacts which represent the life and times of Lincoln and his pioneer neighbors and friends.  In a building quite similar to this one, with dirt floor and puncheon benches, young Lincoln attended school in Spencer County. The Pioneer Schoolhouse was rebuilt in 1990.

Elena Kagan seems to be anti-homeschooling rights

     Recent posts on this blog have expressed opposition to the confirmation of Elena Kagan who has been nominated by Barak Obama to be United States Supreme Court Justice.  Here’s more reason why she should never sit on the U. S. Supreme Court:

Full Senate to Vote on Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan
William A. Estrada, Esq.
Director of Federal Relations, Home School Legal Defense Association

July 26, 2010

     On Tuesday, July 20, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to send Elena Kagan’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court to the full Senate for approval. The committee vote was 13–6. It is expected that the full Senate will vote on Ms. Kagan’s nomination sometime this week or next week.

     HSLDA has previously voiced our concerns about Ms. Kagan’s nomination due to her support of international law. These concerns grew after Senator Chuck Grassley (IA) asked her pointed questions about her reliance on international law.

     We have now found out additional information that may reflect Ms. Kagan’s views on homeschooling. In the 1980s, Ms. Kagan—fresh out of law school—clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. At that time, HSLDA was battling in state courts for homeschool freedom. One particular case we handled in Ohio was State v. Schmidt, 505 N.E.2d. 627 (1987). In that case, a homeschool family was convicted of failing to send their child to school, and the conviction was upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court. HSLDA petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it was denied.

     Ms. Kagan reviewed the case for Supreme Court Justice Marshall. You can view a copy of her memo below. She recommended against the Supreme Court taking this case, saying:

     [The Schmidts] are self-described born-again Christians who adhere to a literal interpretation of the Bible and have little sympathy with the secular world. When their child reached school-age, they decided to educate her at home. They did not seek the permission of the school superintendent; they simply did not enroll her in school.

     Ms. Kagan went on to imply that the family’s expression of religion had not been infringed upon by the school district because the family was not being compelled to attend public school. She said that asking permission to homeschool was reasonable. The Schmidt family objected to asking for permission to homeschool because of their religious beliefs.

     During Ms. Kagan’s confirmation hearings, Senator Jeff Sessions asked Ms. Kagan what she meant in her memo. Kagan didn’t back away from her memo. Read the full text of Senator Sessions’ questions and her answers online: . Question 17 deals with the Schmidt case.

     The full Senate will vote on Ms. Kagan’s nomination sometime before the August recess. We encourage you to call your two U.S. senators and share with their staff your thoughts about Ms. Kagan’s confirmation.

     You can reach your two U.S. senators by calling the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121, or toll-free at 866-220-0044. You can find your U.S. senators by using HSLDA’s Legislative Toolbox.

    Read Elena Kagan’s law clerk notes concerning Schmidt v. Ohio (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader): .

     [Note:  As I have previously noted, I have already contacted my two senators, Democrats Trickie Dickie Durban and “Rollin with Blago” Burris, many, many times on this issue, and they continually assure me that they are fully supportive of Kagan’s nomination and confirmation.  Surprise, surprise, surprise!  Leftist birds of a feather always stick together!]

yet another (sad) reason for Christians to homeschool

     In an item headlined, “Legislating immorality in schools,” Bill Bumpas and Jody Brown of  OneNewsNow reported the following on 7/21/2010.

     An author and mother of five is alarmed at the recent news of school districts in Massachusetts and Montana that in her opinion are encouraging the sexuality of young children.
     From condoms for young children in Provincetown to sex education for kindergartners in Helena, Katie Reid — author of When the Bough Breaks — believes the intent of such actions is to provide children a means to engage in sexual relations with fewer possible side effects. But as Reid points out, there are more consequences to sex than just pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
     “When you as a child engage in sex, you have no ability to really understand the depth of the gravity of the situation that you’re dealing in or what it means to lose your innocence or how vulnerable having sex can make you,” says the author. “And there seems to be a complete disregard for the emotional and social consequences of sex — especially on girls.”
     One of those consequences, says Reid, is boyfriend abuse.
     “That’s one of the first things that a boyfriend who’s likely going to abuse [his girlfriend] will do,” she explains. “…He will get the girl to become sexually active even if she doesn’t want to, even if she protests — and he will create that huge intimacy so that she feels she has no choice but to do anything that he says.
     “I really just don’t see how a condom is going to protect any girl from that.”
     The author is also concerned that school officials believe they have the right and authority to trump the rights and interests of parents in raising their own child. For example, the reasoning of the Provincetown School Committee for their decision? “Children alone decide when they become sexually active, and we can’t control that, but we can ensure that when they’re making those decisions, there are caring adults and support present.”
     To that argument, Reid states in a recent column for Human Events: “Instead of handing our children over to the foolishness of youth with a state-funded piece of rubber as their only guardian, maybe we could take back the authority from the school boards who were never given such power in the first place.”
     She also writes that after decades of debate about whether morality can be legislated, Provincetown School Committee “took it upon itself to legislate immorality.”

more good reading

     The Vol. 19, No. 3 (2010) issue of Home School Digest ( ) has several articles, not all of the related directly to homeschooling but some to parenting and family life (it is “The Quarterly Journal for Family Discipleship”).  Some of the ones that caught my attention are “Don’t Think You Can’t Be Deceived” by Connie Giordano, “My Parent’s Table” by homeschool graduate Elysse Barrett, “The Contrast of Pride and Humility” by homeschool graduate Emilie Cianciola (“What worth are all of our fine test scores if we are full of blinding pride…?”), “My Son, Give Me Your Heart” by Kevin Swanson, “Abandon Ship!  Run from the Public Schools” by David d’Escoto, “Good Parenting Starts with Jesus” by J. Mark Fox, “Eva’s Treasure: A Family Read-Aloud” by Chad Patterson, “Who Is Salting Whom?” by Steve and Carol Ryerson, “Homeschooling in Japan” by marketing director Israel Wayne, and “Courage to Allow Our Children to Grow” by Terry Dodds, among others.  There is always something interesting to chew over in Home School Digest.

Champaign-Urbana, IL

     The twin cities of Champaign and Urbana, IL, are home to the University of Illinois and Parkland College.  There are several interesting things in the area to see.  We decided to go there to visit the Staerkel Planetarium (2400 W. Bradley Ave. in Champaign; ) on the Parkland College campus.  The planetarium is open year round on Friday and Saturday evenings.  It is the second largest planetarium in Illinois.  One of the most popular programs, “Prairie Skies,” delivers a live tour of the wonders of the night sky, accompanied by some of the legendary stories of the ancient sky.  Unfortunately, the planetarium was closed for this summer (2010), but there were some other things in the area that we wanted to see.

     The Orpheum Children’s Science Museum (346 N. Neil St., Champaign; or ) is housed in the 1914 Orpheum Theater.  It features more than twenty interactive science exhibits.  I will have to admit that having visited other children’s science museums, there is more “children’s” than “science” in this one.  The animals—turtles, bearded dragon lizards, snakes, a huge tarantula, and an aquarium of Madagascar hissing cockroaches—are few but interesting, and our son Jeremy liked the display of Star Wars paraphernalia made out of Legos (including a life sized Darth Maul head), but basically it doesn’t have much that would hold the attention of a child over seven.  The outside courtyard has a Dino Dig area, and I noticed that the ages given on the dinosaur pictures include millions and millions of years, as is typical of public science museums.

     The Champaign Prairie Farm (2202 W. Kirby Ave., Champaign; ) is located in Centennial Park.  This was not what we expected.  There are traditional farm animals, such as sheep, goats, pigs, horses, cows, chickens, turkeys, and peafowl, along with a duck pond.  The Central Illinois Travel Host magazine said, “A replica of a turn-of-the-century farm complete with barns, farmhouse, pond, pasture, and flower garden.”  However, there is nothing historical here, and everything seems geared again toward small children—which is all right, but there is not much here for older children.

     The Spurlock Museum (600 S. Gregory, Urbana;  or ) is a different matter.  Though this free museum is small, it is much on the order of the Oriental Institute in Chicago.  There are separate displays devoted to American Indian cultures, Ancient Mediterranean cultures (Greek and Roman), Asian cultures, European cultures (mostly medieval), African cultures, and Middle Eastern cultures.  The purpose is to explore the lives of people from six continents through the exploration of their food, clothing, shelter, communications, technology, conflict, art, religion, and ethics.  There are suits of armor, a life sized tipi, and the 2,000 year old mummy of a Egyptian child.  There are no hand-on exhibits, but you can do a scavenger hunt.  My only complaints are the anatomically correct nude male statues and the politically correct “B.C.E.” and “C.E.” dates.

     The University of Illinois Arboretum and Japan House(1700/2000 S. Lincoln Ave. and Florida Ave., Urbana; and ) is a living laboratory, including plant collections and facilities that support the teaching, research, and public service programs of several units of the University.  The different gardens include All American Selection Trial Gardens, the Welcome Gardens, he Idea Garden, and the Japanese Tea and Dry Gardens.  The Japan House offers the public an opportunity to learn about traditional Japanese culture through tours, tea ceremonies, and other special events.  We did not get out and walk through the Arboretum because we did not have the time, but we did drive around it.

     Allerton Park (515 Old Timber Rd., Monticello; ) is the former estate of Robert Allerton, who made his fortune in the late 1800s through farming, banking, and the Chicago stockyards.  After building an English style manor house in 1900, he traveled the world buying outdoor sculptures for his gardens and woods, including “The Centaur” by Paris sculptor Bourdelle, and “The Sun Singer” by Swedish sculptor Carl Milles.  The century old manor house is not open to the public, but one can drive around the woods or walk the trails and see the sculptures and gardens.  

      Since we could stay only parts of two days, there were several other things that we did not get to see—but we are close enough to go back and catch them later.  They include:

     Champaign County Courthouse, 101 E. Main, Urbana (changing exhibits)

     Champaign County Historical Museum at the Cattle Bank, 102 E. University Ave., Champaign

     Early American Museum, IL Hwy. 47 N., Mahomet

     John Philip Sousa Library and Museum, 1103 S. 6th St., Champaign

     Krannert Art Museum, 500 E. Peabody Dr., Champaign

     Chanute Air Museum, 1101 Pacesetter Dr., Rantoul

     Parkland Art Gallery, 2400 W. Bradley Ave., Champaign

     Anita Purves Nature Center, 1505 N. Broadway, Urbana

     Hardy’s Reindeer Ranch, 1356 CR 2900 N, Rantoul

     Mabery Gelvin Botanical Garden, IL Hwy. 47 N., Mahomet

     Wandell Sculpture Garden in Meadowbrook Park, Windsor Rd. and Race St., Urbana

Good Reading

   Home Educator’s Family Times:  The May/June, 2020, issue of this bimonthly homeschooling newspaper ( ) has an excerpt entitled “Obedience Training vs. ‘Invited Learning’” from the book The Lifetime Learning Companion by Jean and Donn Read (you may not agree with all of their conclusions, but they make some interesting points); articles by Barb Frank, Alison McKee, Shirley M. R. Minster, John Whitehead, and Todd Wilson; and a book review by me.  Editor Jane Boswell had written to ask me if she could use some of my book reviews in future editions.

     Practical Homeschooling: The July/August, 2010, issue of this homeschooling magazine ( ) now published five times a year, has an interesting editorial by publisher Mary Pride about the new assault on “best friends,” as well as her article “College or Not?  31 Things You Need to Know;” columns and articles for fathers by Don Aslett and on socialization by Marilyn Molewyk, among others; and a new “Final Word” writer, our good friend from St. Charles, MO, Rhonda Barfield, author of Real-Life Homeschooling.

    Christian Book Distributors:  Also, for those who are starting to plan for this fall’s homeschool curricula (I just went  this past week to our storage facility and dug out the box of ninth grade materials that our older son, now graduated, had used to begin preparation for our younger son’s freshman high school year), the CBD Summer/Fall, 2010, Homeschool Sale catalogue (with free shipping if you order $35 or more) arrived recently, with materials for, well, just about everything you might need ( ).

Another atheist accepts God!

     Does atheism really present anything valuable for those who adhere to it?  Of course, most people are aware of C. S. Lewis’s conversion from atheism to Christianity.  It’s interesting that one son of late atheist Madelyn Murry O’Hare became a minister.  It’s also interesting that former atheist Anthony Flew now embraces intelligent design.   And in an article entitled “Rage against God” on 7/13/2010, Marcia Segelstein, OneNewsNow columnist, reported on the brother of Christopher Hitchins.

     “The Rage against God is loose and is preparing to strip the remaining altars when it is strong enough.”  – from The Rage Against God by Peter Hitchens
     Peter Hitchens is famously known as the brother of the infamously outspoken atheist Christopher Hitchens.  For a time, both brothers held a common disbelief in God.  In his new book, Peter describes his falling away from faith that mirrored that of so many in his generation, including his brother.  Now back in the fold of Christianity, he sees with frightening clarity the ills that have been loosed on society as a result of its ever-increasing secularization.

     Some of what Hitchens describes is specifically about the England in which he grew up, and the diminished England in which he now lives.  But much of it applies just as well to America and most of western civilization.
     Of his turning away from the faith of his childhood Hitchens writes:  “We were sure that we, and our civilization, had grown out of the nursery myths of God, angels, and heaven.  We had modern medicine, jet engines, the welfare state, the United Nations, and ‘science,’ which explained everything that needed to be explained.”  Growing up for him, and for so many of his generation, meant no longer falling for those “myths.”
     There was also the stumbling block of submission, a generalized dislike of authority that was almost endemic to the times.  And while Hitchens blames no one but himself for his actions, he does wonder aloud about the effects of growing up in a post-war world.  He writes, “Perhaps it was because they brought us up too kindly, convinced in the post-war age that we should not endure the privation, danger, and strict discipline that they had had to put up with, so we turned arrogant.  I certainly did.”
     Educated society in Britain began to look down its collective nose at the faithful, just as what Dan Quayle dubbed the cultural elite began to mock traditional values in America.  Hitchens quotes Virginia Woolf’s reaction to T.S. Eliot’s conversion to Christianity:  “I have had a most shameful and distressing interview with poor dear Tom Eliot, who may be called dead to us all from this day forward…I mean, there’s something obscene in a living person sitting by the fire and believing in God.”
     Hitchens wonders aloud whether the real emotion behind those passionately intense words was fear that believers like T.S. Eliot might be right.  The same could no doubt be wondered about the heated virulence of many outspoken atheists, like his brother.
     Hitchens lived in the former Soviet Union for several years, and spent time as a journalist in other places devoid of religion.  In retrospect at least, he’d begun to sense a direct correlation between the absence of faith and the absence of basic human civility.  He’d also begun to see clear evidence of what he calls “the fallen nature of man, and his inability to achieve perfection,” in places where “man set himself up to replace God with the state.”
     Having experienced it himself, Hitchens is perhaps especially apprehensive about Western civilization’s drift toward enforced secularization.  He believes the dissolution of Christian education is a real possibility.  He fears that an “intolerant utopianism” will drive out the remaining traces of Christianity from the public squares of Europe and North America.  And he worries about “an ever more powerful state” raging against God.
     The concerns he voices are frightening to contemplate, but sadly imaginable as Christianity is driven from public life and religion is all too often a source of derision.  But perhaps there’s hope to be gleaned from his personal story of belief re-born.  He returned to a faith which wouldn’t hold his years of doubt and unbelief against him.  We can hope and pray the same for the world.

LONG post on Elena Kagan

     I have previously voiced my opposition on this blog to the nomination of Elena Kagan by Barak Obama to be Supreme Court Justice and her confirmation.   I have written both of my U. S. Senators to urge them to oppose her.  One of them, Richard Durbin, responded with his reasons for supporting her.  He said:

     Critics of her nomination have pointed to her lack of experience as a judge as a reason she should not be confirmed. While it is true that all of the current justices were judges prior to being nominated to the Court, many of the best known justices in history had no prior judicial experience, including Justices Rehnquist, Douglas, and Frankfurter. In fact, after Kagan’s nomination was announced, Justice Scalia, one of the Court’s most conservative members, said, “I am happy to see that this latest nominee is not a federal judge and not a judge at all.” Former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor also brushed aside this critism.

     Some critics also believe that Solicitor General Kagan would be a radical activist as a Supreme Court Justice. Former Bush judicial nominee Miguel Estrada does not agree. In his letter to the committee, Mr. Estrada said Kagan is “extremely qualified” and her rulings would fall “well within the mainstream of current legal thought.” He urged the Senate to “confirm her nomination without delay.”

     The Kagan nomination is supported by a wide variety of groups and organizations. Her confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin on June 28th.

     Well, as much respect as I have for Miguel Estrada, I do disagree with him that Kagan is “extremely qualified” and that her rulings would fall “well within the mainstream of current legal thought.”   However, what I really get from his endorsement of Kagan is that he is asking the Senate to treat her fairly in contrast to the way that the Democrats, including Senator Durbin, mistreated him when he was nominated by George W. Bush for a federal judgeship.  And I don’t read Justice Scalia’s statement as an endorsement of Kagan so much as an acknowledgement of the fact that the vast majority of federal judges from which Obama might have chosen have proven track records as leftwing activists. 

     And I think the evidence is pretty clear that Kagan “would be a radical activist as a Supreme Court Justice.” 

     First, she is a radical internationalist who believes that international law should trump the United States Constitution.  IN an article entitled, “Elena Kagan Should Be Rejected “ on July 2, 2010, Phyllis Schlafly  wrote the following:

     Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme Court when he complained on Chicago Radio Station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court wasn’t “radical” enough because “it didn’t break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution” in order to allow “redistribution of wealth.” Now that Obama is President, he has the power to nominate Supreme Court justices who will “break free” from the Constitution and join him in “fundamentally transforming” America.

     That’s the essence of his choice of Elena Kagan as his second Supreme Court nominee. She never was a judge, and her paper trail is short but it’s long enough to prove that she is a clear and present danger to the Constitution.

     When Kagan was dean of the Harvard Law School, she presented a guest speaker who is known as the most activist judge in the world: Judge Aharon Barak, formerly president of the Israeli supreme court. The polar opposite of the U.S. Constitution which states that “all legislative powers” are vested in the elected legislative body, Barak has written that a judge should “make” and “create” law, assume “a role in the legislative process,” and give statutes “new meaning that suits new social needs.”

     Barak wrote that a judge “is subject to no authority” except himself, and he “must sometimes depart the confines of his legal system and channel into it fundamental values not yet found in it.” Channel? Does he mean he channels in a trance as Hillary Clinton supposedly channeled discourse with the long deceased Eleanor Roosevelt?

     Despite Barak’s weirdo writings, or maybe because of them, Elena Kagan called him “my judicial hero.” Judge Robert Bork, a man careful with his words, says that Kagan’s praise of Judge Barak is “disqualifying in and of itself.”

     Bork said that Barak “establishes a world record for judicial hubris.” Bork wrote that Barak embraces a judicial philosophy that “there is no area of Israeli life that the court may not govern.”

     During Kagan’s confirmation hearing for Solicitor General, Senator Arlen Specter asked her views on using foreign or international law or decisions to interpret our Constitution and laws. She wrote in reply that she approves using “reasonable foreign law arguments.”

     Au contraire. The U.S. Constitution states that our judges “shall be bound” by “the Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof.”

     Federal law requires all educational institutions receiving federal funds to present an educational program on the U.S. Constitution on every Constitution Day, September 17. Kagan thumbed her nose at Constitution Day 2007 by hiring a transnationalist on the Harvard faculty, Noah Feldman, and featuring him for two days of speeches.

     Transnationalists are lawyers who advocate integrating foreign and international law into the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws. In his Harvard Constitution Day address, Feldman urged “use of international legal materials in constitutional decision-making … to help actually decide cases,” and opined that “international tribunals’ rulings must be treated as law.”

     Kagan’s hero, Judge Barak, is also a transnationalist. In his book, The Judge in a Democracy, he sharply criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court for failing to cite foreign law, and he praises Canada, Australia and Germany for their “enlightened democratic legal systems.”  

     Kagan is particularly inappropriate because this anti-military woman would replace the only veteran on the Court, John Paul Stevens. As Harvard Law School dean, Kagan signed a brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn or rewrite the Solomon Amendment, which she called “profoundly wrong.”

     That popular federal law denies federal funds to colleges that bar military recruiters from the campus. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Kagan’s argument, which proves what an extremist she is.

     Kagan demonstrated her feminist extremism when she served as the lead White House strategist advising President Bill Clinton to veto the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Ten years later, substantially the same Act was repassed by Congress, signed by President George W. Bush, and upheld by the Supreme Court.

     Harvard Law School Professor Noah Feldman, a Dean Kagan hire, has just published a long New York Times Magazine article in which he worries about how the Supreme Court will rule on lawsuits about Obamacare, Obama’s takeover of big corporations, and the cronyism in Stimulus spending. Feldman hopes the Kagan appointment means “the moment has arrived for progressive constitutional thought” to take over the courts.

     The Left is counting on Kagan to play a major role to get the Supreme Court to uphold Obama’s transformation of our exceptional private enterprise system to a socialist economy. The New Republic magazine is salivating at the prospect that Kagan will reassert the discredited doctrine of the “living Constitution.”

     The Rasmussen poll reports that 42 percent of American oppose Kagan’s confirmation, and only 35 percent favor her. Are Senators listening?

      A far cry from being a constitutionalist who respects the original intent of our Founding Fathers, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan:

     Donated to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

     Possesses limited judicial experience – she has never decided a single case and, since serving as SG, she has only argued six cases before the Supreme Court.

     Excluded military recruiters from Harvard Law School’s Office of Career Services — and expressed “regret” when she was forced to lift the ban.

     Joined a brief submitted to the Supreme Court that attempted to obtain a constitutional right for schools to exclude military recruiters.

     Openly supports the use of foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution.

     Donated to radical pro-abortion feminist groups with ties to pro-choice PAC Emily’s List.

     Has strong ties to abortion-advocacy organizations and has expressed admiration for activist judges who have worked to advance social policy rather than to impartially interpret the law. President Obama said, just weeks before appointing Kagan, that he was looking for someone who would be a “strong advocate for women’s rights.”  As “women’s rights” is code for “abortion rights,” Elena Kagan fits the bill.

     Condemned the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy as “a profound wrong, a moral injustice of the first order.”

     Failed to seek a Supreme Court review of a rogue Ninth Circuit ruling that threatened “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and that subjected the military to burdensome litigation.

     It has also been falsely interpreted that Elena Kagan opposes same-sex marriage.  Under her charge, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief that gratuitously abandoned strong grounds for defending the Defense of Marriage Act.  Prominent supporter of same-sex marriage, Law Professor Dale Carpenter, celebrated the brief as “a gift to the gay-marriage movement” that “will no doubt make its way into judicial opinions.”  During Kagan’s confirmation process when she was nominated for Solicitor General last year, she strongly signaled that  if given the chance, she would invent a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  

     Second, she is a radical homosexual rights advocate.

     MassResistance has uncovered Kagan’s record of bizarre and disturbing activities during that period, which we’ve compiled in a report, “How Elena Kagan ‘queered’ Harvard Law School.” During that time it was clear that Kagan was committed to the radical campaign pushing acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism as “civil rights.” – and changing the mindsets of generation of Harvard lawyers to embrace those views. Will she do the same to America?

     Among the things we’ve uncovered (which are elaborated on in the report):

     * Kagan accelerated and legitimized the GLBT “rights” concept and law studies at Harvard Law School and in the larger university community.

     * Kagan encouraged Harvard students to get involved in homosexual activist legal work. At a time when she as Dean pushed students to engage in “public interest law” and to get “clinical” legal experience, the Harvard Law School established the LGBT Law Clinic. How could a “Justice Kagan” on the Supreme Court be impartial involving cases brought by “gay” legal activists — when she so openly advocated for homosexual legal goals and integrating homosexuality into legal studies and practice at Harvard?

     * Kagan recruited former ACLU lawyer (and former ACT-UP activist) William Rubenstein to teach “queer” legal theory. Few Americans can comprehend the radical nature of “queer” academics. Rubenstein described one of his courses as involving “new identities (bisexual, trans, genderf**k),” and “polygamy, S&M, the sexuality of minors.”


     * Kagan promoted and facilitated the “transgender” legal agenda during her tenure at Harvard. In 2007, HLS offered a Transgender Law course by “out lesbian” Professor Janet Halley and Dean Spade, a transsexual activist attorney, both of whom she recruited. (Halley’s extremism and contempt for natural gender boundaries is illustrated by her calling herself a “gay man.”) Kagan also brought in Cass Sunstein  (currently Obama’s regulatory czar) who has written in support of polygamy and other free-for-all marriage relationships.

     * Kagan engaged in ongoing, radical advocacy opposing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and demanding an end to the ban on homosexuals serving in the military. Her highly partisan actions are unbecoming of a future judge – especially one who would be called upon to adjudicate such weighty and divisive matters.

     * Even after Kagan and Harvard lost their legal campaign to ban military recruiters and Harvard Law School was forced to let them back on campus, she encouraged ongoing student protests against them — deputizing the radical Lambda group to come up with ideas of how to harass the recruiters legally. Kagan’s actions blatantly disrespected our military and exposed her as the out-of-touch, socially leftist academic that she is.

     * Kagan attended functions of radical homosexual (GLBT) groups at Harvard University, absorbing and apparently agreeing with their goals.

     * Kagan followed the wishes of campus homosexual organizations — within a month of meeting with a Harvard GLBT student group, she was agreeing with their demand to ban military recruiters on campus.

     * Radical “trans” activism at Harvard: Kagan’s active promotion of the GLBT agenda at Harvard likely accelerated the campus environment that was becoming so “tolerant” of homosexuality and gender confusion that there was even a campaign during her tenure to make the campus “trans inclusive” — using Harvard’s “gender identity” nondiscrimination policy (in place since 2006). This included discussions between GLBT student activists and the law school administration (i.e., Kagan) “to make our restrooms safe and accessible for people regardless of their gender identity or expression.” (Read: allow men who identify as “women” to use female restrooms and locker rooms, etc.)

     And third, she is a radical abortion rights supporter.  In an article entitled “Exposed! Kagan’s partial-birth abortion scheme” on 7/5/2010, Jill Stanek  of reported the following:

      The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (“ACOG”) is well-known in pro-life circles to be radically proabortion.

     For instance, ACOG supports the most heinous of all abortion practices, partial-birth abortion. When in 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the partial-birth abortion ban of 2003, ACOG released an indignant statement, which read, in part:

     “Today’s decision … is shameful and incomprehensible to those of us who have dedicated our lives to caring for women,” said Douglas W. Laube, M.D., M.Ed., ACOG president. “It leaves no doubt that women’s health in America is perceived as being of little consequence.

     “… The Supreme Court’s action today, though stunning, in many ways isn’t surprising given the current culture in which scientific knowledge frequently takes a back seat to subjective opinion,” he added.

     How admirable of ACOG to stand on the principle of “scientific knowledge” in the face of “subjective opinion,” which overwhelmingly thought sucking out the brains and collapsing the skulls of almost-delivered late-term babies was gross.

     But as it turns out, ACOG is the grandest of frauds.

     It has just come to light through the process of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearing that in 1996 ACOG let the Clinton White House, via then-associate counsel Elena Kagan, write its medical opinion of the partial-birth abortion procedure.

      Documents released from the Clinton library show ACOG inexplicably (because no one from ACOG will now respond to press inquiries for an explanation) submitted its draft unhelpful opinion of partial-birth abortion for review to the White House in the face of a ban being proposed in Congress and then changed it to suit Clinton’s proabortion agenda.

     The statement ACOG originally planned to release read:

      “However, a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. Notwithstanding this conclusion, ACOG strongly believes that decisions about medical treatment must be made by the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman’s particular circumstances.”

     In other words, ACOG found no exceptional reason for the existence of partial-birth abortion. Legalized abortion could get along just fine without it. Nevertheless, in ACOG’s curious opinion, it should remain legal.

     But when Kagan got wind of ACOG’s draft, she wrote in a White House memo it “would be disaster – not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation.”

     What came next shocked even me to learn, first that Kagan presumed she had standing to suggest a revision to ACOG, and then that ACOG accepted a revision of its medical opinion from a political hack.

     But that’s what happened. Here are the edits Kagan gave ACOG.

     Kagan’s suggestion on the key point of contention read:

     “An intact D & X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman …”

     The final version of ACOG’s January 1997 statement read (bold highlight theirs – accentuating what Kagan accentuated):

     “A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. An intact D & X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman’s particular circumstances can make this decision.”

     ACOG used Kagan’s language verbatim.

     As former Justice Department lawyer Shannen Coffin pointed out in a National Review Online column yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court cited ACOG’s opinion when striking Nebraska’s partial-birth abortion ban in 2000, and U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kopf also cited it when he, as well as two other judges, enjoined the 2003 federal ban.

     So it can be said Elena Kagan was largely responsible for keeping partial-birth abortion on the books 10 years beyond what it would have had the courts ruled based on uncorrupted medical opinion.

     This is a scandal. For all its pomp, ACOG is unequivocally corrupt.

     And Elena Kagan? She has demonstrated she doesn’t let reason, facts, medicine or science stand in the way of her proabortion ideology.

     And this fanatic is on track to be our next U.S. Supreme Court justice, unless bold Republican senators can lead the way in successfully challenging her.

     (Jill Stanek fought to stop “live-birth abortion” after witnessing one as a registered nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. In 2002, President Bush asked Jill to attend his signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. In January 2003, World Magazine named Jill one of the 30 most prominent pro-life leaders of the past 30 years. To learn more, visit Jill’s blog, Pro-life Pulse.)

     Therefore, it is not difficult to see why Sen. Durbin would say “The Kagan nomination is supported by a wide variety of groups and organizations.”  Obviously, the radical internationalists, the radical homosexual rights proponents, and the radical abortion rights supporters would all endorse her nomination because it is quite evident that she is most likely to give them exactly what they want.

Scholarship Essay Competition

      On Friday, July 2, 2010, I received the following email from Michelle Huntley ( ):

     As the Director of Membership and Outreach for the Intercollegiate
Studies Institute (ISI), a national education non-profit organization
dedicated to “educating for liberty.” I am writing to you to let you
know about ISI’s 2010-2011 SCHOLARSHIP ESSAY COMPETITION. With
scholarship prizes ranging from $250 to $1,000, this is a unique
reading and writing opportunity for high-school aged students.

     All students participating in the conference will receive a FREE copy
of Dr. Bradley Birzer’s book, “American Cicero: The Life of Charles
Carroll.” Those who wish to participate in the contest must register
by Friday, December 3, 2010 and submit their essays by Friday,
February 18, 2011.

     This year, participants of the competition are asked to craft an
essay in reference to the life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton and
consider the applicability of his experience to religious minorities,
especially suspect religious minorities, in America today. What
accounts for the American experience of maintaining both religious
diversity and relative social harmony? How do the experiences of
religious minorities in the founding era of the American Republic
help us to think about the place of religious minorities in America

     Founded in 1953, ISI’s mission is to nurture in successive
generations a better understanding of the economic, political, and
moral principles that sustain a free and humane society. The
Institute works annually with hundreds of thousands of students and
faculty from all over the country conducting over 300 educational
programs. One such program is the Scholarship Competition for High
School Students.

     If you would like to register your group or individual students for
the contest, please email or mail the following information for each
registrant in a list or excel document including: Name, Email,
Mailing Address, High School/Home School Status, and Graduation Date..
All correspondence can be emailed to OR mailed
to ATTN: High School Scholarship Competition, 3901 Centerville Road
Wilmington, DE 19807.

     You can view complete contest details at

     If you have any further questions about the contest or ISI in general,
please contact me at or (302) 524-6132.


Michelle Huntley

Intercollegiate Studies Institute
3901 Centerville Road
Wilmington, DE 19807
P.S. To download a contest flyer, visit: