Thursday, March 31, 2005


I thought this would be a good laugh. Below is a letter I wrote to my son's teacher in regards to an incident at his school where he apparently attempted to burn an ant with a magnifying glass. I guess this somehow disturbed her to the point where she had to give my son a behavior report and send it home to me to be signed. Now don't get me wrong here, as my letter will indicate, I don't have a problem with his being disciplined, just for what he is being disciplined for. Read below and you will understand. The names have been changed to protect the not so innocent.

DATE: March 31, 2005

TO: Mrs. R.

RE: Behavior Report

Dear Mrs. R.,

While I appreciate your concern for my son’s well being, I must say that I do not agree with this behavior report regarding his burning of an ant with a magnifying glass. I do not agree that his doing this demonstrates a lack of self respect or respect for others given that the “others” in this situation is a bug. Utilizing such logic to its end would suggest that it is disrespectful to even squash a spider or some other insect while walking to the lunch area. Yet, the safety aspect of this incident didn't’t seem to have been addressed here. Are we to say that an ant is deserving of respect more so than my son's safety? In regards to self respect, I am lost on that particular assessment as I do not see how burning an ant indicates a lack of respect for self. Perhaps you are equating the level of respect for a bug with a level of respect for my son? I hope not.

My son also mentioned to me a remark you made to him regarding his professing to be a Christian. Something to the effect of him being a "fake Christian"? I do understand condemning his actions but questioning his faith on the basis of such actions seems a bit extreme to me and really has nothing to do with his faith. We are talking about a curious 9 year old doing what many if not most kids his age do. I myself can attest to having tried the same thing as a child, my parents saw it as no big concern then and I, as a parent do not now. Now, I do understand that sometimes children can mis-communicate when relaying information so I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

In addition, I do agree that he should not have attempted to burn the ant, yet for a different reason, that being the issue of safety for himself and fellow classmates. Utilizing a magnifying glass in such a manner should be construed as a fire hazard and therefore a potential danger to all students. If anything, this incident should have been an impetus to instruct my son and the rest of the class in fire safety and responsibility. It would seem that what my son received out of this encounter was the notion that ants deserve respect.

As a result of my assessment I’ve encouraged my son to re-write his behavior report to reflect the notion of safety rather than respect. If you have any questions regarding this letter please feel free to contact me.

Thank you.

Jerry McClellan Sr.

Graphic Designer




I haven't heard from his teacher yet, but I am sure I will be getting a response some time in the near future. It is amazing, here you have opportunity to teach a young impressionable mind the values of responsibility, respect for others(people that is), and about fire safety and he gets an apparently short lecture about being a fake Christian and respecting ants. Amazing! If any of you are wondering, yes, this is a public school. A charter school at that. And yes, I am planning to remove him and possibly home-school my children if not put them into a private school. The only reason I find this situation humorous is that I am confident in what I teach my son and know that whatever gobblygook he gets from school will be filtered out into truth when he gets home with me. Enjoy the laugh!

Terry Schiavo has passed away....

It is a sad day in America when a women is murdered for the sole reason of being mentally disabled, not terminally ill, not in the process of dying at all, but merely because she doesn't have the ability to feed herself. Terry Schiavo passed away today of starvation and dehydration, she was only 41 years old.

Lashawn Barber comments "It's all over", I think it is the end of the beginning of an even larger debate regarding the right to life vs. the so called dying with dignity crowd. The case with Schiavo will be referred to for years to come as an example for both sides of the coin. This is the strange thing about this particular story, that on one side you have those, including myself, that say Terry Schiavo wanted to live, she deserved to have the opportunity to be rehabilitated. We will always question why her husband wanted her to die from being deprived food and water. To me, whether she truly wanted to die or not, it made no sense whatsoever for her to die this way. On the other side are those who will see Terry Schiavo as a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances. Namely, that a relative can decide for another relative whether or not that person wants to live or die, if indeed they are unable to speak for themselves, and without any written, legally documented proof. Thats huge!

I pray for the parents as well as Michael Schiavo.

Monday, March 28, 2005


Well, not all black people, maybe just supposedly Christian black people, or at least this group of church members in Jacksonville who stood outside a courthouse to have a prayer vigil, about 50 members of Little Rock Baptist Church actually, to ask God's mercy for their pastor, the 34 year old Rev. Alexie Kelly regarding his being arrested for statatory rape of a 13 year old girl(any relation to R. Kelly?). Apparently he had a 3 month affair with this little girl as reported by PAUL PINKHAM of The Times-Union. Amazing! Not only did the church congregation pray that the pastor would get a light sentence but the victims mother joined them in pleading with the judge for leniancy as well stating that good would come from sending Kelly to prison for his sins.
Apparently this wasn't the good 'ol reverens fault, according to his attorney it was the work of evil forces trying to discredit the church and undo all of the "good" that this pastor has done for the community. Right! I guess the victim; in this case a 13 year old little girl is expendable in the minds of these people, including the judge since he only gave him 6 months and 3 years probation rather than the 30 year penalty. What is going on when people would rather defend the guilty than the innocent and most vulnerable among us? Maybe this guy has done some "good" in a relative sense but defending such an act is appalling to say the least. As Tonyaa Weathersbee of comments:
First of all, young black girls –– especially those between the ages of nine and 12 –– are more frequently the victims of sexual abuse than white girls in that age range. By going to bat for the preacher instead of for his victim, the congregants did nothing to thwart that pattern.
Of course that isn't the point right? It is more important to not let another one of our men go to jail. We've got to protect and coddle the black man and keep him out of harms way, right? Even if it means looking the other way when he does wrong. Not!

Weathersbee then goes on to make a very interesting and revealing point regarding the absence of the father?
It was also criminal that no father spoke to defend his daughter’s honor as her mother was making her mealy-mouthed defense of her child’s rapist.
Absolutely amazing! My guess is that there was no father around to make such a case which is probably why and how this happened in the first place. The absence of a father in the home raising this young girl. The preacher steps in and fills the void, even if it is in a perverted fashion. This should be a clear indicator to those of us who are real Christians that the role of the male and the father in particular is of the utmost importance in our society and on a smaller scale, within the family unit. I've heard many conservatives comment about how the government stepped in and replaced the father in the home with a welfare check, well, in addition, many preachers, especially black preachers, came along for the ride and replaced the marital relationship with a perverted, emotional religion. One that only serves to manipulate women into doing what he wants them to do. A religion that strokes the egos and stokes the flames of insecurity among the church-going female.

I can speak from personal experience that this is nothing new and has been happening for many years. I've been a part of several churches where the ministers were literally molesting the young female congregation, many of them up until adulthood. One truth is always consistent in every situation, those women who are abused by these so called pillers of the community find it extremely difficult to get over such betrayal, and many never do. I gaurantee you the 13 year old that was molested by this pastor will carry this scar in her conscience for the rest of her life. She will never be the same again.

Black people will continue to suffer as a community as long as they continue to embrace immorality in this manner. Especially within the black church, there needs to be a zero tolerance for this type of behavior among pastors and leaders of the community.

I pray that the Lord's mercy be upon that little girl.

Friday, March 25, 2005

Unnatural Logic...

At the center of the Terry Schiavo case is the notion of dying, and that of dying naturally vs. unaturally. Michael Schiavo, Terry's husband, contends that she wanted to die naturally and would not want to be kept alive in the current condition she is in. Terry's parents contend that she would want to live and not die unaturally in this manner inspite of her condition. Many on the side of the parents echo the sentiment that all human life is sacred and precious, and therefore should not be ended just because of some type of handicap or terminal condition. Terry should be allowed to live out the remainder of her life receiving all of the medical, rehabilitative help possible to improve her conditon. This would be considered natural as opposed to Micheal Schiavo's preference.

I have to comment that the logic surrounding Michael Schiavo's decision to "honor" his wife's wishes through starvation seems shady at best. I mean, why starvation? What is the rationale behind starving this woman to death rather than utilizing the latest in technology, i.e., sometype of lethal injection or something that would actually allow this woman to die painlessly and quickly?

Apparently Mr. Schiavo's thinking is that starving to death is a natural way to die, but what clear thinking, honest person can actually agree that this notion is true? This logic seems flawed, for example, it is natural to be hungry therefore you eat, it is natural to be thirsty therefore you drink. In other words, when one of these natural urges falls upon us we respond likewise with some type of sustainance. It then can be considered natural to be hungry or thirsty, and as an extention, to desire to satisfy that thirst or hunger. One may contend though that Terry Schiavo cannot and/or does not have the ability to feed herself, she cannot provide sustainance for her body upon her own volition, therefore it would be natural for her to die of starvation. Yet, I would respond, with that type of reasoning then a mother can deny food and drink to her child when it is hungry, and if the child dies as a result then she can argue that the child simply died of natural causes and she wouldn't be accountable for that childs well being both morally or legally. Of course this is rediculous for the child naturally relies upon the mother to provide the necessary food and drink for its survival. The child relies on the mother, not only because it doesn't have the physical capabilities to do it itself, but also due to the lack of mental faculties to search out and acquire food for itself. The same can be said of Terry Schiavo, being in the state she is in, she doesn't have the faculties both physical and possibly mental to search out and acquire sustainance for herself on her own, therefore it is perfectly natural for her to rely on a feeding device available to assist her in maintaining her health.

This is as fundamental as it gets. Depriving Terry Schiavo of her feeding tube is not natural nor is it normal. Providing her certain applications of medicines, muscle relaxers, and lubricants to mask the affects of starvation and dehydration doesn't make it natural, it actually compounds the notion of murder even more so. Covering up the affects as to mask the guilt of those involved and somehow demonstrate for the sake of their own conscience that she isn't really suffering.

Euthanasia/Pro-death advocates really need to stop and think for a moment for a change. The logic of "dying with dignity" is rediculous on its face, this statement alone is an oxymoron for no one really dies with dignity. Dying in and of itself is the most undignifying thing that man can experience, from a biblical standpoint, given that we were not meant to die in the beginning since death itself is a product of a fallen world, there could never be anything dignified about it. If anything, the most dignified way of dying is to conquer it first. Then, it can be faced without fear, with a knowing that one will wake up again to life. As Christians, we've done this through the person of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. It was at Calvary that he conquered death for all of us.

Question: Did Jesus die with dignity?

Monday, March 21, 2005

What is wrong with this world!!!!!

Here is an excerpt from Schindler attorney Barbara Weller's account of the last few visits with Terry Schiavo. I found it via David Limbaugh's blog. I encourage you to read the entire account. If anyone is still wondering whether this woman is alive and does want to live, this will dispel all doubts immediately.
The most dramatic event of this visit happened at one point when I was sitting on Terri’s bed next to Suzanne. Terri was sitting in her lounge chair and her aunt was standing at the foot of the chair. I stood up and learned over Terri. I took her arms in both of my hands. I said to her, “Terri if you could only say ‘I want to live’ this whole thing could be over today.” I begged her to try very hard to say, “I want to live.” To my enormous shock and surprise, Terri’s eyes opened wide, she looked me square in the face, and with a look of great concentration, she said, “Ahhhhhhh.” Then, seeming to summon up all the strength she had, she virtually screamed, “Waaaaaaaa.” She yelled so loudly that Michael Vitadamo, Suzanne’s husband, and the female police officer who were then standing together outside Terri’s door, clearly heard her. At that point, Terri had a look of anguish on her face that I had never seen before and she seemed to be struggling hard, but was unable to complete the sentence. She became very frustrated and began to cry. I was horrified that I was obviously causing Terri so much anguish. Suzanne and I began to stroke Terri’s face and hair to comfort her. I told Terri I was very sorry. It had not been my intention to upset her so much. Suzanne and I assured Terri that her efforts were much appreciated and that she did not need to try to say anything more. I promised Terri I would tell the world that she had tried to say, ”I want to live.”
I want to live. Amazing!

Putting this woman to death is an act of pure evil, plain and simple. There is literally no excuse to do such a thing. The fact that this situation has been allowed to go this far is a very chilling testament of how our society has devolved into an immoral, egocentric sesspool where one will do anything to uphold their ideology, even at the expense of human life. At the onset I gave Mr. Schiavo the benefit of a doubt, wondering if Terry really did request such a thing, but at this stage there is no doubt that this man is looking out for his own interests and not that of his wife.

This is all about one man who is to much of a coward to admit his wrongs and be accountable to his own wife. He would rather murder her than to simply do what is right.

In all this I pray for God's will to be done.

Terry Schiavo, the fight continues....

From President Bush has signed a bill into law that could possibly save Terry!

Here audio of a conversation between Terry and her father, prepare yourself it is quite amazing!

I was visiting my mom this weekend and some of our relatives dropped in as well, namely my three cousins and my mothers' sister (my aunt). After all of the hugs and conversations, catching up on each others lives we settled down and began watching t.v., the news happen to be on and they were covering the Terry Schiavo case. During the coverage my cousins and aunt inquired, why won't they just let her go ahead and die? If she is suffering and will pass away anyway, then just let her be. There impression was that Terry is terminally ill and is passing away anyway, and she is only kept alive through some sort of life support system. As many of you out there in the blogosphere know, this is completely bogus. Terry is alive and well and only suffers from brain damage yet this doesn't mean that she is terminally ill. The reality of the situation is quite shocking, she is alive, and under the circumstances is doing relatively well, yet her own husband who has cheated on her repeatedly, and has fathered children by another woman wants to end her life. Why? Because according to him Terry would have wanted it this way. Yet, he has no real proof that she would have. Only a brief conversation after watching a t.v. show as he stated in a Larry King Live interview.

After explaining all of this to them their tone changed from saying she should just go ahead and die to how horrible it would be to cut off someone's feeding tube just because they were not acutely aware like the rest of us. Their outlook on the situation completely changed after hearing the truth.

One of the main reasons why people may be against Terry Schiavo being allowed to live is due to ignorance of the circumstances. She is not terminally ill, she is alive, yet is limited in her faculties. It is believed that with real aggressive treatment and rehabilitation it is possible that she could improve in many areas of communication and comprehension. It may take a great deal of time and energy, and yes money, but it is possible.

But I guess it is easier to just kill her.

Wednesday, March 16, 2005


Brian Nichols, on trial for charges of rape, aggravated sodomy, false imprisonment, aggravated assault with intent to rape, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and burglary against a woman he dated for more than seven years, while in court, allegedly overpowered a female guard at the Fulton County courthouse, stole her gun and started a rampage that left four people dead including the judge presiding over the hearing. Many in the media and blogosphere have commented that he should have been guarded by a male guard of equal or greater stature, that a female guard should not have been guarding him alone. Lashawn Barber of Lashawn Barber's corner for instance asks is it irony or stupidity to allow a woman, especially a small woman to guard a 6 foot tall 210 pound man, who by the way is also accused of binding his ex-girlfriend with duct tape and assaulting her over a three-day period last fall? Lets see, 6 ft., 200 lb. accused rapist guarded by one woman? I say stupidity.

Then again earlier this year we have Dr. Larry Summers, president of Harvard University, making comments about gender differences in the sciences, particularly the lack of female scientists and engineers in tenured positions at major universities. After citing that there actually maybe, a possibility, that men and women could supposedly be different when it comes to intelligence, MIT biologist Dr. Nancy Hopkins had to leave the room, apparently due to the appalling revelation that she may actually be different from men. Since this little episode of utter foolishness Dr. Summers has been at the center of a great controversy over his comments and has since attempted to appease the unruly feminist mob rage as they storm "The Ivory Castle Harvard" in search of the freakish beast of reality to burn at the stake of diversity. Such fear of the truth, as Mr. Walter Willims states, leads to anti-intellectualism, and of all places for it to exist, Harvard University. Mr. Williams notes:

Virtually all academic literature on sex, IQ and aptitude reach the conclusion that there are differences between men and women. While the mean intelligence between men and women is similar, the variance differs significantly. Women cluster more about the mean while men are more spread out. That means fewer women, relative to men, are at both the low end and the high end of the intelligence and aptitude spectrum. That might partially explain why so many men are in jail compared to women, and why more geniuses like Mozart and Einstein are men. On last year's SAT math test, more than twice as many boys as girls scored in the top range (750-800).
So why all the fuss over Dr. Summers remarks? If the research deomonstrates this why wouldn't women actually celebrate that the truth has been discovered? Now they can breath easily knowing that it isn't blatant sexism, but simple genetics. Why? Because feminists out there fear losing ground in their so called struggle for equality with men, yet, they fail to see that their struggle is futile. Artificial policies don't bring equality, nor does denying the truth. But it is big business and that is the primary motivation for keeping up the victim politics. Money and Power.

For the regular folks out there looking for peace of mind here is the truth in a nutshell. As I've always stated and continue to say, men and women are not equal. We are not the same and cannot all do the same things as the other. We are not designed to compete but to complement. That is all part and partial of God's established order for this world. Men are natural leaders, conquerors and protectors while women nurtur, are care-givers, and are natural support systems for men and children. When this natural order is denied all hell breaks lose and now, as in the case with Dr. Summers, if someone even utters this possibility he/she is branded sexist, ignorant and intolerant. Ridiculous! It is time to get back to the truth, embrace it and live it. Our world will become far better off when more and more people come to understand this.

Of course there are far more dynamics involved with both of these cases, for instance, why wasn't Nichols handcuffed while in the courtroom in addition to him being guarded by one woman. As Doug Powers points out in a WND article,
"studies" have shown that jurors are "unfairly influenced" when a person on
trial is wearing handcuffs.

I concur with his assessment of this "study"

The "study," it can be safely assumed, was conducted by somebody who doesn't have to sit anywhere near defendants in rape and murder trials.

Of course with the PC nuts running things, this incident won't change this practice of not handcuffing defendants in court, as Mr. Powers further predicts:

Defendants will not be cuffed in court, but the holsters will be made so tough to get into that the officer will need a masters in physics and 15 minutes in order to remove the weapon. An unfortunate lesson throughout history, however, is that scumbags are often a step or two ahead of the rest of us on some issues. Nowhere does the old phrase "Necessity is the mother of invention" apply more than to desperate criminals, who will figure out how any holster works before many officers are able to.
The scary thing is, I believe him. I really do believe that rather than simply handcuff these thugs, these people would rather spend countless time and dollars developing a new way of making it more difficult for officers to do their job. Amazing!

With Dr. Summers, other issues were raised as to why there are fewer women who excel in the sciences, one being that more women choose family over career. Yet, this is a very un-PC fact for it moves to support the notion that women are in fact natural care-givers, whose primary role is to take care of the family.

The PC police, Multi-cultural socialists, Feminazis, and Diversity preachers just won't have any of it. Their social experiment in breaking up the family, redefining gender roles, and establishing an amoral society(i.e. abortion on demand) must be continued at all costs, any cost, even at the cost of human life.

UPDATE: CORRECTION; In regards to the Atlanta story involving the rapist who went on a shooting spree, I mistakenly wrote his name to be Terry Nichols when it is actually Brian Nichols. I apologize for the mistake. At the time I wrote this I was reading abou the Oklahoma City Bombing, I guess it was still on my mind.

Friday, March 11, 2005

Terry Shiavo still has a chance!!!

Terry Schiavo, the Florida woman at the center of a controversial legal battle to keep her alive, still has a chance, in a commentary Chuck Colson writes:

Florida Senator Mel Martinez (R) and Representative Dave Weldon (R) have just introduced the “Incapacitated Person’s Legal Protection Act” in the U.S. Congress. The act is based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states, “No State . . . shall deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law . . . nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This act is designed to guarantee the constitutional right to life of Terri and others in her position. It would establish Terri’s right to her own legal counsel and call for a review of her case in federal court.
Hopefully this is the break needed to bring justice where there hasn't been for quite some time. Mr. Colson urges all to contact Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, along with our representatives and senators to urge them to pass this bill before March 18th, the day Terry Schiavo will have her feeding stopped by court order.

Once again, I pray God's will be done.

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Social Security Reform: Not good for Blacks?

I am not bound to win,
But I am bound to be true.
I am not bound to succeed,
But I am bound to live by the light that I have.
I must stand with anybody that stands right,
Stand with him while he is right,
And part with him when he goes wrong.

- Abraham Lincoln

No truer words are relevant to today than these. They remind me of the black community and its estranged marriage with the NAACP and Democratic party. Blacks definately need to part with these two groups for they have surely gone wrong.

A recent example of this wrong turn taken is an article by Star Parker over at talking about the Social Security reform being proposed by the president and how the NAACP have thrown their hat in the ring of opposition to privatized accounts along with the rest of the left. Is it at all surprising that they would be against a measure that would actually benefit most if not all Black Americans? Having privatized accounts would at least give back to the people what was stolen from us so long ago, the power of self determination. Social Security in its present form strips all individuals of that power for it forces us to put money into a blanket account of which we do not reap the full return on. Its like the old saying, what you put into it is what you get out of it...not so for SS. But at least with private accounts a person will gain back some measure of control over what they will eventually get out through earned interest compounded over the years and the ability, if offered, to invest in various stocks and funds. It would be nice to eliminate SS all together and allow people to be grown-ups like they are supposed to be and handle such matters on their own, but ofcourse the NAACP would never have this. They believe blacks do not have the ability to make such choices, having private accounts would only benefit the rich as they say without offering any proof mind you of such an assertion.

As Miss Parker notes, this is yet again another example of how out of touch the NAACP are with the black community and America in general. It becomes blatantly obvious that they are merely looking out for themselves. Taking such stances are for the benefit of maintaining whatever base of power they still do have through scare tactics. Quite shameful.

When will blacks wake up and stop riding this headless dinosaur from the past and get on board the reality-ship of self-reliance and self determination that is so waiting for them. Lets hope that it doesn't pass us by.

Friday, March 04, 2005


Ann Coulter throws her hat into the ring addressing the accusations of late directed towards conservatives who happen to somehow be connected to a gay lifestyle. I blogged a while back about a WND article reporting that several gay news outlets were "outing" Bush administration officials including White House press secretary Scott McClellan, called Gender Politics. My contention was basically, who cares? For people who supposedly are fighting to make everything gender neutral, why is it important to point out another's sexuality in the public domain?

As usual Miss Coulter takes it a little further, demonstrating the utter futility of their efforts and makes a good, yet very funny point about the consistency of the right and the true hypocrisy of the left. As they purport to support homosexuals then turn around and use the homosexual label as a means of embarrassment for conservatives. Amazing! Yet, in doing so they only demonstrate their own hypocrisy. It would be funny if it wasn't so shameful.

Coulter mentioned the lop-sidedness of the MSM, pointing out that on her Lexis-Nexis search she found 58 mentions about one story of a certain person's gay child(Alan Keyes), yet only two mentions of William J. Murray, the son of prominent atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who, back in 1980 professed his conversion to Christianity! If that is not the story of the century then what is? It becomes blindingly clear that the purpose of "outing" these conservatives is to merely scare, intimidate and harass. Maybe even thinking that this will somehow bring legitimacy to the gay agenda in the public eye, as if saying "see, everyone is gay, your son could be gay, your you better get used to it and stop opposing it or face embarrassment!"

Just another example of the screwed up thinking on the left, that they would use these people's personal lives as cannon fodder in an attempt to somehow do damage to those of whom they oppose. It is bad enough that the black community has fallen prey with first pandering, and demanding equality for blacks, yet when real equality is achieved such as the case with Condaleeza Rice, personal attacks ensue because she is on the "wrong" team. I guess now not even homosexuals are immune (no pun intended). It is unfair, immoral and just down-right foolish to report on these stories for the sole purpose of causing embarrassment. People's personal lives should remain just that, personal, until that lifestyle begins to intrude into the public realm, which in these cases it has not.

But should we expect anything less from the left and MSM?

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Just saw one of my Blog heros on t.v....

Yes, Miss Lashawn Barber of Lashawn Barber's Corner was on MSNBC's Connected with Monica Crowley and Ron Reagan, and I must say, my eyes were not dissapointed, nor were my ears for that matter. She was wonderful. She handled herself very well just like a pro. I can't wait to see her on more regularly (I believe it is coming soon so get ready Miss Barber!) This is quite an exciting time for the blogosphere, more and more bloggers are being recognized by the MSM (mainstreem media) for their work. It feels nice to be a blogger right now.

Political Teen has the video clip for your viewing pleasure.