As home schooling parents, who happen to reside in California, it has always been our intention to give our children the opportunity to attend whichever university they desired and were qualified for. While private universities are certainly an option (an expensive option), we have also wanted our children to have the opportunity to attend a state supported school (primarily because of the lower cost involved). Yet, it wasn’t until our first child was in her junior year of high school that we seriously addressed the following question:

How does a home schooled high school graduate properly apply and get admitted to either a Cal State University (CSU) or University of California (UC) school?

Are you a home schooling parent, in California, who can relate to this question? Has the prospect of home schooling your child through high school caused you to have more than a few sleepless nights?

Read the rest of this entry

Only in California (v. 9)

Ahhh, Disneyland. Fun, happiness… pepper spray?
Actually, it was at Disneyland’s sister park, California Adventure. From the OC Register (with video link),

A man was arrested for assault after repeatedly attacking security guards, who pepper sprayed him, at Disney California Adventure.

The incident happened about 3:30 p.m. Saturday when a man attacked security guards near the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror ride. Guards repeatedly tried to restrain the man and pepper spayed him, but the man kept going after the guards, as seen on the YouTube video.

Several takeaways from the video:

1. Note how effective or, in this case, ineffective the pepper spray was on immediately stopping the man’s behavior. This guy was, ostensibly, an older drunk man. But what if one is faced with an attack from a large, muscular, angry man? If this example is any indication, you hitting him with pepper spray may eventually make him go away, but will most likely immediately make him angrier.

2. Also, note how effective or, in this case, ineffective the security response was. After being repeatedly pepper-sprayed, the man then attacks one of the security guards, taking him to the ground. It’s then that bystanders come in to restrain the man. Essentially, the first responders to this incident were park guests.

3. Lastly, note the nuttiness displayed by the woman shouting “Stop! There are kids here!” Yeah? So what? Did she really expect a rational response from this guy? If you’re faced with erratic behavior close by your children, I’d suggest immediately increasing the distance between yourselves and said behavior.

4. Finally, after seeing the swift takedown and restraining of this man </sarcasm>, and you’re thinking about making sure you are prepared for defending yourself and your family, when visiting a Disney park, think again. Per their FAQ page, weapons of any kind are not allowed in the park.

Feel safer?


Remember those action movie scenes where the cop commandeers a citizen’s car?
Well if a cop (or wanna-be cop) ever comes running up to you, while you’re in your vehicle, just keep driving. From the OC Register,

How many movies have you seen where the crime-fighting hero commandeers a bystander’s car, embarks on a wild chase that leads to a shootout and the capture of the crook – along with a spectacular wreck that destroys a car or 50?

But how often do you see the part where the guy who owns the commandeered vehicle is an octogenarian trying to park peacefully at a Jack in the Box who now has to deal with the hassle of paying for a rental car, paying to store the wreckage of his old car, sorting out insurance issues, and arguing with authorities over whether he really ever gave consent to have his car appropriated for heroic purposes in the first place?

Like I said, just keep on driving.


A $71,000 average pension for public safety workers? Sign me up!
And remember… we need to close libraries and parks.


What if you had a School Board meeting re: a teacher’s alleged hard core p@rn career?
And NO parents showed up?


Home Depot SUPERSTORE? 2nd largest in the country.

Rusty Nails (SCO v. 31) (firearms edition)

Beauty Queen drops home invader with her pink .38 special
First lesson of the story, though, is to not answer the door at 3 a.m.


If you’re a shop owner, armed with a gun, remember to train
First lesson of the story: don’t grab at a robber’s gun. Second lesson: don’t try to fire your gun without having chambered a cartridge. Third lesson: don’t fire indiscriminately, over aisle counters, with one of your employees potentially in the line of fire.


Where are the “Wild West shootouts” with “blood running in the streets”?
Is “permitless carry” becoming a trend? From Massad Ayood,

Called “Constitutional carry” by some, such a law allows any law-abiding citizen with a clean criminal record to carry loaded and concealed in public. It will entail only a cost-free vote and a stroke of the Governor’s pen. That model has worked for Vermont for as long as any living citizen can remember, and every year Vermont is one of our lowest crime states per capita, some years THE lowest. It has worked for years in Alaska. It is working in Arizona, and will undoubtedly work in Wyoming, which just became the fourth state to pass permitless carry.


The Haves (read: politicians), and the Have Nots (read: citizens)
In light of the horrible mass shooting in Tucson, in which Rep. Gabby Giffords was critically wounded, some intrepid lawmakers [sic] in California have come up with a supposed answer – at least – an answer for themselves. From the L.A. Times,

Under current law Californians who want to carry concealed firearms must apply to their county sheriff or police chief and show “good cause” for permission. That can include threats of violence or a dangerous job. Under the new bill, being an elected state official or a member of Congress would constitute good cause. The officials would, like others, be subject to a background check, and a sheriff or police chief could still turn down the application.

Has it not occurred to these lawmakers that their constituents face acts of violence every day? Are they so blind that they see themselves only as potential targets?

It should be noted that California’s process for issue concealed carry permits is based on the law stating that the sheriff “may issue” the permit (vs. “shall issue”) upon the applicant showing good cause and completing the proper training, background checks, etc. That little one word difference, may instead of shall, has resulted in the virtual lack of issuance of permits in the state. “Good cause” suddenly becomes a subjective term and, regardless of whether or not good cause is shown, the sheriff still has the ability to not issue a permit. Of course, the criminals don’t really care whether they have a “permit” to carry, do they?

Once again, the law-abiding citizen is the person being overly restricted.


Florida Highway Patrol office accidentally shot during a weapons inspection
Two points to consider here.

1: Always, remember the Four Rules of Gun Safety – 1) treat all guns as if they are loaded, 2) always point a gun in a safe direction, 3) keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot, and 4) know your target and what is beyond.

2: Accidents among law enforcement officers are more common than you may realize.

How to hate the vote of the people

Opponents of California’s Proposition 8 – “Marriage Protection Act”, which clarified that marriage is between a man and a woman, claim that the proposition was all about hatred (e.g., “No on 8, End Hate” and “Separate Church & H8”).

They prove it by holding hateful, anti-Mormon marches after the measure was passed by the voters.



imagesLA Times

Equality for all; California’s Proposition 8

The California Marriage Protection Act, aka Proposition 8, was passed by popular vote on Tuesday, November 4th. The proposal was to add the following 14 words to the California constitution:

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.

As of Wednesday, November 5th, lawsuits have been filed by Gay Rights backers to challenge the will of the people, and protests against the Proposition were occurring in the predominantly gay city of West Hollywood.

Lest anyone think that rights have been eliminated, by the passage of Proposition 8, one should read the already existing California Family Code 297.5. An excerpt:

297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
(emphasis added)

Bottomline: Proposition 8 it isn’t about hate, inequality or discrimination; it’s about protecting marriage between a man and a woman.

Note: as an aside, check this “No on 8” ad which displays blatant hatred towards Mormons.

Marriage: between a man and a woman

In California, among the many state propositions up for a vote, one of the most heated is Proposition 8. In 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22, “which added a section to the California Family Code to formally define marriage in California as being between a man and a woman” (Wikipedia). In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court “ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution” (Wikipedia).

Enter Proposition 8. Here is the entire text of Proposition 8, as per the California Voter’s Guide,

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.

This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by
adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are
printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage
Protection Act.”

SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.

Note that the California Marriage Protection Act proposes to add a sum total of 14 words to the California Constitution.

Opponents to the proposition claim that the proposition is discriminatory and that it takes away rights. One of the mantras chanted is “Don’t eliminate marriage for anyone.”

Yet, such thinking ignores the fact that the government does not sanction marriage for anyone. Typically, one cannot marry another person if one is already married to someone else. It’s also highly unlikely that a 6 year-old boy and girl would be granted a marriage license by the government. The same could be said for a 20 year-old man and 18 year-old woman, if they were brother and sister. What’s more, it’s highly unlikely that the state government in California would sanction a marriage between two adult men and four adult women. It would seem, therefore, that we already have a form of discrimination, with regards to who can, and cannot, get married. In other words, the government already eliminates marriage for some.

Have you ever stopped to consider just why the government has an interest in sanctioning marriages in the first place? I can tell you one reason that they don’t sanction marriages for… love. Nope. You’d be hard pressed to find any mention of love on an application for a marriage license. Whether or not two people, who wish to get married, love each other is really of no concern to the government.

Why is that?

It’s really very simple. The government recognizes, as just about every civilization since humans began, that the covenant of marriage is the foundation and basis for the family unit. The family unit, it turns out, is the basis for a well functioning society. And a well functioning society is something that the government is very interested in. When a male and female commit to each other, the natural and general result is a family (i.e., children). This is a process that has been the cornerstone of virtually every civilized society. This family unit by marriage commitment, it should be noted, is something that a same-sex couple is incapable of attaining by natural means. Note that as a rule, by nature, and by design (HT: Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason), marriage between a man and a woman provides the family unit which the government has an interest in regulating.

One last point to be noted is that the only “right” which same-sex proponents claim will be eliminated by Proposition 8 is the sanctioning of the government, and as I’ve shown above, this is not an inherent right. No other “rights” will be eliminated. Same-sex couples already have access to domestic partner health benefits, they already have the protection of employment discrimination laws, they can freely practice their lifestyle, etc.

So, why is there the need for Proposition 8? That, too, is simple. It’s because those that advocate same-sex marriage want not the right (which they already have) but the blessing of the government. By getting the blessing of the government, they wish to impose their behavior, as normalized, upon the rest of society – including those that would consider their behavior as wrong.

Advocates of same-sex marriage would have you believe that the issue is about intolerance. In that, they are correct, for the position they take is intolerant of any position that does not accept their behavior as normal.

Further Ref:

Jennifer Roback Morse

Stand to Reason blog