The 1993 Home-Ed-Politics Debate (Part 7)
1. NH 1993: Once more into the breach
Doris Hohensee
2. UN Treaty of Children's Rights
Doris Hohensee
3. Parental Rights Amendment
Doris Hohensee
4. Four Pillars Discussion
Doris Hohensee
Message 1
Subject:
NH 1993: Once more into the breach
Date:
Fri, 22 Oct 1993 13:18:22 -0400
From:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
This is the fourth in a series on political activity in New Hampshire
over the last three years to reverse the effects of our 1990 home
education law. Our 1993 attempt was to recognize home educators as
private educators.
The bill we submitted in 1993 was identical to the amendment to HB
1470 introduced during 1992 (remember the sequence of events please).
It would have eliminated all substantive regulatory control over
home education programs.
The bill would have removed the inequities of the current home
education law and its state mandated local expense with language that
treats home educators in a fashion substantially equivalent to private
educators.
It modified only those portions of current statute that impose
*requirements* upon private schools. These requirements are:
instruction in national and state history and government, flag
display, use of the English language (under certain circumstances),
and the maintenance of attendance registers. See the interpolated
editorial comments for details.
There are many other statutes which *suggest* certain programs and
procedures to private educators. These cover such topics as
transportation, health care benefit
After the '92 fiasco, we didn't bother to contact CHENH & Co. They'd
gone ballistic over the identical proposal at that time anyhow.
Recall that they wouldn't talk to us then: there was no reason to
believe they'd talk to us now. We figured that even if we failed, we'd
still be able to keep the issue before the legislature.
As it turned out, we *did* end up meeting with them under the auspices
of one of the bill's sponsors. It wasn't a complete disaster, but
what happened after was. The meeting featured a good deal of shouting
on their side; it's tough to deal with people who keep losing it
emotionally. More details in a subsequent post.
Doris Hohensee
The following are listed below:
1. Text of bill submitted to the legislature
2. Fiscal impact of the bill
3. Text of amendment to the bill
1. The text of the bill submitted to the legislature:
0763B
93-0889
04
1993 Session
HOUSE BILL NO. 657
INTRODUCED BY: Finlay Rothhaus Hills. Dist 18
Co-Sponsors: Richard Kennedy Merr. Dist 7
Senator David Wheeler Hills. Dist 11
REFERRED TO: Education
AN ACT repealing the home education laws allowing the
state board to adopt rules relative to home
education, and making certain other changes
relative to education.
ANALYSIS
This bill repeals the home education statutes, and authorizes
the state board to adopt rules relating to home education programs,
curriculum, and compulsory attendance. It also includes home education
in those statutes which impose requirements on private schools.
[Ed.: Sounds *awful*, doesn't it? Legislative Services wrote the
title and analysis so as to incite a riot. Lots of people read the
analysis *only* and didn't bother with the rest.]
EXPLANATION: Matter added appears in bold italics
Matter removed appears in [brackets]
Matter which is repealed and ereenacted or all
new appears in regular type.
HB 657
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the year of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and ninety-three
AN ACT
repealing the home education laws allowing the state
board to adopt rules relative to home education, and making certain
other changes relative to education.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
in General Court convened:
l New Paragraph; Rulemaking, State Board of Education. Amend 186:11
by inserting after paragraph XXXIV the following new paragraph:
XXXV. Home Education. Adopt rules, pursuant to RSA 541-A,
relative to reasonable criteria for approving home education programs
for the purpose of compulsory attendance requirements. The state
board of education may, upon the request of a home educator,
approve or disapprove such person's education program and
curriculum.
[Ed.: Patterned after a similar section for non-public schools. Note
that the State Board of Education may adopt rules for compulsory
*attendance* only. It may *not* approve or disapprove an education
program or curriculum, except upon request. *Such approval or
disapproval does not grant any right of probation or termination of
the program to the state board*.]
2 Home Educators Included. Amend RSA 189:11 to read as follows:
RSA 189:11 Instruction of National and State History and
Government. In all public, private and home schools in the
state there shall be given regular courses of instruction in
the history, government and constitutions of the United States
and New Hampshire, including the organization of New Hampshire
municipal, county and state government and of the Federal
government. Such instruction shall begin not later than the
opening of the eighth grade and shall continue in high school
as an identifiable component of a years course in the history
and government of the United States and New Hampshire.
[Ed.: This is a trivial requirement. A home educator would merely
have to produce one of the many available texts on these subjects to
show compliance. They can be obtained from a local library if
necessary. What actually gets taught is entirely up to the parent:
there is no state review of the results of this instruction.
This *is*, in a restricted sense, a curriculum mandate. It is not,
however, enforceable, and is in any case *far* milder than current law.
We're not shooting for the moon here.]
3 Home Educators Included. Amend RSA 189:17 to read as follows:
RSA 189:17 Flags: Penalty. The school board shall supply a
United States and a New Hampshire state flag; the flags shall
be made not less than 5 feet in length, with a flag- staff and
appliances for displaying the same, for every schoolhouse in
the district in which a public school is taught, at the
expense of the district. They shall prescribe rules and
regulations for the proper custody, care and display of these
flags; the regulations shall require that wherever possible,
the United States flag and the New Hampshire state flag shall
be displayed on separate staffs of equal height. When the
flags are displayed on the same staff, the United States flag
shall be displayed above the New Hampshire flag. The
regulations shall further require that such flags shall be
displayed prominently outside of the schoolhouse. When they
are otherwise displayed, the flags shall be placed
conspicuously in the principal room of assembly of the
schoolhouse. The governing board of every private school
shall supply a United States flag, such flag to be made not
less than 5 feet in length, with a Flagstaff and appliances
for displaying the same. They shall make provisions similar
to those required in the public schools for the display of
said flag. A parent providing home education for a child
shall supply a United States flag. Such person shall make
provisions similar to those required in the public schools for
the display of said flag. Any members of a school board or
the governing board who shall refuse or neglect to comply with
the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a violation.
[Ed.: So display a flag, already. There are no size requirements for
home display: the flag can be an inch long and meet the letter of the
law. Stick it in a display of world flags. No method of checking up
on a parent is provided: therefore, the whole issue is moot. The
police can't get into your house without probable cause and a warrant
anyhow. Where are they going to get such probable cause? They'd
have a real chuckle over this one down at the station. We got a lot
of grief from hysterical types on this one.]
4 Home Educators Included. Amend RSA 189:19 - 189:21 to read as
follows:
RSA 189:19 English Required. In the instruction of children
in all schools, including private and home schools, in
reading, writing, spelling, arithmetic, grammar, geography,
physiology, history, civil government, music, and drawing, the
English language shall be used exclusively, both for the
purposes of instruction therein and for the purposes of
general administration. Educational programs in the field of
bilingual education shall be permitted under the provisions of
this section with the approval of the state board of education
and the local school district.
[Ed.: Just part of the program, people. Completely unenforcable.
Note that while a list of subjects is given, there is no *mandate*
that they be taught at all, just that, if taught, they be taught in
English.]
RSA 189:20 Foreign Languages: A foreign language may be taught
in elementary or home schools; provided that the course of
study (or its equivalent) outlined by the state board in the
branches named in RSA 189:19 be not abridged, but be taught in
compliance with the law of the state.
[Ed.: The key word here is "may." You aren't *required* to teach a
foreign language. The rest of the paragraph refers to the previous
paragraph of the statute listed above. It doesn't require a
particular course of study if you do decide to teach your child a
foreign language.]
RSA 189:21 Language of Devotional Exercises in Private or Home
Schools. The exclusive use of English for purposes of
instruction and administration shall not prohibit the conduct
of devotional exercises in private or home schools in a
language other than English.
[Ed.: Self-explanatory.]
5 Home Educators Included. Amend RSA 189:27-a and 189:27-b to read
as follows:
RSA 189:27-a Computerization of Pupil Registers. School
boards, or the governing bodies of public academies or
nonpublic or home schools may choose to maintain pupil
registration and enrollment information through the use of a
computer, instead of using a register provided by the state
board of education. The software program for any such
computer application shall be capable of providing in printed
form at least the information required by RSA 186:11, VI.
RSA 189:27-b Retention of Pupil Registers. Pupil Registers,
whether kept manually or by means of a computer, shall be
retained as s permanent record of the school district, public
academy or non-public or home school. When a computer is
used, the permanent record shall consist, at a minimum, of a
paper printout.
[Ed.: All you have to do here is keep track of when your child is
"present" at "school." Not very difficult, given that the kid is home
all the time, and given that *every* day can be counted as a "school" day.]
6 Home Educators Included. Amend RSA 194:31 to read as follows:
RSA 194:31 Registers; Reports. All academies, private and
home schools shall be furnished with copies of the school
register, and shall make annual statistical report to the
state board.
[Ed.: This one's *real* tough. One letter a year containing the final
tally of days. What a work load! ;-)]
7 Repeal.
RSA 193-A, relative to home education, is repealed.
[Ed.: Well, we didn't think anyone would *want* the old law, given how
bearable this proposal would have been. I suppose there's no
accounting for taste.]
8 Effective Date.
This act shall take effect January 1, 1994.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Department of Education would be required to
maintain a file of attendance registers and to bear
the cost of maintenance thereof. The cost should be
limited to postage and the salary of one (1) part-time
clerical worker.
2. Two Opinions of Fiscal Impact of the Bill
First, the N.H. Department of Education's FISCAL IMPACT statement.
Here's where they let the cat out of the bag wrt the unfunded mandate
contained in the current law. A bit myopic of them.
FISCAL NOTE for an act repealing the home education laws allowing the
state board to adopt rules relative to home education, and making
certain other changes relative to education.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Department of Education has determined this bill will
increase state general fund expenditures by:
$ 941,850 in FY 1994
$ 1,088,861 in FY 1995
$ 1,257,588 in FY 1996
$ 1,454,336 in FY 1997
Local Expenditures will DECREASE by:
$ 792,225 in FY 1994
$ 914,660 in FY 1995
$ 1,057,254 in FY 1996
$ 1,221,472 in FY 1997
There will be no fiscal impact on state, county and
local revenue or on county expenditures.
METHODOLOGY:
The Department assumes that this bill requires that home
education programs would be established as home schools
subject to the same statutes as private schools, that all
home schools would therefore be subject to applicable
review and on-site verification, and that all home education
programs would be required to file an annual report which
would be reviewed by the department. Also, home education
grow by 10% each year and costs will increase by 5% each year.
Currently, 1,630 students (1,372 of whom are affiliated with
public schools, 250 with private schools and 8 with the
Department) are being home educated. If the average family
home educated 2 children, then 815 (1/2 of 1,630) families
would be eligible for home school designation the first year.
It currently costs $500.00 per child for acknowledgement and
evaluation proceedures and $ 1000.00 per family for a home
school review.
[Ed.: Bureaucrats absolutely *love* to claim that they have more power
than they actually do. Gives 'em a reason for getting that paycheck.
Once more with feeling: *there is no statute giving the Dept. the
power of review and on-site verification.*]
For Example:
In FY 1994, the cost to school districts (reflecting only
home education programs supervised by public schools would
be:
1,509 students @ $ 525.00 = $ 792,225.
The cost to the state (reflecting all home education
programs would be:
897 families @ $ 1,050 = $ 941,850.
Second, our rebuttal of the above:
The Department of Education would bear the cost of maintaining
the annual attendance rosters for private home educators as they
already do for private schools. Only part-time clerical help would be
needed.
Additionally:
1) The bill provides property tax relief to residents by decreasing the
local school budgets by approximately one million dollars per year.
2) The incorrect fiscal impact statement, prepared by the Department
of Education, acknowledges the UNFUNDED MANDATE that RSA 193-A (Home
Education Law) imposes upon local school districts. Unfunded mandates
are prohibited according to the N.H. Constitution Part I, Art. 28-a
(Nov. 28, 1984): "The state shall not mandate or assign any new,
expanded, or modified programs or responsibilites to any political
subdivision in such a way as to necessitate additional local
expenditures by the political subdivision unless such programs or
responsibilities are fully funded by the state or unless such programs
or responsibilites are approved for funding by a vote of the local
legislative body of the political subdivision." The state provides no
funding to the local districts to implement RSA 193-A. By the
Department's own admission, RSA 193-A is unconstitutional.
3) There are two errors in the Department's methodology statement.
First, the Department is assuming that *all* parents will request a
review of their program and curriculum: this is extremely improbable
as the review is optional, only done upon the request of the parent.
Currently *most* private schools, with this same option, do NOT
request a review.
Assuming that every parent does request a review of their curriculum
and program, the Department's estimated expense is still greatly
inflated. This review is only for the textbooks and curriculum, not
an evaluation of the success of the program. The reviewer may make
suggestions on ways to improve the program or recommend particular
textbooks. This process can be done via the mail, personal review is
not required. A typical review would indicate the merits of
individual books or curriculums towards achieving a set goal or
standard. The cost would be under $50.00 per year for each child's
program. Furthermore, the Department need review only as many programs
as their budget allows, as they do with private schools. They
currently have a multiple year backlog of review requests from private
schools.
Second, it is incorrect to assume that the "review" of private home
educators will be as time-consuming as that required by the current
home education law, RSA 193-A. This bill eliminates all mandatory
annual evaluations, which the Department estimates to cost $500.00 per
child per year.
This bill recognizes home educators as *private* educators. Thus, if
they increase regulations on home educators, the same will have to be
done to private educators, for equity's sake. Home educators should be
protected here, as private educators will not tolerate any real
curriculum control by the state. Not in this state, anyway.
4) The bill requires NO on-site inspections. Homes are not
institutions. The only permit required is an occupancy permit, which
is already satisfied before you moved in.
3. The text of the "agreed upon" AMENDMENT.
This is identical to the previous bill, except that we replaced 'home
educator' (that's them) with 'private educator' (that's us) and left
the current home education law alone.
1993 Session
HOUSE BILL NO. HB657
INTRODUCED BY: Finlay Rothhaus
REFERRED TO:
AN ACT allowing the state board to adopt rules relative
to private educators, and making certain other
changes relative to education.
ANALYSIS
This bill authorizes the state board to adopt rules relating to
private educators and compulsory attendance. It also includes private
educators in those statutes which impose requirements on private schools.
EXPLANATION: Matter added appears in bold italics
Matter removed appears in [brackets]
Matter which is repealed and reenacted or all
new appears in regular type.
HB657
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the year of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and ninety-three
AN ACT
allowing the state board to adopt rules relative to private educators,
and making certain other changes relative to education.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
in General Court convened:
l New Paragraph; Rulemaking, State Board of Education. Amend 186:11
by inserting after paragraph XXXIV the following new paragraph:
XXXV. Private Educators. Adopt rules, pursuant to RSA 541-A,
relative to reasonable criteria for approving private education
programs for the purpose of compulsory attendance requirements.
The state board of education may, upon the request of a private
educator, approve or disapprove such person's education program and
curriculum.
2 Private Educators Included. Amend RSA 189:11 to read as follows:
RSA 189:11 Instruction of National and State History and
Government. All private educators and in all public and
private schools in the state there shall be given regular
courses of instruction in the history, government and
constitutions of the United States and New Hampshire,
including the organization of New Hampshire municipal,
county and state government and of the Federal government.
Such instruction shall begin not later than the opening of
the eighth grade and shall continue in high school as an
identifiable component of a years course in the history
and government of the United States and New Hampshire.
3 Private Educators Included. Amend RSA 189:17 to read as follows:
RSA 189:17 Flags: Penalty. The school board shall supply a
United States and a New Hampshire state flag; the flags shall
be made not less than 5 feet in length, with a flag- staff and
appliances for displaying the same, for every schoolhouse in
the district in which a public school is taught, at the
expense of the district. They shall prescribe rules and
regulations for the proper custody, care and display of these
flags; the regulations shall require that wherever possible,
the United States flag and the New Hampshire state flag shall
be displayed on separate staffs of equal height. When the
flags are displayed on the same staff, the United States flag
shall be displayed above the New Hampshire flag. The
regulations shall further require that such flags shall be
displayed prominently outside of the schoolhouse. When they
are otherwise displayed, the flags shall be placed
conspicuously in the principal room of assembly of the
schoolhouse. The governing board of every private school
shall supply a United States flag, such flag to be made not
less than 5 feet in length, with a Flagstaff and appliances
for displaying the same. They shall make provisions similar
to those required in the public schools for the display of
said flag. A private educator shall supply a United States
flag. Such person shall make provisions similar to those
required in the public schools for the display of said flag.
Any members of a school board or the governing board who
shall refuse or neglect to comply with the provisions of this
section shall be guilty of a violation.
4 Private Educators Included. Amend RSA 189:19 - 189:21 to read as
follows:
RSA 189:19 English Required. In the instruction of children
in all schools, including private educators and private schools,
in reading, writing, spelling, arithmetic, grammar, geography,
physiology, history, civil government, music, and drawing, the
English language shall be used exclusively, both for the
purposes of instruction therein and for the purposes of
general administration. Educational programs in the field of
bilingual education shall be permitted under the provisions of
this section with the approval of the state board of education
and the local school district.
RSA 189:20 Foreign Languages: A foreign language may be taught
in elementary or by private educators; provided that the course of
study (or its equivalent) outlined by the state board in the
branches named in RSA 189:19 be not abridged, but be taught in
compliance with the law of the state.
RSA 189:21 Language of Devotional Exercises in Private
Schools and by Private educators. The exclusive use of English
for purposes of instruction and administration shall not
prohibit the conduct of devotional exercises in private schools
and by private educators in a language other than English.
5 Private Educators Included. Amend RSA 189:27-a and 189:27-b
to read as follows:
RSA 189:27-a Computerization of Pupil Registers. School
boards, or the governing bodies of public academies or
nonpublic schools and private educators may choose to
maintain pupil registration and enrollment information through
the use of a computer, instead of using a register provided
by the state board of education. The software program for any
such computer application shall be capable of providing in printed
form at least the information required by RSA 186:11, VI.
RSA 189:27-b Retention of Pupil Registers. Pupil Registers,
whether kept manually or by means of a computer, shall be
retained as s permanent record of the school district, public
academy or non-public school or private educator. When a computer
is used, the permanent record shall consist, at a minimum, of a
paper printout.
6 Private Educators Included. Amend RSA 194:31 to read as follows:
RSA 194:31 Registers; Reports. All academies, private
schools and private educators shall be furnished with copies
of the school register, and shall make annual statistical
report to the state board.
7 Effective Date. This act shall take effect September 1, 1993.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Department of Education would be required to maintain a
file of attendance registers and to bear the cost of
maintenance thereof. The cost should be limited to postage
and the salary of one (1) part-time clerical worker.
Message 2
Subject:
Re: UN Treaty of Children's Rights
Date:
Fri, 22 Oct 1993 13:30:57 -0400
From:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Since the N.H. legislators claimed in 1991 that they "used" the UN
Convention and Rights of Children to write their proposal (HCR 7),
perhaps the following will be useful to those waiting for text of the
current federal bill.
Despite the vague and ambiguous language, it may seem harmless at
first glance, until you realize who's the horrible enemy of those
poor little children: * parents *.
Doris Hohensee
HCR 7
State of New Hampshire
In the year of Our Lord on thousand
nine hundred and ninety-one
A Resolution
adopting a bill of rights for children.
Whereas, all children are created equal; and
Whereas, all children are endowed with certain inalienable rights,
among them:
I. The right to enter the world loved, nurtured, and in good
health; and
II. The right to be well-nourished and sheltered from harm;
and
III. The right to live free of exploitation, abuse, and
neglect; and
IV. The right to grow and flourish in a safe place, among
those who care; and
V. The right to cures for their ills, and comfort for their
hurts; and
VI. The right to educate the mind, develop the body, and
nourish the spirit; and
VII. The right to be prepared to assumed a productive role in
society; and
VIII. The right to assume the responsibilities and just
consequences of their actions; and
IX. The right to participate in determining their own destiny;
and
X. The right to the liberty, justice, and dignity accorded
all; now therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representaives, the Senate concurring:
That these rights of children are inviolable and fundamental to a
humane world; and
That when, in the course of human events, such rights are denied or
abridged, it is the duty of a just people to seek remedy; and
That this children's bill of rights is declared in the name of all
children.
Message 3
Subject:
Re: Parental Rights Amendment
Date:
Sun, 24 Oct 1993 10:32:33 -0400
From:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
>
> Scott Somerville, at HSLDA, reporting in...
>
> HSLDA is actively working with home schoolers in Kansas who are
> trying to introduce a parental rights amendment. I will get the
> text of this ASAP, to share with you thoughtful people.
>
> PLEASE don't think this is vicious discrimination against Doris
> ("HSLDA works with Kansas, but they leave poor little me out in
> the cold!"). We FULLY support parental rights amendments, and
> will gladly work with anyone to get them passed. It is hard to
> get much done, however, after folks have burned every possible
> bridge of communication.
>
> Doris, HSLDA would be happy to do what we can to help you succeed
> in this! Contact me directly at scott+amember%HSLDA@mcimail.com.
>
An open letter to Scott Somerville from HSLDA:
It was nice of you to extend the personal invite to correspond
directly via e-mail. However, at this point I'd rather keep this
conversation public via this newsgroup.
I do appreciate your personal re-consideration of the Parental Rights
Amendment. Though I can't say that I understand why you would wish to
support an amendment that *you believe* would not provide adequate
legal protection for home educators. In any case, the time for
support was, as I mentioned, in 1991, not now.
I do have a few remaining questions for you: Where do you personally
stand on the remaining legislation that I posted over the past few
weeks? Can HSLDA still defend its role in this on-going N.H. debacle?
What role can I expect HSLDA to play in the future? Or has HSLDA
learned to stop interfering in state politics both in person and via
"urgent" legislative bulletins?
IMO N.H. home educators have not benefitted by HSLDA's continued
presence in our legislative efforts over the past four years.
This is not a declaration of war or a termination of all
communication. I've always been more than willing to talk politics
with anyone interested, both friend or foe alike. That's the name of
the game in politics: finding out where, if any, the consensus lies.
This does not mean one needs to "compromise" until this agreement is
reached. That is where HSLDA and I part company. (HSLDA did the "best"
they could with their limited time and limited experience with N.H.
politics, to get us a quick "compromised" law. I would have preferred
to wait until something worth supporting came along. But then again,
HSLDA does not live in N.H. as I do.)
IMO HSLDA meddled in state legislation in order to enhance their own
image, not to protect home educators. For why else would they have
opposed all our legislative efforts, even when there was _no_ impact on
them, or more importantly, on their client home educators.
IMO if HSLDA were truly honest, they would publically admit their
mistakes and promise to do better. Or, at least, address these issues
*in public,* not behind closed doors. This is what real 'leaders' must
do, or risk the loss of both 'credibility' and 'the right to lead.'
That's the price of genuine leadership: accepting the credit or the
blame, as the situation warrants.
Doris Hohensee
RSVP: Please address the _issues_ this time.
Message 4
Subject:
Re: Four Pillars Discussion
Date:
Sun, 24 Oct 1993 10:43:03 -0400
From:
doris (Doris Hohensee)
Reply-To:
home-ed-politics@mainstream.com
Mr. Wolff writes:
> I recognise, and even sympathise and appreciate, the argument inherent
> in what Alan Fiebig (arffer@ameris.center.il.ameritech.com) wrote
> below:
Mr. Fiebig writes:
>> ... But I do not want ANY group, including HSLDA,
>> standing in Washington saying they represent ALL (or even the majority)
>> of home schoolers. I may or may not agree with their stand, but they
>> DO NOT represent ME.
> However, there are only a very few groups effectively trying to defend
> us from the fascists in Washington. If they were to follow your
> desires in your second paragraph:
>> I feel that my home school desires should be felt in Washington the
>> same way all of my other desires are felt (or not felt as the case may be).
>> ... In this manner, the overall desires of all home schoolers are felt,
>> and not the individual power of a group (HSLDA or others) lobbying
>> Washington.
> nothing would get done, there would be no defense.
> I GREATLY appreciate the work that the various groups of dedicated
> lawyers are doing to defend us. I especially applaud HSLDA.
> The fact that we have, as a people, refused to believe that we are no
> longer governed as a "nation of laws" means that it is now TOO late to
> take this approach. "The Chancellor has been elected" and we need to
> deal with that reality. If GOD be willing, then we can still turn them
> back.
Indeed, Mr. Wolff must jest when he suggests that we must rely solely upon
the "dedication" and "good deeds" of HSLDA.
It is "too late" once again...for what? Any political action of our
own? Or, is this simply a justification for doing nothing for oneself?
"Nothing would get done?"...only HSLDA is "effective?" Only _they_ can
defend us? Let HSLDA lead us out of Egypt?
Is it that personal responsibility is too difficult and being lead
is much easier?
'All is lost...please save me.' It's dangerous, indeed, when a people
need to believe and must rely completely upon earthly 'saviors.'
Doris Hohensee