A 2006 article by American Thinker is very pertinent to today's debate over the UN CRC, especially if you homeschool. In America, we have had legal battles about whether or not a parent must have a teaching degree or license in order to qualify for homeschooling. Relative to an incident in Belgium in 2006, that requirement is "child's play". Read below or at this LINK to learn how a father was called into the police for interrogation and informed:
"that, as a homeschooler, he has not adequately educated his children and, hence, is neglecting his duty as a parent, which is a criminal offence."
Was he or his wife somehow deficient in their own educational preparation? Let's see if their credentials fall short....
1) Father: Ph.D., fluent in Dutch, English, and French.
2) Mother: Master's degree in Linguistics, doctorate in Philology, lecturer at two universities, author of books on topics which are so intellectual that I do not even understand the titles. Gave up full-time work to homeschool their children.
If that isn't qualified, what is? What did the Ministry of Education say was their crime? They refused to sign an oath:
"respecting the respect (sic) for the fundamental human rights and the cultural values of the child itself and of others."
Please, pause, take a deep breath, and consider the implications of this philosophy (inherent in the UN CRC) on your family. You can't even hide behind a Ph.D. to prove your fitness to homeschool if you don't follow their rules.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Our Response - Part 5 of 5 in the Series
Hopefully, by this point, only one question remains in the minds of readers, “Is there anything I can do to stop the insanity behind the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child?” If that is not the question you are asking, then go back and re-read the prior 4 postings before reading this one. Without that question in the forefront of your mind, there is no need for reading this posting. From there the title says it all. “Our” means that a victory for families will require the combined voices of parents across the nation shouting “no” to this treachory. “Response” means that parents cannot sit back and hope for the best. They must take action. From there the script should go like this.
First, parents must educate themselves on this issue by reading these postings and other information on the Parental Rights.Org website as well as the UN treaty itself. Then, each “educated” parent must alert other parents by simply sharing with them what they themselves have learned about the issue. Patience is required at this step as many will no believe this news nor even want to consider the possibility that it is a reality. From there, pressure must be exerted on our Senators who are the final step in this treaty’s ratification. If they fall prey to the deception, this treaty becomes “as-if” Supreme Law of the Land according to Article 6 of our constitution (see future post for an explanation of “as-if”). American parents must present their stance politely yet firmly by phone, e-mail, fax, and even in face to face meetings with Senators and their staff.
The Senate’s defeat of this treaty, however, is not the end of the story, but only a temporary victory. This treaty can reawaken later for ratification if the only action is a “no” vote. The underlying philosophies will still continue to simmer and are even now eroding parental rights through developing legislation and deceptive practices by government agencies including the public education system. Unless something more is done, the only difference will be between an immediate victory for the treaty supporters and a delayed victory of slow but eventual complete erosion of these rights. The complete and final answer is a Parental Right Amendment that is currently before both houses of the US Congress. This amendment uses wording from past Supreme Court cases that upheld parental rights and combines it with a section that exempts parental rights from any international treaty’s effects. If ratified, it places clear and explicit protection in our constitution for parent’s right to direct the care and education of their own children. Currently, this right has only been implied from the 14th amendment and is on shaky ground thanks to the last Supreme Court case in 2000 regarding parental rights. Without going into the details, it basically left open the question of whether parental rights are constitutionally protected or not, to the lower courts where there is no guarantee of safety for these rights. The Parental Rights Amendment now proposed would recognize parent’s God-given rights and would finally close the door on such unconstitutional international treaties. It would provide a clear constitutional ground for protecting our rights. For the parent desiring to retain their parental rights, this means a call to both Senators and Representatives to urge support for this amendment.
So, our response, as parents with God given rights and responsibilities towards our children, should be 1) to educate ourselves and alert others to this threat, 2) to jointly urge our Senators to vote “NO” on the treaty, 3) to urge all our Congressmen to sponsor the Parental Rights Amendment. For those desiring to go further in defending their rights, www.parentalrights.org has more ways that you can contribute. If you live in Tennessee, please contact our Tennessee organization through www.tennesseeparentalrights.com.
Thank you for reading this series. I pray that together, with God’s help, we can retain the freedom to raise our children according to the values and beliefs which we hold dear.
First, parents must educate themselves on this issue by reading these postings and other information on the Parental Rights.Org website as well as the UN treaty itself. Then, each “educated” parent must alert other parents by simply sharing with them what they themselves have learned about the issue. Patience is required at this step as many will no believe this news nor even want to consider the possibility that it is a reality. From there, pressure must be exerted on our Senators who are the final step in this treaty’s ratification. If they fall prey to the deception, this treaty becomes “as-if” Supreme Law of the Land according to Article 6 of our constitution (see future post for an explanation of “as-if”). American parents must present their stance politely yet firmly by phone, e-mail, fax, and even in face to face meetings with Senators and their staff.
The Senate’s defeat of this treaty, however, is not the end of the story, but only a temporary victory. This treaty can reawaken later for ratification if the only action is a “no” vote. The underlying philosophies will still continue to simmer and are even now eroding parental rights through developing legislation and deceptive practices by government agencies including the public education system. Unless something more is done, the only difference will be between an immediate victory for the treaty supporters and a delayed victory of slow but eventual complete erosion of these rights. The complete and final answer is a Parental Right Amendment that is currently before both houses of the US Congress. This amendment uses wording from past Supreme Court cases that upheld parental rights and combines it with a section that exempts parental rights from any international treaty’s effects. If ratified, it places clear and explicit protection in our constitution for parent’s right to direct the care and education of their own children. Currently, this right has only been implied from the 14th amendment and is on shaky ground thanks to the last Supreme Court case in 2000 regarding parental rights. Without going into the details, it basically left open the question of whether parental rights are constitutionally protected or not, to the lower courts where there is no guarantee of safety for these rights. The Parental Rights Amendment now proposed would recognize parent’s God-given rights and would finally close the door on such unconstitutional international treaties. It would provide a clear constitutional ground for protecting our rights. For the parent desiring to retain their parental rights, this means a call to both Senators and Representatives to urge support for this amendment.
So, our response, as parents with God given rights and responsibilities towards our children, should be 1) to educate ourselves and alert others to this threat, 2) to jointly urge our Senators to vote “NO” on the treaty, 3) to urge all our Congressmen to sponsor the Parental Rights Amendment. For those desiring to go further in defending their rights, www.parentalrights.org has more ways that you can contribute. If you live in Tennessee, please contact our Tennessee organization through www.tennesseeparentalrights.com.
Thank you for reading this series. I pray that together, with God’s help, we can retain the freedom to raise our children according to the values and beliefs which we hold dear.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Specific Rights in the UN CRC - part 4 of 5
The previously described philosophies (see part 3 of this series) are spelled out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by way of “rights” codified in the treaty’s articles. Many of these so-called “rights” are benevolent, like outlawing child abuse, outlawing using children as soldiers, and outlawing child prostitution. However, most if not all Americans should recognize that we already have laws for protecting children in these circumstances and absolutely do not need a duplication of those laws. This is especially true if parents realize what other baggage comes packaged in this treaty.
At first reading, some of these other rights seem harmless at face value while others are obviously at least concerning. The reader of the treaty could be left wondering whether there is cause for fear or not until they look at how the treaty has been used in other countries and the United Nation’s actions through other human rights treaties. The right to privacy found in article 16 was used in Japan to prevent parents from accessing their children’s text messages, chat rooms, and e-mails. In Britain, this treaty is being used to legislate that home-schooled children can be subjected to an unannounced in-home examination without their parents present through its right to an education that government determines is best. In Belize, the committee overseeing the treaty recommended that the Belize government create formal avenues in which children could legally protest their parent’s violations of this treaty’s rights. The treaty also guarantees a right to health care including reproductive health care which seems noble. However, the intention of this right needs to be considered in light of another UN treaty called the Convention to End All Discrimination Against Women, or CEDAW. CEDAW has been used to force countries to legalize abortion and decriminalize prostitution (1,2,3). Given the treaty’s right to health care provision, children could be guaranteed the right to abortion even without parental consent as it is a reproductive health care right. One final issue should cause great concern for American gun-owners. Given the treaty’s stance that government should always seek the best interest of the child and the UN’s stance that guns are bad for children, this will naturally lead to gun control in our country in the guise of protecting children. Parents will be forced to part with their guns voluntarily or possibly lose their children to government officials like child protective services. Many more examples could be provided, but this alone should be enough to raise the alarm of American parents who believe that God has given them the responsibility and the right to raise their children according to their own values and beliefs, not those of the government.
As stated at the beginning, some of these “rights” sound vague, benign, or sometimes benevolent when first read. However, each is ultimately an open door to further control of our private family life by the federal government and the United Nations. As a whole and individually, they infringe or forsake our constitutional rights in multiple ways. In doing so, they spell the end of the American tradition of parenting. America’s future under this treaty can be forseen in the effects they are having in other countries (see www.parentalrights.org for more examples). Do we want our federal government to begin teaching our 4 years about sex like the Netherlands educational system does (based on same philosophy as the treaty? Especially when the United Nation’s idea of sex education at that age includes an explanation of masturbation? (4) Shouldn’t the parent decide upon the appropriate timing these discussions?
Stay tuned for the final part 5 in the series.
Footnotes
(1) Web posted letter from National Right to Life to US Congressmen: http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ForeignAid/SenateCEDAWletter020107.html
(2) Catholic Exchange Article, CEDAW Committee Abortion Misinterpretations Infect Human Rights Committee, Sept. 11th, 2008, Samantha Singson. http://catholicexchange.com/2008/09/11/113696/
(3) United nations Report, Women and Health Mainstreaming the Gender Perspective into the Health Sector, Expert Group Meeting 28 Sept. to 2 October 1998. http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/healthr.htm
(4) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, International Guidelines on Sexuality Education:…, June 2009 http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/082509_unesco.pdf
At first reading, some of these other rights seem harmless at face value while others are obviously at least concerning. The reader of the treaty could be left wondering whether there is cause for fear or not until they look at how the treaty has been used in other countries and the United Nation’s actions through other human rights treaties. The right to privacy found in article 16 was used in Japan to prevent parents from accessing their children’s text messages, chat rooms, and e-mails. In Britain, this treaty is being used to legislate that home-schooled children can be subjected to an unannounced in-home examination without their parents present through its right to an education that government determines is best. In Belize, the committee overseeing the treaty recommended that the Belize government create formal avenues in which children could legally protest their parent’s violations of this treaty’s rights. The treaty also guarantees a right to health care including reproductive health care which seems noble. However, the intention of this right needs to be considered in light of another UN treaty called the Convention to End All Discrimination Against Women, or CEDAW. CEDAW has been used to force countries to legalize abortion and decriminalize prostitution (1,2,3). Given the treaty’s right to health care provision, children could be guaranteed the right to abortion even without parental consent as it is a reproductive health care right. One final issue should cause great concern for American gun-owners. Given the treaty’s stance that government should always seek the best interest of the child and the UN’s stance that guns are bad for children, this will naturally lead to gun control in our country in the guise of protecting children. Parents will be forced to part with their guns voluntarily or possibly lose their children to government officials like child protective services. Many more examples could be provided, but this alone should be enough to raise the alarm of American parents who believe that God has given them the responsibility and the right to raise their children according to their own values and beliefs, not those of the government.
As stated at the beginning, some of these “rights” sound vague, benign, or sometimes benevolent when first read. However, each is ultimately an open door to further control of our private family life by the federal government and the United Nations. As a whole and individually, they infringe or forsake our constitutional rights in multiple ways. In doing so, they spell the end of the American tradition of parenting. America’s future under this treaty can be forseen in the effects they are having in other countries (see www.parentalrights.org for more examples). Do we want our federal government to begin teaching our 4 years about sex like the Netherlands educational system does (based on same philosophy as the treaty? Especially when the United Nation’s idea of sex education at that age includes an explanation of masturbation? (4) Shouldn’t the parent decide upon the appropriate timing these discussions?
Stay tuned for the final part 5 in the series.
Footnotes
(1) Web posted letter from National Right to Life to US Congressmen: http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ForeignAid/SenateCEDAWletter020107.html
(2) Catholic Exchange Article, CEDAW Committee Abortion Misinterpretations Infect Human Rights Committee, Sept. 11th, 2008, Samantha Singson. http://catholicexchange.com/2008/09/11/113696/
(3) United nations Report, Women and Health Mainstreaming the Gender Perspective into the Health Sector, Expert Group Meeting 28 Sept. to 2 October 1998. http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/healthr.htm
(4) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, International Guidelines on Sexuality Education:…, June 2009 http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/082509_unesco.pdf
Thursday, October 29, 2009
The Two Philosophies Behind the Convention on the Rights of the Child
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child seems benevolent or at least benign to many parents. Parents ask, “Who could oppose such a noble endeavor?” However, before supporting or simply ignoring this treaty, they must understand the philosophies that underlie it and the potential impact. Two philosophies summarize the heart of this UN treaty. The first is that the government knows what is best for children better than parents. The second is that, as international human rights theory promotes, governments are obligated to protect not just rights, but also to provide services at the child’s request, even over the parent’s objections. Taken together, this means that government has the final say in the upbringing of children.
The two philosophies work together but can be understood best by first examining them separately. The first philosophy has been promoted by Hillary Clinton in a number of her books and also by other prominent figures. They all advocate that government or its experts are better equipped to decide how a child should be raised. Article three of the treaty says that government will always seek the best interest of the child in all it does. While all parents would agree with seeking the best interest of their own children, the crux of the problem lies in “who decides what is best?” According to this philosophy, the government decides rather than the parent. This alone is a dangerous philosophy to apply in American law.
The second philosophy is an application of general international human rights theory to the area of child rights. America has long held rights to be God-given, or inalienable, and thus protected both by the government and from the government. The international view goes further and also holds rights as services or goods that the individual can claim from the government. Article 18 of the treaty creates a vague open door by saying that parent’s primary responsibility is to seek the best interest of the child AND the government will provide appropriate assistance. The central question to ask are “who decides when that assistance is needed?”. Under this philosophy, the government and its experts will make that decision. From there, article 12 adds fuel to the fire by saying that the child should have their voice heard in all administrative and judicial matters affecting them. Therefore, the child can petition the government directly to complain that their parents are not seeking their best interest and expect that the government will step in to provide appropriate assistance. Ultimately, articles 18 and 12 do not give the child freedom, but it instead enslaves them to the government and removes their most ardent protectors, the parents. Under the current system, parents serve as barriers to outside forces that would harm children or infringe on their rights. This new system would be replace parents with government representatives who would become the final line of defense protecting “their” children.
Taken together, the federal government and its experts decide what is best, the child can petition the government to overrule their parents, and the government is obligated or empowered to intervene on behalf of the child even against the parent’s wishes. The government becomes the parent and the parent becomes the babysitter. Is this what American parents want for their children?
(Return soon for part 4 discussing specific rights outlined in the treaty.)
The two philosophies work together but can be understood best by first examining them separately. The first philosophy has been promoted by Hillary Clinton in a number of her books and also by other prominent figures. They all advocate that government or its experts are better equipped to decide how a child should be raised. Article three of the treaty says that government will always seek the best interest of the child in all it does. While all parents would agree with seeking the best interest of their own children, the crux of the problem lies in “who decides what is best?” According to this philosophy, the government decides rather than the parent. This alone is a dangerous philosophy to apply in American law.
The second philosophy is an application of general international human rights theory to the area of child rights. America has long held rights to be God-given, or inalienable, and thus protected both by the government and from the government. The international view goes further and also holds rights as services or goods that the individual can claim from the government. Article 18 of the treaty creates a vague open door by saying that parent’s primary responsibility is to seek the best interest of the child AND the government will provide appropriate assistance. The central question to ask are “who decides when that assistance is needed?”. Under this philosophy, the government and its experts will make that decision. From there, article 12 adds fuel to the fire by saying that the child should have their voice heard in all administrative and judicial matters affecting them. Therefore, the child can petition the government directly to complain that their parents are not seeking their best interest and expect that the government will step in to provide appropriate assistance. Ultimately, articles 18 and 12 do not give the child freedom, but it instead enslaves them to the government and removes their most ardent protectors, the parents. Under the current system, parents serve as barriers to outside forces that would harm children or infringe on their rights. This new system would be replace parents with government representatives who would become the final line of defense protecting “their” children.
Taken together, the federal government and its experts decide what is best, the child can petition the government to overrule their parents, and the government is obligated or empowered to intervene on behalf of the child even against the parent’s wishes. The government becomes the parent and the parent becomes the babysitter. Is this what American parents want for their children?
(Return soon for part 4 discussing specific rights outlined in the treaty.)
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Silent, but Urgent Threat to Parental Rights
Very few recognize the slow, yet continual erosion of parent’s rights by many forces in our government at local, state, and federal levels. The erosion has occurred without fanfare and, what little media attention it garners, usually casts the parents in a negative light or takes only the most egregious examples of bad parents to make the point against all parents. Even when parental rights were restored in some cases, the media often still accused the parents of wrongdoing. Often the media would lament that the child protective workers just couldn’t get enough evidence to prove the parent’s guilt. The media never assumes that maybe the “protective” workers were not so innocent and the accused parents were not so “guilty”. Besides such individual cases and the overgeneralizations, dangerous court precedents are being set one case at a time, usually disregarded by the media as unimportant. If that is not enough, bills are working their way into laws which erode parental control over education, healthcare, religion, and other important areas. Slowly the heat is being turned up on parents wading in the waters of our nation’s culture. Those simmering parents must realize the urgency of the next few degrees of heat that will bring the legal waters to a boiling point and will mean the end of parenting in America as we know it.
Why do the supporters of government-controlled parenting enjoy the silence and stealth? In the quiet, they can slowly turn up the heat one degree at a time without anyone taking much notice. American parents just learn to accept the warmer water as being natural since they trust the government to do what is best. The supporters set up law after law, one court precedent after another, until, with a simple tweak of one more degree, everything boils and American parents are stunned to find themselves in boiling water, unable to escape. If parents saw the final goal held by these forces or read the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN CRC) with open eyes of understanding, they would protest with outrage. The UN CRC aids our understanding because it is the most tangible manifestation of the philosophy that government knows what is best for children and should overrule parents in their decisions for their own children. As it is now, if no parent reads the recipe in that treaty, we will all suffer a common demise of our parental rights in this legal environment.
Why is it urgent? The US State Department is processing this treaty as fast as Senator Barbara Boxer can push them. She wanted to present it to the US Senate for a 2/3’s ratification vote in April of this year. The State Department thankfully wanted time to process it properly. Senator Boxer and others such as our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, believe that their long awaited dream of ratifying this treaty by 67 Senate “yes” votes is ripe for the picking. Furthermore, our president and many in his chosen administration believe that it is a disgrace that America has not yet signed this treaty. Even though this treaty hands over state and national sovereignty unconstitutionally, they will do so and act “as if” it is constitutionally allowed. Meanwhile, outside Washington D.C., many groups are building momentum to help push this through the Senate. They have held conferences, raised funding, and started grassroots campaigns. No punches are being pulled in this battle for who controls the future of our children.
In summary, supporters enjoy the relative silence compared to the roar surrounding other government issues facing Americans and their fading liberties right now. They benefit from American parent’s deafness and ignorance towards this crucial issue. Yet the situation is growing more and more urgent as each day passes without American parents awakening to this threat, a threat that is ready to boil over at any minute.
(Return soon for part 3 of the series which discusses the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child itself.)
Friday, October 23, 2009
Why the Convention on the Rights of the Child is a Core Issue
(Part 1 of 5 in a series)
There are certain issues in our epic battle for freedom so fundamental that winning all other skirmishes, but losing these critical battles still results in defeat. With multiple attacks on freedom coming at us daily, discernment, focus, and coordination are required by America’s citizens if these issues are to be targeted for special efforts. The right of parents to decide how their children are raised and what their children are taught is one of these core issues. In America we have long held this tradition as a fundamental right granted by God. However, this tradition is being challenged by forces from within and from outside our own nation. If, through slow erosion in the courts and legislatures or through the floodgate of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the government gains full control of “parenting”, one thing is guaranteed. The passing of the current generation will leave the next generation shaped, molded, and indoctrinated according to the values of our government’s leaders and experts. That generation will be enslaved to the government as the one to whom it owes allegiance, and freedom will be forsaken.
Three simple truths prove the fundamental nature of this issue. First, God ordained that the family has the primary responsibility for directing the intellectual and moral education of children. Within this family structure, parents were made the primary source of influence as to what values and beliefs are passed to the next generation. If parents abdicate that role to the government, then the values of the government, not the family, will shape the next generation. Second, a simple historical investigation reveals how multiple dictators targeted children for indoctrination from early ages. The dictators knew that their future power lay in the hands of the next generation’s submission to government authority. Even Plato was concerned that the very stories told to infants were important in shaping society’s future. Finally, as the introduction tried to highlight, only one generation’s passing stands between freedom and its disappearance if parents allow the government to control the next generation’s upbringing. You see, if the government controls their upbringing, they will be taught that submission to the government and its values is of the highest importance. Whatever sense of freedom that our generation holds dear will not even be a memory in the next generation’s mind after such indoctrination.
Health care, the banking industry, the car industry, and other areas are unquestionably important skirmishes, but the intellectual, spiritual, and moral development of our next generation is not a battle that we can afford lose if we hope to win the ongoing war for freedom. As Wendell Phillips said in 1852, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”. May God help American parents to recognize the magnitude of this issue and to be eternally vigilant in protecting children by protecting our rights to parent them.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Good Morning America !
While not packed with juicy morsels to raise your blood pressure or drive you to insane irritation at our government's intrusion into private life, I did not want to pass up an opportunity to ask how you are handling our brave new world. In a day when the issues come flying by you at warp speed, reminiscent of the blurring stars in a Star Treak or Star Wars movie, how do you stay sane?
My answer: I spend each day living another analogy, that of standing in a burning building with one bucket of water. So many fires, so little water. I just have to stop and pray for wisdom. I pray that God will lead me to use my bucket of water (time, resources, energy, talents) in the direction where it is most effective and fits in with His plan. Then I pray that others will go through the same process in using their buckets of water. With God's directing and our listening, some coordinated effect should result.
So grab your bucket, ask for direction, and go put out a fire today. Tomorrow, start all over and do it again......
Sincerely,
Eric Potter MD
My answer: I spend each day living another analogy, that of standing in a burning building with one bucket of water. So many fires, so little water. I just have to stop and pray for wisdom. I pray that God will lead me to use my bucket of water (time, resources, energy, talents) in the direction where it is most effective and fits in with His plan. Then I pray that others will go through the same process in using their buckets of water. With God's directing and our listening, some coordinated effect should result.
So grab your bucket, ask for direction, and go put out a fire today. Tomorrow, start all over and do it again......
Sincerely,
Eric Potter MD
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Berkeley and the United Nations
Berkeley dealing directly with United Nations
A good friend forwarded a very concerning article to me this morning. The city of Berkeley, California, will soon be voting on a measure to begin reporting directly to the United Nations on their compliance with UN human rights treaty. I believe we would all agree that torture, civil rights, and racial discrimination are important issues. However, should a city forge a "treaty" of sorts with the United Nations. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the people of the United States of America delegated that power to our federal government. Under division of powers in federalism, a city can not do this constitutionally.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is not explicitly mentioned, but obviously would be a logical initial piece of the plan or later addition. In this you can see the direction of our nation.
Read THIS LINK for more information.
A good friend forwarded a very concerning article to me this morning. The city of Berkeley, California, will soon be voting on a measure to begin reporting directly to the United Nations on their compliance with UN human rights treaty. I believe we would all agree that torture, civil rights, and racial discrimination are important issues. However, should a city forge a "treaty" of sorts with the United Nations. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the people of the United States of America delegated that power to our federal government. Under division of powers in federalism, a city can not do this constitutionally.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is not explicitly mentioned, but obviously would be a logical initial piece of the plan or later addition. In this you can see the direction of our nation.
Read THIS LINK for more information.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Fellow Americans,
I am calling on you to awaken to the reality before us. The reality is that a battle is being waged against your right to raise your children. The reality is that intellectual assent to this reality will not protect you or your children. If you are not already working to spread the word and fight this battle, you must awaken from your slumber and find your role in this battle. If you are already waging battle, keep up the good fight and don't give up.
Why am I fired up this morning? First and foremost is the growing recognition that this is a spiritual battle even more than a physical or philosophical battle. This is about the God given right to teach our children about the glorious Creator God and His Son. Therefore, the battle neither begins nor ends, nor is won by words or deeds. It begins in repentance to God for our part in allowing our culture to degrade to such a point. Next comes a continual prayer for an awakening of the body of Christ. Then a prayer for guidance in what each of our roles should be in this battle and a prayer for strength and perseverance in that role. When we stand up from that prayer, we must keep our eyes on God and His work in this battle. We know our children are loved by Him even more than we love them, and can trust that He will move mightily to defend them. If we are distracted or driven to despair by looking at the works of evil, we will not be effective in this fight.
The second reason for my fervor is a video that surfaced in the past 24 hours showing school children being led in a song of praise to our President. CLICK HERE or read more about it at THIS LINK. This is what our nation is heading towards. Do not be deceived that this is an isolated incident. Stop and look at the pieces of the puzzle. It is another part to the machinery of indoctrinating our children with Statism (read more below).
Statism is just a fancy term for the belief that government can, will, and should supply all our needs. Our Founders did not create such a government. We have not thrived as a country based on this belief. AND WE SURE DON'T NEED IT NOW ANY MORE THAN THEN.
However, our leaders are preaching this more and more to the masses. More entitlements. More forfeiture of liberty and property for the "greater good". More government and LESS freedom.
Will we allow this to take our children? Do not answer this question with words unless those words are directed to God in prayer. Then act on God's calling in His Word and in your heart.
May God save our country,Eric Potter MDTennessee Director for Parental Rights.Org
I am calling on you to awaken to the reality before us. The reality is that a battle is being waged against your right to raise your children. The reality is that intellectual assent to this reality will not protect you or your children. If you are not already working to spread the word and fight this battle, you must awaken from your slumber and find your role in this battle. If you are already waging battle, keep up the good fight and don't give up.
Why am I fired up this morning? First and foremost is the growing recognition that this is a spiritual battle even more than a physical or philosophical battle. This is about the God given right to teach our children about the glorious Creator God and His Son. Therefore, the battle neither begins nor ends, nor is won by words or deeds. It begins in repentance to God for our part in allowing our culture to degrade to such a point. Next comes a continual prayer for an awakening of the body of Christ. Then a prayer for guidance in what each of our roles should be in this battle and a prayer for strength and perseverance in that role. When we stand up from that prayer, we must keep our eyes on God and His work in this battle. We know our children are loved by Him even more than we love them, and can trust that He will move mightily to defend them. If we are distracted or driven to despair by looking at the works of evil, we will not be effective in this fight.
The second reason for my fervor is a video that surfaced in the past 24 hours showing school children being led in a song of praise to our President. CLICK HERE or read more about it at THIS LINK. This is what our nation is heading towards. Do not be deceived that this is an isolated incident. Stop and look at the pieces of the puzzle. It is another part to the machinery of indoctrinating our children with Statism (read more below).
Statism is just a fancy term for the belief that government can, will, and should supply all our needs. Our Founders did not create such a government. We have not thrived as a country based on this belief. AND WE SURE DON'T NEED IT NOW ANY MORE THAN THEN.
However, our leaders are preaching this more and more to the masses. More entitlements. More forfeiture of liberty and property for the "greater good". More government and LESS freedom.
Will we allow this to take our children? Do not answer this question with words unless those words are directed to God in prayer. Then act on God's calling in His Word and in your heart.
May God save our country,Eric Potter MDTennessee Director for Parental Rights.Org
Monday, September 14, 2009
Constitution Week Calling Campaign
Celebrate Constitution Week!!!
This week marks the anniversary of our US Constitution, the oldest democratic constitution still in use. By God's grace, this document has protected freedoms within our country for over 200 years and has been a light of freedom across the globe as well.
Besides pausing to appreciate this treasure this week, please take a few minutes to help uphold these rights. We are asking you to call those Congressmen who have not committed to sponsoring the parental rights amendment yet and ask them to "get off the fence". We would also hope that you can tell at least one other person to do the same. Together we may keep our rights to raise our children according to the values and beliefs that we hold dear. Without each other, we may lose those rights to our government.
During this time we must also remember that the Constitution is only a piece of paper and "we, the people" are entrusted to uphold its principles and to hold government accountable to these principles.
"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." -- Daniel Webster (1834) "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" -- either Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry ?
Our parental rights to raise our children according to a heritage of values and beliefs that we hold dear is now at stake on a bartering block for the noble cause of "child rights". If we do not pay the price for their hearts and minds, their future will pay the price of our negligence.
The smallest token you can deposit in the bank of freedom this week is to call your Congressmen if they haven't committed to sponsor the Parental Rights Amendment yet. Go to THIS PAGE and, if your Congressmen is NOT a sponsor, call and urge them to join this battle.
You can find out who your Congressmen are by going to THIS LINK and typing in your address or zip code. It will give you names, phone numbers, and web contacts.
This week marks the anniversary of our US Constitution, the oldest democratic constitution still in use. By God's grace, this document has protected freedoms within our country for over 200 years and has been a light of freedom across the globe as well.
Besides pausing to appreciate this treasure this week, please take a few minutes to help uphold these rights. We are asking you to call those Congressmen who have not committed to sponsoring the parental rights amendment yet and ask them to "get off the fence". We would also hope that you can tell at least one other person to do the same. Together we may keep our rights to raise our children according to the values and beliefs that we hold dear. Without each other, we may lose those rights to our government.
During this time we must also remember that the Constitution is only a piece of paper and "we, the people" are entrusted to uphold its principles and to hold government accountable to these principles.
"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." -- Daniel Webster (1834) "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" -- either Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry ?
Our parental rights to raise our children according to a heritage of values and beliefs that we hold dear is now at stake on a bartering block for the noble cause of "child rights". If we do not pay the price for their hearts and minds, their future will pay the price of our negligence.
The smallest token you can deposit in the bank of freedom this week is to call your Congressmen if they haven't committed to sponsor the Parental Rights Amendment yet. Go to THIS PAGE and, if your Congressmen is NOT a sponsor, call and urge them to join this battle.
You can find out who your Congressmen are by going to THIS LINK and typing in your address or zip code. It will give you names, phone numbers, and web contacts.
Monday, August 17, 2009
We are not in Kansas anymore!
Often, we find that someone we expect to be an ally, has placed themselves in opposition to our method while maintaining the same goal as we hold dear. Much frustration arises as we struggle to understand why we must work at odds rather than working together towards a goal we both profess and seek wholeheartedly. This has become a common experience in working to protect parental rights in our nation from the threat of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is hard enough to fight against the treaty’s advocates, but to feel betrayed by fellow parents that argue blatantly against your plan of defense against the common foe. The need for a Parental Rights Amendment seems so clear that no one could possibly accuse it of being as dangerous as the United Nations’ plan for raising your children according to their values. However, a number of sincere and outspoken advocates for parental rights are doing just this. At first, this was both irritating and confusing. Then, the key to understanding our divergence was found and unlocked the mystery.
In reading their arguments, one finds good evidence and some good reasoning, but one must look for what is not there. There are several areas of evidence that weigh heavily in the debate which are left out. Suddenly, it is clear. They are operating under the past assumptions of law, society, and precedent. Their plans for defending against the government’s intrusion into family life might work under past laws and national settings. However, today, the vague laws of the past which allowed parents to slide through loopholes of ambiguity or hide in the shadows of vagueness are all but obsolete. The authors of the laws learned from their mistakes and are regrouping with sharper edges on the laws and harder to find loopholes. A simple request for proof of a legal statute in the past was met with authorities backing down as they had nothing to show. However, today, the authorities are coming with stronger laws that can be enforced. Hiding in the shadows will no longer work. Parents need a stronger law than the authorities and a constitutional amendment is just the needed tool to protect parents and their children from the government.
Let us not forget one other significant change that many of the anti-amendment types have overlooked. In the past, parents faced simple local and state laws. They were poorly worded as described earlier and being at a lower level of government, they were often easier to bypass or overturn. Today, parents face international law, forged in the meetings of international intellects and experts. The laws are crafted much sharper, extend further into the previously safe shadows, and leave no holes through which to slip. If that is not threatening enough, they are infiltrating our country through activist judges without any approval by American citizens or without any warning. New York state and Ohio have already witnessed such use of international law to judge against American parents even without any ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The hope of hiding should be clearly extinguished by now.
With these contemporary realities in mind, the need for the Parental Rights Amendment should be abundantly clear. The amendment protects against international law in our own courts by section 3 which says that no international treaty nor source of international law can supercede or modify this parental right. The amendment also protects parents in the international courts which follow the Vienna Convention of International Law where such language of section 3 affords similar protection. We are no longer living in Kansas and we must face the realities of what is before us as Dorothy did in the land of Oz. What worked in Kansas won’t work today as we face the United Nations and international law.
Often, we find that someone we expect to be an ally, has placed themselves in opposition to our method while maintaining the same goal as we hold dear. Much frustration arises as we struggle to understand why we must work at odds rather than working together towards a goal we both profess and seek wholeheartedly. This has become a common experience in working to protect parental rights in our nation from the threat of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is hard enough to fight against the treaty’s advocates, but to feel betrayed by fellow parents that argue blatantly against your plan of defense against the common foe. The need for a Parental Rights Amendment seems so clear that no one could possibly accuse it of being as dangerous as the United Nations’ plan for raising your children according to their values. However, a number of sincere and outspoken advocates for parental rights are doing just this. At first, this was both irritating and confusing. Then, the key to understanding our divergence was found and unlocked the mystery.
In reading their arguments, one finds good evidence and some good reasoning, but one must look for what is not there. There are several areas of evidence that weigh heavily in the debate which are left out. Suddenly, it is clear. They are operating under the past assumptions of law, society, and precedent. Their plans for defending against the government’s intrusion into family life might work under past laws and national settings. However, today, the vague laws of the past which allowed parents to slide through loopholes of ambiguity or hide in the shadows of vagueness are all but obsolete. The authors of the laws learned from their mistakes and are regrouping with sharper edges on the laws and harder to find loopholes. A simple request for proof of a legal statute in the past was met with authorities backing down as they had nothing to show. However, today, the authorities are coming with stronger laws that can be enforced. Hiding in the shadows will no longer work. Parents need a stronger law than the authorities and a constitutional amendment is just the needed tool to protect parents and their children from the government.
Let us not forget one other significant change that many of the anti-amendment types have overlooked. In the past, parents faced simple local and state laws. They were poorly worded as described earlier and being at a lower level of government, they were often easier to bypass or overturn. Today, parents face international law, forged in the meetings of international intellects and experts. The laws are crafted much sharper, extend further into the previously safe shadows, and leave no holes through which to slip. If that is not threatening enough, they are infiltrating our country through activist judges without any approval by American citizens or without any warning. New York state and Ohio have already witnessed such use of international law to judge against American parents even without any ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The hope of hiding should be clearly extinguished by now.
With these contemporary realities in mind, the need for the Parental Rights Amendment should be abundantly clear. The amendment protects against international law in our own courts by section 3 which says that no international treaty nor source of international law can supercede or modify this parental right. The amendment also protects parents in the international courts which follow the Vienna Convention of International Law where such language of section 3 affords similar protection. We are no longer living in Kansas and we must face the realities of what is before us as Dorothy did in the land of Oz. What worked in Kansas won’t work today as we face the United Nations and international law.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Seeing More Clearly Now
I have struggled to listen many times as well intentioned and bright individuals argue that a Parental Rights Amendment would just open the door to federal control of our families instead of closing it. Often, the evidence that seemed so clear to me, only led them further down their line of reasoning and further away from agreeing with my stance. Then over the course of two or three days, several clarifying points hit me, allowing me to understand how we could see the same evidence and yet come to such polar opposite conclusions. From that illuminating point onward, I looked backward and began to see clearly where the divergences occurred.
A most significant discovery was that to some, most if not all laws are “bad”. Their automatic presupposition was that a new law inherently by its nature either creates limits on liberty or forces actions undesired by the affected citizen. Liberty to them has a great value, and I agree with them on that point. However, while recognizing the great worth of liberty, I recognize the wisdom of our nation’s founders as they understood that liberty does not reside securely in chaos, but in order. The chaos of anarchy, or absence of some degree of governmentally imposed order, offers no guarantee of liberty except to the strongest and wealthiest. They would respond that liberty neither resides in the shadow of a tyrannical government. I agree quite wholeheartedly. Are we then at an impasse?
While liberty finds no security in anarchy nor tyranny, it finds its most secure home in an ordered society where a limited government safeguards the rights of minorities while granting freedom to the majorities. If this is so, then laws are not inherently evil as their perspective proclaims. Yes, laws can be bad, but they are not inherently evil by nature. Laws are only as good as the people that make up the government which creates them. If those of the “all law is bad” persuasion can move past their above revealed presuppositions, they might see some value in an amendment protecting parental rights. While they may still not agree with the exact wording, they could see some value, at least enough to provide constructive input into creating an even better amendment (if such exists) rather than simply dismissing its potential benefit. Then rather than struggling against those such as myself who also seek to protect our parental rights, we could combine our efforts, wisdom, insight, and creativity to fight our real foe, those who want to steal that parental right from us.
A most significant discovery was that to some, most if not all laws are “bad”. Their automatic presupposition was that a new law inherently by its nature either creates limits on liberty or forces actions undesired by the affected citizen. Liberty to them has a great value, and I agree with them on that point. However, while recognizing the great worth of liberty, I recognize the wisdom of our nation’s founders as they understood that liberty does not reside securely in chaos, but in order. The chaos of anarchy, or absence of some degree of governmentally imposed order, offers no guarantee of liberty except to the strongest and wealthiest. They would respond that liberty neither resides in the shadow of a tyrannical government. I agree quite wholeheartedly. Are we then at an impasse?
While liberty finds no security in anarchy nor tyranny, it finds its most secure home in an ordered society where a limited government safeguards the rights of minorities while granting freedom to the majorities. If this is so, then laws are not inherently evil as their perspective proclaims. Yes, laws can be bad, but they are not inherently evil by nature. Laws are only as good as the people that make up the government which creates them. If those of the “all law is bad” persuasion can move past their above revealed presuppositions, they might see some value in an amendment protecting parental rights. While they may still not agree with the exact wording, they could see some value, at least enough to provide constructive input into creating an even better amendment (if such exists) rather than simply dismissing its potential benefit. Then rather than struggling against those such as myself who also seek to protect our parental rights, we could combine our efforts, wisdom, insight, and creativity to fight our real foe, those who want to steal that parental right from us.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Congressional Visits
Hello to all parents,
Last week we called on everyone to contact their congressmen by phone or e-mail to let them know that parents should not lose their rights to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Now we are looking for parents willing to join us in meeting face to face with our Senators and Representatives. Please contact me at parentalrightstn@fastmail.net to find out how you can join us in August during their congressional recess.
If you have not heard about this threat, go to www.parentalrights.org to learn how those in our federal government are working to ratify a UN treaty that would place the government above parents regarding the right to raise children. This sounds far-fetched, but so has a number of other federal actions of late. Government Motors (GM), Bank Takeovers, and next Papa Government - Grandpa United Nations. If you doubt it, check out the website or ask me by e-mail to explain more.
Sincerely,
Eric Potter MD
Last week we called on everyone to contact their congressmen by phone or e-mail to let them know that parents should not lose their rights to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Now we are looking for parents willing to join us in meeting face to face with our Senators and Representatives. Please contact me at parentalrightstn@fastmail.net to find out how you can join us in August during their congressional recess.
If you have not heard about this threat, go to www.parentalrights.org to learn how those in our federal government are working to ratify a UN treaty that would place the government above parents regarding the right to raise children. This sounds far-fetched, but so has a number of other federal actions of late. Government Motors (GM), Bank Takeovers, and next Papa Government - Grandpa United Nations. If you doubt it, check out the website or ask me by e-mail to explain more.
Sincerely,
Eric Potter MD
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Good Morning Tennessee!
I want to post an important "Call to Action" for Parental Rights here on my blog. Please read below and consider joining other voices across Tennessee in standing for parental rights.
-----------------------------------------
July Congressional Contact Campaign
As citizens of this great state and noble country, we must be eternally vigilant in holding our leaders accountable to those whom they serve. Our U.S. Congressmen serve as a privilege, not a right, and owe their constituents a respectful ear.
In order to win our battle for Parental Rights, we must interact with our U.S. Congressmen in a clear and forceful manner, yet respectful of the duty they carry out. We are therefore planning a phone campaign for July 21-23 (NOTE: 1 day shift from last e-mail update in order to coordinate across the nation) to all our Congressmen, both Representatives and Senators. For those who have not committed their support to the Parental Rights Amendment, we will ask their stance on the issue, explain concisely our reasons against the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and ask for them to join as a cosponsor of the amendment. For the handful of Tennessee Representatives who have pledged their support, we want to e-mail a simple "I want to thank Rep. ________ for their support of American Parents in their sponsorship of the Parental Rights Amendment." For a simple script on how to talk with your Congressman about this issue, go to Forms and Flyers and click on the link titled " Easy Script for Calling Congressmen". To find your US congressmen's contact information, go to www.congress.org or click Forms and Flyers above and click on "Tennessee Call to Action".
Please join the voices of other parents across Tennessee on one of these three days in July. Together our voices will be heard.
I want to post an important "Call to Action" for Parental Rights here on my blog. Please read below and consider joining other voices across Tennessee in standing for parental rights.
-----------------------------------------
July Congressional Contact Campaign
As citizens of this great state and noble country, we must be eternally vigilant in holding our leaders accountable to those whom they serve. Our U.S. Congressmen serve as a privilege, not a right, and owe their constituents a respectful ear.
In order to win our battle for Parental Rights, we must interact with our U.S. Congressmen in a clear and forceful manner, yet respectful of the duty they carry out. We are therefore planning a phone campaign for July 21-23 (NOTE: 1 day shift from last e-mail update in order to coordinate across the nation) to all our Congressmen, both Representatives and Senators. For those who have not committed their support to the Parental Rights Amendment, we will ask their stance on the issue, explain concisely our reasons against the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and ask for them to join as a cosponsor of the amendment. For the handful of Tennessee Representatives who have pledged their support, we want to e-mail a simple "I want to thank Rep. ________ for their support of American Parents in their sponsorship of the Parental Rights Amendment." For a simple script on how to talk with your Congressman about this issue, go to Forms and Flyers and click on the link titled " Easy Script for Calling Congressmen". To find your US congressmen's contact information, go to www.congress.org or click Forms and Flyers above and click on "Tennessee Call to Action".
Please join the voices of other parents across Tennessee on one of these three days in July. Together our voices will be heard.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is destructive to the tradition of parental rights in America. The treaty sets what appears to the casual reader to be a benign standard in its Article 3 of seeking the “best interest of the child” which is hard to disagree with. Later it adds Article 18, which places the government in the role of delegating to parents the "responsibility" to raise their children. Obviously, if the government "gives" that right, it can determine how parents should carry out that responsibility and hold them accountable. Article 6 of our own constitution then makes this international human rights treaty, if ratified by 67 of our U.S. Senators, the Supreme Law of the Land, practically equal to the constitution. The only recourse of protection from this “supremacy” is explicit wording denying it in our own Constitution which I will explain in the future. Scanning through the rest of the treaty, one finds what the United Nations defines as the “best interests of the child” and these definitions may startle most of you (at least I hope you understand it well enough to see the underlying reality). The government will decide what is best for your child based on this treaty. The treaty guarantees protection of privacy to children even in their own home. The treaty encourages children to appeal parental decisions, with which they disagree, to government authorities as final arbiters. The government is charged with protecting the child’s right to access information deemed “best” for them. The government is also charged with overseeing the education of children. Given their current success in education or lack of it, this should be frightening to all, whether home schooled or private schooled or even in public schools. And one last note, the government will protect your child’s right to health care which according to other U.N. treaties and practices, will mean contraceptive access and abortion without parental consent. Ultimately, the government becomes the decision maker and the parent simply must carry out the values and intent of the government.
A simple way to understand this is: the federal government is the new parent, the United Nations is the grandparent, and we, the parents, become the babysitters, carrying out the government's instructions.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Parental Rights in Jeopardy
Welcome to my inaugral entry into blog moderation.
In the past four months, I have undergone a transformation which I recommend for all parents that cherish their freedoms. The quiet, yet fretful, father-physician, that I once was, has metamorphosized into a unquenchably passionate activist, addicted to defending our right to parent. Every effect requires a cause, and such a powerful effect requires an equally great cause.
With that introduction, I come to my point, "What was the cause of my metamorphosis?" In February, I learned of a threat to the American way of life so great that I could no longer linger in my intentional denial of the changes taking place in our country. That was when I learned of the forces gathering to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I will not provide the details now, but I will strip away those layers of flesh to reveal the heart of this issue that provides me with such passion and motivation.
The heart of the issue is bound up in the consequences of ideas. All ideas have consequences; they do not happen in a vaccum, devoid of impact. The idea here is the philosophy that government, its officials, its experts, its bureaucracy, and all their trappings know what is best for the individual citizen and furthermore should force it upon them. Despite the antithetical nature of this philosophy to the foundations of America's republican form of government, many Americans are promoting this philosophy in the form of this United Nations treaty. They sincerely believe that they, in their roles of government leadership and expert opinion, know better than a child's own parents what is best for the individual child. They reach beyond claiming knowledge of the best common good and intrude into decisions for the individual good of families, particularly the children.
By claiming this superior wisdom and seeking the power of this treaty to implement it in our great nation, they will strip parents of the very right to pass values, tradition, and beliefs to their next generation. They claim high motives of protecting against child abuse, protecting from unhealthy influences by parents, assuring the proper education of all children, and so much more. They practically claim that they will provide salvation of all that is bad in the world for children. This mostly means salvation from parents and parental influence.
There I find myself, engulfed in the flames of passion, hearing forces claiming that we as parents do not possess the wisdom nor the intention to provide what they deem "best" for our own children. I will give up many privileges, many perks, many luxuries, but I will never, ever, give up the right to raise my children and direct the provision of all that is good for their growth into mature citizens of our great nation.
Therefore, I work against this United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child and for a Parental Rights Amendment which I believe after much research is our best hope against the gathering forces for the treaty.
Please refer to www.parentalrights.org for further background on this treaty. If you live in Tennessee, search Tennessee on that website for our Tennessee webpage.
In the past four months, I have undergone a transformation which I recommend for all parents that cherish their freedoms. The quiet, yet fretful, father-physician, that I once was, has metamorphosized into a unquenchably passionate activist, addicted to defending our right to parent. Every effect requires a cause, and such a powerful effect requires an equally great cause.
With that introduction, I come to my point, "What was the cause of my metamorphosis?" In February, I learned of a threat to the American way of life so great that I could no longer linger in my intentional denial of the changes taking place in our country. That was when I learned of the forces gathering to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I will not provide the details now, but I will strip away those layers of flesh to reveal the heart of this issue that provides me with such passion and motivation.
The heart of the issue is bound up in the consequences of ideas. All ideas have consequences; they do not happen in a vaccum, devoid of impact. The idea here is the philosophy that government, its officials, its experts, its bureaucracy, and all their trappings know what is best for the individual citizen and furthermore should force it upon them. Despite the antithetical nature of this philosophy to the foundations of America's republican form of government, many Americans are promoting this philosophy in the form of this United Nations treaty. They sincerely believe that they, in their roles of government leadership and expert opinion, know better than a child's own parents what is best for the individual child. They reach beyond claiming knowledge of the best common good and intrude into decisions for the individual good of families, particularly the children.
By claiming this superior wisdom and seeking the power of this treaty to implement it in our great nation, they will strip parents of the very right to pass values, tradition, and beliefs to their next generation. They claim high motives of protecting against child abuse, protecting from unhealthy influences by parents, assuring the proper education of all children, and so much more. They practically claim that they will provide salvation of all that is bad in the world for children. This mostly means salvation from parents and parental influence.
There I find myself, engulfed in the flames of passion, hearing forces claiming that we as parents do not possess the wisdom nor the intention to provide what they deem "best" for our own children. I will give up many privileges, many perks, many luxuries, but I will never, ever, give up the right to raise my children and direct the provision of all that is good for their growth into mature citizens of our great nation.
Therefore, I work against this United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child and for a Parental Rights Amendment which I believe after much research is our best hope against the gathering forces for the treaty.
Please refer to www.parentalrights.org for further background on this treaty. If you live in Tennessee, search Tennessee on that website for our Tennessee webpage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)