I'm sure everyone is familiar with the commercial of Hillary's at Christmas and all hte gifts she wants for Christmas (the enormously expensive gifts, I might add). Phyllis Schafly did an article, pointing oiut the most dangerous of these gifts is the universal pre-k!

When U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., showed television viewers the Christmas presents she wants to give us if she is elected president, her most important was universal pre-kindergarten, following closely after universal health care. Clinton was reminding us of her status as the grand dame of the ideology expressed in her favorite African slogan, "It takes a village to raise a child."

Indeed, there seem to be many busybodies who believe the village, i.e., government functionaries, should make major decisions about the upbringing of children, including what they are taught and how they are medicated. They may approach this incrementally, but their goal is always "universal."

...

Massachusetts has just started to require that all children in Medicaid, 460,000 kids, must be subjected annually to mental health screening in order to detect signs of possible mental illness, autism, or depression. One of the criteria on the questionnaire used to identify mental health problems is that the child is "seeming to have less fun."

And in this universal pre-k care system, it seems that the children are required a number of vaccinations regardless...

Parents believe that this New Jersey requirement is a major encroachment on parental rights to make medical and other decisions for their own children. Parents also cite the potential dangers of vaccines for some children.

And if the parents decide it's to dangerous for their children...

State's Attorney Glenn F. Ivey intimidated parents with what he called "legal action." He arranged to have letters sent to all parents who were "out of compliance" demanding that they must attend a court hearing where they would receive a verbal reprimand and their children would be vaccinated, presumably forcibly.

for full article, see www.townhall.com

Reliability of Voter Forums

I just finished watching the N.H. presidential forum, which I thought went very well. The candidates were very articulate, very "up on their numbers," to quote one of the Fox News Channel reporters. But then they showed the N.H. panel analysis. What got me is that the almost entire crowd pulled for Romney, when Romney did not stand as well, and was very vague in his responses. When showing the rating of the candidates speech, Romney's went up high when he was speaking of the need for change in Washington. But there was no plan, only the declaration of the need for change. One woman said in ciriticism of Mike Huckabee that she wanted a president and not a Baptist pastor. Most of the room raised their hands when asked who thought he identified to much with his faith (Come on, red state!). The thing is, Religion or faith in no way came up during the forum. Does this denote a previous bias against Huckabee, and does this also denote that if the people are biased against a particular individual, that these voter panel ratings are really reliable?