The information contained on these pages is intended to awaken you to the reality we face as parents today. Our nation is steadily marching towards the loss of freedom for parents to direct the education and upbringing of their own children. Please read carefully and share broadly so that as more and more parents realize the present danger, our voices can combine to put a stop to this insanity.

Monday, August 8, 2011

Y-Peer, Advocates for Youth Abortion and Legal Prostitution

None of you likely know what or who "Y-Peer" is. Neither did I until tonight. Y-Peer is a United Nations Population Fund initiative organizing youth across the globe as advocates and educators in the area of sexual and reprodutive health. Many believe that the crisis of youth sexually transmitted diseases necessitates such leadership by our youth. Prima facie, this approach brushes aside the primary role parents should play in the education of their children. Beyond that, a statement by this multi-continent organization implies that it supports abortion for "youth" and decriminilization of prostitution and drug abuse. Further below is a quote from the organization confirmed on their own website which provides evidence in supoprt of this allegation. As often is the case, such objectionable ideas are buried within a gauntlet of less offensive, even sympathy producing issues. These are the forces which are facing us as parents and which threaten to indoctrinate our children with sexual filth and perversity. For more commentary on this organization's controversial statement, go HERE or HERE. (Even if you don't read the link, clicking on it will raise its rating in internet search engines)

“Young women’s health is threatened by policies and services that do not provide life-saving access to family planning and contraception. It is vital to implement key effective measures in the continuum of care for maternal health, including access to safe abortion...The rights of marginalized young people, including those who are living with HIV, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, young men who have sex with men, sex workers, injecting drug users, disabled youth, young people in crisis situations and other vulnerable youth continue to be violated through policies and programmes that criminalize them and ignore their specific needs.”

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Kentucky Third Graders Searched by Teacher

A couple of basic elements in building successful relationships are trust and respect. It starts at a very young age. If adults show trust and respect toward young children, then the kids are more likely to do the same in return. Well, some authority figures (a.k.a: teachers) in Kentucky don’t understand that concept. When an envelope containing $5 for a school function went missing from the teacher’s desk, it was time to find which 3rd grade student was the thief. What better way to handle the issue then to line the kids up, ask them to remove their socks, search their pockets and in some cases pat them down. Some of these teachers have been watching too many episodes of “COPS.” There are very few reasons why a teacher needs to physically touch a student. A missing $5 does not make that list in my book.

Read the entire story HERE.

Monday, August 1, 2011

Your Rights with DCS (by Nathan Tutor)

A family I know of recently had a visit from their local Department of Child Services (DCS) to respond to an allegation of abuse of their children. Turns out that they were seen 'abusing' the child in public by administering corporal punishment in their car in the parking lot. Despite their insistence of the proper loving use of correction as per their religious convictions, they were visited and investigated by these 'child protection' services. They were made to think that the authority granted this agency was final.

This article on a Connecticut law put in place this summer highlights the jurisdiction granted to these departments and the scope of their legal authority. As you can read, this authority is limited and the parent has the right to an attorney and the right to limit the conversation with the agency to a simple, 'Thanks for coming. My people will talk to your people." In short, this law puts the authority of the child into the hands of the parents at this initial stage.

In Tenessee, the laws for child services are complicated and strong. A quick web search for 'tn child abuse' will produce article after article about horrible situations of parental neglect and abuse of a child. The document (HERE) for 'clients' (parents) to understand the departments procedures seems innocent enough at first, but careful reading will soon reveal that the parent has little or no recourse should the department 'deem' it necessary to take a particular action. It is clear that the parents serve the department and that the burden of proof is on the parents.

Knowing your rights should you be faced with allegations will help you in taking appropriate steps and help you to navigate the initial, and subsequent, interactions with the agencies involved.

Guest post by Nathan Tutor

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Child Protective Services and Obese Children

The past week saw a signficant increase in the number of search engine hits for obese children and intervention, but it wasn't to report some new medial breakthrough in their care. Rather, this attention was spurred by a recent Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) article, recommending the removal of a small number of morbidly obese children from their parents when they are believed to be in imminent danger. There are a number of serious discussion growing out of this particular article, but it is also accompanied by a considerable amount of name calling come from various directions in the comment sections. In contrast, I hope to provide my readers with some questions to challenge the articles in a logical and much needed manner.

Overall, as the article itself (and another article from Pediatrics in 2009), emphasizes, childhood obesity is a serious problem that is affecting more and more children across our nation. No one can seriously argue that we are not facing an epidemic. These morbidly obese children are facing diabetes, sleep apnea, hypertension not only in their future adulthood, but sometimes beginning in their childhood. With such staggering numbers growing and with such serious consequences, most agree that something must be done. The problem begins here, with the simple question "What do we do?"

Therefore, a goal of the proposed intervention should be stated. Do we aim for a perfect weight? Do we aim for a threshold of weight loss? Do we just try to avoid the comorbidities listed above? Before implementing any solution, we need a reasonable target. The article from Pediatrics provides a somewhat clearer picture of its purpose in contrast to the JAMA article which discussed the importance of avoiding complications but did not put this into a simple purpose statement. The Pediatrics article proposes a target of avoiding the complications of morbid obese which present an immediate threat to the child's health. This seems reasonable at face value prior to a closer scrutiny.

The closer scrutiny asks two questions: First, "Is the intervention effective at reaching this goal?" In the case of removing a child from their families in order to treat their obesity, case studies are presented, but no study is presented as anything near conclusive evidence. Basically, the authors are saying that they once knew a patient with this condition that benefitted from this intervention. It worked for them, so it should work for everyone else just as well. To their credit, the authors of the Pediatrics article try to address successful strategies such as lifestyle interventions, medical therapies, and surgical therapies. However, neither article provides any study level evidence that removing children from their parents is either effective for the stated problem, or is effective without producing harmful effects in other important areas of a child's life. They seem to be advocating for something rather untested, basing their claims mainly on anecdotal evidence. That concerns me greatly.

The second question is "Is that target worth the cost of the intervention or solution?" This addresses something alluded to above: what side effects may occur from this intervention. If I prescribe a pill for a patient, they are reasonable to ask what are the side effects. If they advocate removing children from their parents, it is reasonable, if not a requirement to ask "What ill effects may be predicted by this intervention?" Obviously, there are a number of potential harms from this intervention. Removing children from the parents to whom they are dearly attached and placing them in foster homes may not result in long term benefits overall even if weight is lost. Our foster system is not able to absorb these vulnerable children nor care for the stigma such a placement will entail.

I hope to revisit this issue soon, but so far I am not convinced by the arguments or proofs found in these articles. I have not heard convincing reasons to overturn the fundamental rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their own children.

Monday, July 18, 2011

Stimulus Money for Education

I find information from a number of sites for this newsletter and usually summarize them before inviting you to read further at your leisure with a link. This time I will only provide a teaser riddle and a link to the full story.

How much brainwashing can be purchased in Nebraska with $130,000 of Obama's stimulus money? GO HERE to find out!

Friday, July 15, 2011

Homosexual Role Models in Textbooks

Have you ever wondered who decides how material is chosen for inclusion into school textbooks? There is so much for children to learn, yet so little time. Who is the all knowing wizard that selects or rejects each bit of information for these textbooks which are then spread across 50 states to "educate" the children of our great nation. I am no expert on this issue, but what I have heard as the answer to this question does not surprise me one bit. As the largest states, Texas and California's educational systems determine what information is included in textbooks. If the textbook producers want to sell their textbooks, California and Texas are the two biggest customers. Always please the customer, especially the big ones!

Who cares? Why write an article about this? Well, it goes like this. The California Senate passes Senate Bill 48 that requires that textbooks includes teaching about homosexual figures in the social studies classes. (the so-called FAIR Education bill also prohibits the inclusion of "homophobic" material in the historical lessons of books). If the governor signs the bill, then California will need textbooks with positively portrayed homosexual figures included in social studies books. Book publishers will produce the books and sell them to California as well as across the nation. Abracadabra and there you have homosexuality dressed up for our nation's school children.

In a LifeSite.News article, Archbishop Jose Gomez from Los Angeles had this to say about the bill:

"...forcing schoolchildren to learn about historical figures and their sexual orientation without parental consent "amounts to the government rewriting history books based on pressure-group politics. It is also another example of the government interfering with parents' rights to be their children's primary educators." "

I am thankful that we homeschool and therefore do not need such textbooks, but maybe you know someone whose children attend public schools and need to know about this story. Consider passing it on to them and start a discussion about this threat to our children's moral future.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Sexual Freedom and Your Child

The International Planned Parenthood Federation has released some alarming new educational material concerning the sexual rights of youths according to international law. "Exclaim!" and "I Decide" have been released as the the UN Youth conference is nearing and provide some scary insights into what Planned Parenthood believes is best for our children. I am printing out Exclaim for closer reading as I type this, but a LifeNews article, which is what originally sparked my curiosity, provided some initial understanding of this sexual indoctrination propaganda.

Here is a quote from the article describing Exclaim!

"The guide also contains some self-contradictions. It cites the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,Article 5 that states, "Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents." However, the guide insists that parents and the State are legally responsible for promoting a worldview and values that are held distinctively by IPPF. The guide demands liberalized abortion, self-identified (rather than biological) gender on identification papers, unrestricted access to contraceptives, and various other contentious claims."

The article also describes how Exclaim! uses the Convention on the Rights of the Child to promote sexual rights for youth:

"Although no right to sex or sexual pleasure exists in binding international documents, the guide goes through a list of human rights found in international law and explains how they can be read as sexual rights. Under the "right to know and learn" includes "bringing an end to abstinence-only sex education programs and promoting evidence informed approaches to comprehensive sexuality education.""

After reading Exclaim! and I Decide, I hope to provide further insight into these horrendous educational instruments. STAY TUNED!

Tuesday, June 28, 2011


In preparation for the launch of our summer campaign, we now need to recruit a "social networking army". If you blog, tweet, post, and so forth, we will need your help this summer. (If this sounds like Greek to you, relax - we will find you something else to do!)

To Join our social networking army, use the followling links to connect to us (or email the national office at Michael@parentalrights.org)

Facebook Fan Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/parentalrightsorg

Twitter feed: http://www.twitter.com/ParentalRights

Squidoo Lens: http://www.squidoo.com/supporting-the-u-s-parental-rights-amendment

RSS Feed: http://www.10and2.org/feed2.xml


Michael Ramey

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Canada's Attempt To Develop A Universal Early Learning and Child Care Program Based On UN CRC

According to Martha Friendly with the Childcare Resource and Research Unit at University of Toronto, as of 2006, Canada still needed to be more dedicated to finding ways to commit to the UN CRC as it relates to early learning and child care. She feels that the sections of the UN CRC relevant to early learning should be followed in the most dedicated ways by the Canadian government. In her opinion, the federal and provincial governments need to regulate all early learning programs in order to provide the elements needed for all children. For children are citizens who and have rights and voices that need to be respected. She feels that Canada needs to develop a system for a universal high quality early learning and child care program.

Ms. Friendly covers the political history of early learning and child care throughout Canada and points out the specific areas of the UN CRC that pertain to it. She includes numerous statistics and a variety of quotes from research that appear to support her argument. From her vantage point, there does not appear to be any negative elements for Canada (and the rest of the world) to fully support the UN CRC when it comes to caring and educating young children.

What if this attitude was acted upon here in the United States? There are already people in powerful political positions who feel that the UN CRC is an ideal and much needed aspect for our lives. Can you imagine the enormous financial impact that a national state-supported child care program could have on us here in our nation? As if we don't have enough on our debt plates as it is. And if the program is federally funded, then we would be required to follow whatever requirements it entailed. That in itself is a very scary thought. Another example of the government knowing how to raise our children better than us, their parents.

(by John Robinson, contributing author)

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

No Oversight for Judicial Bypass that Allows Adolescent Abortions

Lifenews reported recently on an attempt by Texas Right to Life to close the judicial bypass loophole for pregnant adolescents to easily obtain an abortion. House bill 2555 by Representative Fred Brown (R-College Station) was intended to strengthen parental involvement in adolescent pregnancies through removal of the judicial bypass procedure and strengthening parental notification law. The 82nd Legistlative Session adjourned without acting as key members of the legislature "are not convinced that the state paying for counsel to help minors undergo secret abortions is a problem.

In reading this article, something else jumped out at me besides the failure to pass this legislation. This judicial bypass procedure for adolescent girls to obtain an abortion is "the only court proceeding not reported or tracked by the state's Office of Court Administration (OCA)." Without such tracking, we do not know how many bypasses are sought, denied, nor how are these decisions made? It all happens in a proverbial dark alley with no way to review or study the process and its outcomes. We don't even know the cost which taxpayers are paying for attorneys, fees, etc. Are these bypasses always granted is another question that remains unanswered?

Ultimately, children are moved through a process that impacts their long term emotional, physical, and spiritual well being, yet we have no way of knowing any statistics that would allow us to measure such impact. Somehow, I amsure they they want us to buy the line that this is all done in the "best interest of the child". Sorry, I just don't believe it!

Read the entire story HERE.

Monday, June 20, 2011

Part 27: More of What You Can Do

From there, begin to do what your pastor has always said to not do: GOSSIP. We need you to tell everyone you know about this issue. Only with your voice sharing this alert will we reach our goal. As our numbers build, there will then come a time that we will ask you to call our Senators and your US Representatives. When the Parental Rights Amendment is presented to Congress in the coming 1 to 2 months, we will need people to call and ask their elected congressmen to sign on as a supporter of the amendment.

Those are the basic requests that we have for you, but you may still be asking for more action items. Here are a few more. If you search the net for "parental rights" or "UN Convention on the Rights of the Child" (or just click on the article links that I send), you can leave comments on these sites in support of the amendment. This traffic draws attention to the issue and helps our cause. If you have your own blog, please consider copying one of my posts or write your own piece on the issue. The national organization has memberships on their site which help support the cause and have a store to buy T-shirts, etc. Beyond that, I am looking for speakers, willing to study the issue and take their newfound knowledge out for sharing with different groups across Tennessee. If that strikes your fancy, email me at parentalrightstn@fastmail.net.

Monday, June 6, 2011

Canadian Attacks on Homeschoolers

(by John Robinson, contributing author)

As we know, there are attempts to limit parental rights on a weekly basis. Another example is a Roman Catholic family living in Canada who was recently ordered to enroll their four homeschooled children ages 9, 7, 5 and 3 into public school for "socialization." After being reported to the Youth Protection Services (YPS) for neglect, Judge Nicole Bernier of Quebec, Canada ordered the children to stay in school or a daycare until a plan for socialization was approved by YPS.

Apparently, the judge denied access to a fair trial, one of which lasted four days in November 2010. The judge also refused to address the various studies that show the benefits of homeschooling. Paul Faris, president of the HSLDA of Canada issued a statement saying, "This is a shocking decision. Even more concerning is the judge's decision to order the younger children who were not of compulsory school age into day care for socialization."

To read the entire article, click HERE.

Saturday, June 4, 2011

New Zealand: Abortion and Prostitution for Children

(by Nathan Tutor, contributing author)

New Zealand may be a small, fairly unthought of island nation in the South Pacific, but it leads the western world in some of its socialistic principles. Long known and proud of its 'progressive' stance towards society and government, it has a firm grasp on the view that the best way to order culture is to allow the 'individual's' to rule themselves. Unfortunately, the only way to enforce this is to have the government rule over the individual so that they can assure that the individual rules...but I digress.

This article highlights the attempt to give the 'right' to rule their body to girls of almost any age. This 'right' is only valid if, in the eyes of New Zealand parliamentarians, the girls are free from any parental infringement. In the case of an abortion, the girl can get counsel and guidance, and even help, from public school counselors with not only the absence of parental consent, but parental knowledge. You can read the details for yourself but what you do not read, even in this revealing article is that these 'rights' for these girls doesn't extend only to the termination of the pregnancy but also to its conception. You see, in late 2003, while I was living and working in New Zealand, parliament legalized prostitution. They decided that the age for girls to obtain a license for prostitution would be 18 years old, but a loophole actually enforces that any girl under the age of 18 who engages in prostitution cannot be charged - so in effect, there is no illegal age to be a prostitute in New Zealand and no parental consent needed to do it. The prostitution bill was an attempt to increase tourism revenue by requiring licenses and taxes for the prostitution industry. So the abortion bill has been a way to mitigate the 'negative side effects' of prostitution and to limit the burden on the socialized medical system. And to be sure, there are as many politicians in the US who would welcome this kind of 'revenue' as there are in New Zealand. The issue is not about the 'rights of the individual', it is about the way to run a country.

It is up to the parents to look ahead at the agenda of social engineers and understand these issues and stand up for their parental rights.

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Part 26: What You Can Do

We have spent many weeks walking through this presentation of our parental rights in jeopardy. I pray that you have reached the point of pleading for a way to contribute to this vital work. If not, go back and reread past posts or email me with your questions or reservations and we can talk. If you are pleading for something you can do, then keep reading below.
You have begun the first step already by learning about this issue. Continue reading more about this so that you can share what you learn with others. My blog will continue to provide news articles and learning opportunities as well as the national website. Next, sign the national petition at www.parentalrights.org. We are striving towards 10000 signatures in each congressional district across America so that we can stand before our congressmen and press them for their support of the amendment. We have somewhere over 7000 for the entire state of Tennessee currently.

Another simple thing is to invite one of our local speakers to one of your groups to share the message with your circle of friends. You provide a meeting place, the invitations, and some listening ears. We will provide the rest.

More Next Edition...

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

MTHEA Home Education Expo This Weekend

This weekend, May 20th and 21st, Middle Tennessee Home Education Association will be holding its annual Home Education Expo at the Tennessee State Fairgrounds (Click HERE for directions and more information). I will be representing Tennessee Parental Rights at the expo both days by setting up a booth. A handful of you have already volunteered to assist me at the booth by handing out flyers and talking to attendees about the threats we face to our families. I am praying for a few more. This is a great opportunity to alert others to this crucial issue and learn a little about it yourself. There really is not better way to become comfortabe with explaining this issue than talking to several dozen people if not a hundred about the issue. Just read the basics and join us for a few hours either day. I will be there to help with any difficult questions that someone may throw at you. There is absolutely no reason to be afraid.
If you would like to know more about this opportunity, please e-mail parentalrightstn@fastmail.net.

If you just want to learn more, you may also want to attend my seminar workshop about Parental Rights on Friday. Another other opportunity to learn is my seminar on Saturday "Biblical Parenting". I will spend about 30 minutes in teaching from Ephesians 6 and then open the floor for discussion. Please encourage others to attend either or both of these seminars.

Monday, May 16, 2011

Part 25: More Reasons to Support the Parental Rights Amendment

There are several other reasons why "only" the Parental Rights Amendment is sufficient to protect our children. Saying "no" to the UN CRC only postpones the trickle of international law already invading. Many of our nation's leaders already hold to the above described philosophies (that government knows what is best for your children and should impose it on your family), and therefore cannot be trusted in the area. The Parental Rights Amendment sets an enduring boundary of protection like other amendments have done for all future generations. Then we are able to and must stand up for our rights in the legislative and judicial arena with the sure footing of a constitutional right. Ideally we should be able to stand on our God ordained rights, but our government no longer recognizes the Bible as a standard of law and ethics. (We must work to change this also, but until we do so, we must approach parental rights with an amendment). Even the conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonio Scalia says that unwritten rights cannot be protected in the courts when he was discussing parental rights in the 2000 Supreme Court case of Troxel v. Granville. He bases this on a strict, literal interpretation of the constitution. This is in contrast to the "living constitution" theory of interpretation. With our new Supreme Court justices, we are likely in even greater danger. Therefore we have a multitude of reasons to support the Parental Rights Amendment to the US Constitution. We cannot wait until we lost any more influence in our government or it may be too late.

Friday, May 6, 2011

Breathalyzers for Adolescents at School

While many of you don't need another reason to persevere in homeschooling, I want you to be aware of a case of an adolescent's civil liberties being violated in Virginia. This article describes how an adolescent was forced to undergo a breathalyzer test at school when two unidentified students reported that she was drinking alcohol at school. Despite her mother being a school teacher and easily accessible, no one contacted the mother.

This "suspect state" in schools creates opportunities for further civil liberty infringements. Parents must say no to the disregard for these liberties before we lose even more of our freedoms.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Where will your adolescent daughter get abortion advice?

While scanning the internet for parental rights articles, I ran across an article describing a potentially concerning site, MariaTalks. The site itself is centered on an 18yo girl who provides sex related information and calls herself a "sexpert". The article which alerted me to this site was primarily concerned about the advice teens will receive from this site, specifically about abortion. I will provide two excerpts from the site to help you understand the problem this site poses:

"What’s important is how you feel about it {abortion}. One of my friends who had an abortion told me that it was a difficult decision to make, but she felt that it was the best choice she could make for herself, her boyfriend, her family, and her future."

"Can I get an abortion in Massachusetts if I’m under 18?
Ok, I totally know that this information can sound pretty intimidating and overwhelming, but I promise you the reality of getting an abortion is much easier than it sounds here. It may be really hard for you to imagine talking to either your parents or a judge about getting an abortion, but there are people who can help you through it."

Actually, the important thing is not how you feel about abortion. The important thing is whether it is right or wrong. But even by their standard here, they have forgotten how women often feel later. The second excerpt basically aids a teen in obtaining an abortion without parental consent. The existence of these abortion resources, not to mention other information on the site, should cause parents to take notice. We cannot sit back and allow the world to educate our children on sex. We must do the education and prevent them feeling like they need to look elsewhere for more information.

Oh, if this were not enough, the site is run by an AIDS Action Committee, although in my opinion this goes much further than addressing that issue alone. Could I tell you anything more annoying? Yes, the Massachusetts' Department of Public Health is funding this program with a 100,000 dollar grant. Government money spent to promote abortion and sex. Just wonderful !

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Part 24: The Final Answer to the UN CRC

Parental Rights.Org believes that we must close the door forever on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child by ratifying the Parental Rights Amendment. Before explaining why we believe this is the best option, please read the amendment itself:

Proposed Parental Rights Amendment

For the US Constitution

The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

This amendment is important because it provides explicit constitutional language to protect parental rights from government interference except in rare and extreme circumstances such as abuse and prevents international law such as the UN CRC from taking away those parental rights. The language for sections one and two are taken from two past US Supreme Court cases which ruled in favor of parental rights: Pierce v. Society of Sisters in 1925 and Wisconsin v. Yoder in 1972. Therefore the language was crafted by our own Supreme Court justices in the past and has a long history of legal understanding in the courts.

The amendment establishes parental rights as a fundamental right, the highest standard short of an absolute right which goes too far (an absolute right would protect child abusers from prosecution). It then adds section three which protects American parents from international law both in US courts and International Courts (according to Vienna Convention of Treaties, the highest standard for international law.) This section also protects against the threat of Customary International Law which I described earlier.

Next week, you will learn several more reasons that only the Parental Rights Amendment is an adequate response to the UN CRC and the worldview behind it.

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Rejoice in the little victories!

I am learning to thank God Almighty for every little victory and want to share a few with you. First, a showing of the documentary, "The Child", has led to many potentially fruitful blessings. One of those blessings is that a student-mother in the crowd was struck by the message and is intent on sharing her newfound wisdom with others. Another is that a new friend was made, a new friend who now shares this same passion for parenting that we do.

Second, from that new friendship, others will have the opportunity to see the documentary and hear the story as he shows "The Child" at his church next week.

Third, a number of parental rights defenders in west Tennessee took a first step towards our state's approval of the Parental Rights Amendment. They presented a resolution to a city commission in support of the amendment and argued it through to approval. This resolution sends the message to our state legislators that Tennesseans support the amendment and want their legislators to do so as well. May this movement spread throughout the country.

Thank you Father for your encouragement by way of these blessings above. May I never forget neither your goodness nor your command to raise children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.


Friday, April 22, 2011

The Opposition's Trumpet Call

I occasionally channel surf before bed, just to remind myself of the vacous content of today's programming. If I had a nickel for every crime show, I would retire very soon. However, last week, something struck me as different as I clicked from one crime scene to another. A commercial caused me to backpedal and watch with much greater horror than any of the murders on CSI. What could overcome such numbness to violence that our TVs produce?......

The 30 seconds of fear were words spoken in the language of human rights for children. These words to the untrained ear tweak the heartstrings like a St. Jude Children's Hospital commercial. To my ears, trained to discern the deception inherent in the words, "child rights", horror resounded as I realized the propaganda was beginning in earnest. This commercial if left unchallenged would convince millions of Americans, even parents, that we must join a false battle for children's futures. The need for the message of parental freedoms and the need for their defense echoed like a rumbling earthquake in my soul.

Trumpets are sounding for our opponents, calling others to join their fight. Will you join me in blowing our own call to arms?

To see the website procaiming the commerical's deception, go HERE. You will find the same rights that the UN CRC unabashedly promotes. They are not rights... They are definitely not freedoms... THEY ARE SLAVERY to the STATE!

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Who is watching your homeschooling?

If you live in the jurisdiction of the 13th Chancery district court in Mississippi, then Judge Joe Dale Walker is trying to watch your homeschooling, that's who! Earlier in April, Judge Walker issue a court order demanding school attendance officer provide a list of all homeschooling students in their districts. Why does he want such an unconstitutionally obtained list. There is some evidence that Judge Walker wants to crack down on those using homeschooling as a cover for deliquency, but it is quite interesting that his order does not seem to have originated in any specific court case. Apparently the mood hit him and he ordered it...
Thankfully, HSLDA responded and asked a higher court to block Judge Walker's court order. The higher court ordered the judge to respond by April 18th, explaining his actions. We are now waiting for the conclusion of this standoff which could have far reaching implications for many other sitations. If a judge can just demand a list of names such as Tea Party members, a specific religious group, or you name it, then our privacy will be non-existent.
For more information, go HERE.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

How should we respond as Americans, as parents and grandparents?

Winston Churchill's words from a different era are appropriate to describe the urgent need for our response.

"Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong-these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history."

We cannot mistake the signs of a present war regardless of the silence in which our opponents shroud their aims and actions. Churchill knew that a time would come when the Allies' opportunity would be past and no amount of effort could salvage a victory. We are in a similar predicament with the move towards government control of parenting. First, we must respond immediately by urging our Senators to cosponsor SR 99 if they are not already sponsors (GO HERE to find out) (please note that both of Tennessee's Senators are now sponsors despite Sen. Alexander not being updated on the website). This Senate resolution opposes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We have 34 sponsors which thwart the 67 needed for treaty ratification, but we want more commitments. Only one defector is needed to ratify the treaty, and therefore we want as many sponsors as we can obtain.

This is the first step to derail the UN CRC, but more is needed. Return soon for the most complete response to this threat against our children's futures.

Saturday, April 2, 2011

Obama's Plans for UN CRC Ratification

The following comes from a recent national Parental Rights.Org newsletter and reminds us why we can't sit back and trust our Senate to say no to the UN CRC.

"On March 10, the Obama administration told the UN Human Rights Council that it supports the UNHRC's recommendations that the United States should "ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child [CRC]." Moreover, the administration promised that it "intend[s] to review how we could move toward its ratification.""

The current administration does not care that American parents would vastly oppose this treaty if they had even the slightest understanding of it. They will spin this into a humanitarian jesture or something absurd in order to entice a few republicans over to vote forit. Then we are in even deeper water.

So why don't American parents stand up and stop it? BECAUSE you haven't told them what they need to know about this issue! The only thing needed for the CRC to win is our silence.

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Planned Parenthood Says UN CRC Supports Abortion for Children

This is an excerpt directly from a recent article by the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute. Please read and consider how this treaty is being used to open many other doors into our family life. This is just the tip of the iceberg.


(NEW YORK - C-FAM) International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) has started distributing a brochure to inform children that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has established for them an international right to abortion. (the underlines are my addition to highlight the worst of this).

According to the brochure, just posted on the IPPF website, both the CRC's recognition of a child's right to life as well as a child's right to health can be interpreted to mean that children should have access to abortion. For example, the CRC's broad right to health includes the right to "visit a doctor or nurse to receive the full range of sexual and reproductive health services that are available and legal in your country, including contraceptives [and] abortion services" Also, because children have a right to life, they must be protected from reproductive problems that could threaten their lives, "such as...unsafe [illegal] abortion."
The brochure also informs children that the CRC frees them from any parental interference in their sexual education or in the provision of reproductive services. Because children have a right to health, "No one should turn you away or stop you from receiving services, or demand that you get someone else's permission first (e.g. the permission of a parent)." The right to privacy means that "If you tell a medical person or a teacher something that you don't want anyone else to know, then he or she should respect your privacy."

According to IPPF, the CRC firmly establishes a child's right to complete sexual freedom and autonomy. As the brochure tells children, "You should be given wide-ranging and easy to understand information on sexual and reproductive issues that will let you feel comfortable with yourself, your body and your sexuality. This information should enable you to make your own decisions about your sexual and reproductive health."


Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Part 22: Even WIthout Ratification of the CRC

Many are naïve to think that all that is now necessary is to say "no" to the treaty. I wish it were that simple. There are other ways that this worldview can harm families even without the treaty. Even without ratification of the treaty, this deceitful philosophy is already permeating our culture, lying about parents' capacity to raise children. Even without the treaty we are sliding into destruction of the family. Even without ratification, Customary International Law threatens to bring this destructive philosophy of parenting into our country one legal precedent at a time.

Hopefully, in your mind right now, you are asking what must be done to put a stop to this horrible worldview and the treaty which puts it into writing. The next section will begin to answer those questions.

Friday, March 18, 2011

Tennessee Resolution Supporting Parental Rights Amendment

Over 40 states are somewhere in the process of passing resolutions in support of the the proposed federal Parental Rights Amendment. Tennessee will soon join that group. You will be hearing more about this push in our own state, so keep your eyes open. We will need your help in encouraging state legislators to support this resolution.

For information on other states' progress go HERE.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Part 21 When Will It Happen?

Tying these together, we have Biblical responsibilities and legal rights, yet are faced with a UN treaty wishing to intervene with those Biblical responsibilities by degrading those parental freedoms in how we raise our children. We see the worldview and the dangerous treaty which implements it, but when will it happen? How close is this storm that threatens the fabric of the family.

We have discussed the background, philosophy, and the treaty itself, but is there any real urgency to this issue. Yes, there are several reasons to be concerned that this treaty could rear its ugly head at any time. Our State Department is already processing this treaty for presentation to the US Senate. No one knows exactly when this will come, but keep it mind who wants the treaty to be ratified. President Obama supports it. Secretary of State Clinton has wanted it for a long time. Senator Susan Boxer has been pushing for the treaty. Our US Ambassador to the UN supports it. Several organizations are rallying behind the treaty and actively supporting it. Finally, a conference was even held at Georgetown University to strategize on how to get the treaty ratified.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Tennessee Homeschooling Laws

There is some good news on the horizon here in Tennessee. A homeschooling friendly bill, SB1468, was introduced in February by State Senator Mike Bell. As this HSDLA link summarizes, this bill would remove several regulations from homeschooling families in Tennessee. The bill is currently sitting in committee, but will likely benefit from your phone calls to state legislators when the bill moves further forward. Keep your eyes open for alerts to action on this bill.

For more information, you can find the State Legislature link

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Call Blitz for Tennessee's Senators

To All Tennessee Concerned Parents,
Last week, Senator Jim DeMint introduced SR99, a resolution opposing the ratification of the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child. He has 28 other original cosponosrs as well as 2 more Senators that signed up after the introduction. That makes 31 of the 34 we need to successfully stop any chance that the UN CRC will pass the Senate hurdle to ratification.
The bad news is that our two Tennessee Senators are not in that list of 31. Senator Alexander and Senator Corker have repeatedly resisted any firm commitment to oppose this horrendous treaty. We are asking you to call our two Senators this week and politely ask them to protect parental freedoms by signing on as a cosponsor of SR 99.
Stopping the UN CRC and the worldview behind it is essential for the future of our children. Please take the time to call our Senators and also to share this information with other parents and friends who will also call. If you want to read "Why Cosponsor S.R. 99?" before calling, go HERE. To read the bill itself, go HERE.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R)
D.C. Office: 202-224-4944
Click here for more contact information

Sen. Bob Corker
D.C. Office 202-224-3344
Click here for more contact information

If you have friends in other states that need to hear about this, send them this link to check if their Senators have signed up.

Sunday, March 13, 2011

NEA to UN: More Graphic Sex-Ed Needed

(Copied from national office newsletter)

Perhaps you thought public school sex education programs are graphic enough as it is. Not so, according to a statement by the National Education Association's (NEA) Diane Schneider to a U.N. panel last week. According to a report by C-FAM, Schneider told the audience at a panel on combating homophobia and transphobia that "[o]ral sex, masturbation and orgasms need to be taught in education," and that anyone opposing homosexuality is "stuck in a binary box that religion and family create."

In other words, schools need to rescue children from "indoctrination" by their parents and religion, and the U.N. should see that they do. Schneider also "claimed that the idea of sex education remains an oxymoron if it is abstinence-based, or if students are still able to opt out," the article states.

ParentalRights.org disagrees with the notion that schools know better than parents what is best for their children or what their children can handle. We disagree with the idea that schools should undo all the character building and value instilling that parents do at home. And we adamantly oppose the view that the United Nations should take a role in any of it. And we know you do, too.

For more information, go HERE.

Saturday, March 12, 2011

Part 20: International Hindsight

You might now object that these predictions are all theoretical. None of this could happen in America. Hopefully, the past few years of governmental intrusions into our lives have awoken you to the reality we now face that was previously inconceivable. If not, there is still hope for convincing you. In understanding the potential effects of this threat in our country, we have the benefit of hindsight by looking at other countries that did ratify the CRC.

We can look at resulting laws in other countries and the recommendations by the UN Committee formed by this treaty. This committee evaluates countries on a rotating basis, providing feedback on their compliance with the treaty. I earlier mentioned Japan where child privacy is so strongly protected; parents are restricted from their children's e-mail, texting, and chat rooms. In Sweden, time outs and spanking are not allowed and homeschooled children can be removed from parents. In the Netherlands, their idea of sex education begins at age 4. The committee told Belize that they needed to set up formal avenues for children to protect their parent' violations of these rights. In a almost laughable recommendation, the committee told Maldova, one of the world's poorest countries, to set up avenues for their children to be educated about their rights... while they are starving? The following final example was thankfully avoided. A governmental report, called the Badman Report was calling for stricter restrictions on homeschooling in Britain. They wanted the right to have social workers interview children in these homes without parents present. Yes, I said WITHOUT parents present.

Do we want this treaty to change American families for generations to come? If we are not careful, we may one day

become like France where school lunches are dictated by the government and parents are even told what to serve for dinner at home (Time article Feb 23, 2010)

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Smartphones may be "too Smart"

While I usually restrict these newsletters to policy and cultural issues regarding children, I believe that the following issue is important for parents with smartphones to know about. Did you know that if you snap your children's picture with your smartphone and then post it to social websites, someone can track the location of where that picture was taken. With several such pictures, someone could learn alot about your children that they could use to hurt your children. Do you want just anyone to know where you live, which playground your children visit, where they go to school, and more?

How does this happen? This YOUTUBE link plays a segment from an NBC news report that will shock you. This is real, not a hoax, not someone's conspiracy theory. Take it seriously.

Part 19: Review of Recent Sections

Recognizing that this series is long, I am providing a short review of the recent section on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We are left here with a foreign treaty becoming equal with our constitution and then telling us how to raise our God-given children through the force of our federal government. We will therefore lose our ability to pass a heritage of beliefs on to our next generation.

See here a link to past posts in this section.

Part 11: Section 1 of The Emerging Worldview that Threatens our Future Generations
Part 12: Section 2 of 4
Part 13: Section 3 of 4
Part 14: Section 4 of 4

Part 15: The Convention on the Rights of the Child Itself
Part 16: Foundational Articles of the CRC
Part 17: Specific Rights in the CRC
Part 18: To Be Fair to the CRC

To READ other parts of this series go to my blog Home page.

Monday, February 28, 2011

Part 18: To Be Fair to the CRC

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is not all bad. We can concede that it has some beneficial sections and effects. The treaty includes protections against sending children into war, against child prostitution/trafficking, as well as against child abuse. However in America, we already have laws that provide any miniscule benefit found in the treaty. Why should we swallow the poison of the bad parts just to ingest the thin chocolate coating mentioned here? To add some perspective to the silliness of other countries attacking America for not signing the full treaty, consider this: The optional sections of the treaty against sending children to war have been signed by the United States, but not by many of the same countries chastising us. They want us to ratify the treaty yet they cannot even agree to this fundamental protection of children. Furthermore, many of the same signatory countries violate the treaty while chastising us out of the other side of their mouths.

Part 17: Specific Rights in the CRC

In my last post, I focused on the foundation principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. (please go to my blog to review this). On this foundation, the drafters of this UN treaty built other rights that define further the best interest of the child and the areas where government can intervene.

1. Right to Privacy even in your own home. In Japan, this means that parents are restricted from accessing their children's emails, text messages, and chat rooms conversations.

2. Right to choose their own religion without parental coercion. According to the words of Professor Van Beuren, one of the treaty's major contributors as described on the website in the article "Nannies in Blue Beret's": "Unlike earlier treaties, the Convention on the Rights of the Child does not include a provision providing for parents to have their children educated in conformity with their parents' beliefs. In other words, she believes that we should protect children from their parent's religious coercion.

3. Right to education, that the government decides is best for them. This means an education that includes the principles of tolerance, which we know is being used against Christians. It includes exposure to a variety of national and international sources of information of MASS MEDIA. Consider what the government's opinion of what is best. One of the founding pillars of the American education system was Dewy, who said, "There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes" This also opens us to the dangers of "national education standards

4. Right to health care, including abortion rights. Just look at how the UN has used the UN CEDAW to promote abortion rights and access to contraception for children without parental consent in approximately 60 countries. They twisted that treaty's wording to accomplish that feat. Right now our government is sending our money to Kenya to lobby for repeal of anti-abortion laws. Of course, our children will be subjected to this agenda as well. It also means government must provide health care. We must ask "Who pays?" --- WE ALL do! Basically, Obamacare for children.

5. Right to protection from guns indirectly. Follow this logic. The UN has considerable propaganda saying that guns harms children.If we pass the CRC and guns are bad for children, therefore we must rid our country of guns. Once again, all done in the name of a good deed for the people

Monday, January 31, 2011

Part 16: Foundational Articles of UN CRC

Leaving behind generalities of treaties, let’s look at the CRC itself. It has 3 foundational articles that you should be aware of. Article 3 binds the federal government to always seek the “best interest of the child”. Surely I wouldn’t argue with that. Article 18 says that governments should recognize parental responsibilities to seek the best interest of the children. It also says that governments should provide appropriate assistance to families in their parental responsibilities. So we have responsibilities and they have responsibilities to recognize those responsibilities, is that good or bad? Article 12 says that a child has a right to express his or her own views freely in all matters affecting them whether judicial or administrative. Everyone gets a say, what is so bad about that?

While these seem relatively safe MAYBE even good, a few questions must be addressed. For article 3, who decides what is “best”? – There has to be a gold standard by which to measure? Their answer is that the government and their experts decide, not you as the parents. For article 18, when does the government decide to intervene? -- when they decide the parent is not carrying out their definition of the best interest of the child. The parent is logically guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof is on the parents rather than the government. For article 12, who decides when child and parents disagree on what is best? Government. As I said earlier, the children will simply have an unfeeling master. It is not actually the child who gains freedom to decide, but the government replaces the parents in the name of children’s freedom. Whenever the government promises benefit in the same breath as asking us to give up a right, we should stand firm against such tyranny.

Friday, January 28, 2011

California and Forced LGBT Education

A bill was recently proposed in the California State Senate that would make it illegal to say anything against the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender lifestyle. State Senator Mark Leno (D) introduced the FAIR (Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful) Education Act that would control the way California Public Schools address these issues in their textbooks and in class. The bill says that textbooks "must highlight the key LGBT figures who contributed to the history of the United States and include details about the homosexual movement"

Penny Harrington, Concerned Women of America's legislative director of California had this to say about the bill (quoted from the article in OneNewsNow, linked below):
"The bill's language demands that nothing can be said about the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender lifestyle that reflects adversely on these persons. So only positive messages can be shared about behaviors that can have serious...emotional and physical consequences," the legislative director explains.

Please recognize that freedom to disagree is being sacrificed at the altar of feigned tolerance. Those who preach tolerance the loudest, are the most intolerant of all. Our children are targeted for this indoctrination on a daily basis whether in the school system or on the TV shows that we are offered.

More information can be found in this OneNewsNow article.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Florida Schools to Grade Parents ?

This is a special edition hot off the press. A Florida legislator has proposed a bill that I would nickname, "No Parent Left Alone". Rep. Kelli Stargel has proposed a bill in Florida to enable teachers to grade parents. Here are the three criteria written into the legislation:

"• A child should be at school on time, prepared to learn after a good night's sleep, and have eaten a meal. "

"• A child should have the homework done and prepared for examinations. "

"• There should be regular communication between the parent and teacher. "

Sounds benign, but this is a Pandora's Box of insanity. Obviously, I firmly believe that parents are responsible for their children's education (please read my past posts). However, placing the teachers into the role of oversight for parents is insulting and dangerous. Objectors might point to the simplicity of the three questions above, but I see a wide open door for abuse. What happens to parents next year who did not respond to the "unsatisfactory parenting" on their child's report card? Do you get a fine for your child staying up too late? Do they interogate your child about their bedtime and breakfast? What constitutes regular communication between parent and teacher? Do they report you to child protective services for inadequate homework support?

Please pass this on to others. Maybe they will see the insanity of our leader's worldviews. Even the well-meaning can be misleading.

See CNN ARTICLE for more information.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Response to Come Out and Play

I have a lengthy response to "Come Out and Play"'s recent comments and decided to make an entire post after some problems with trying to just make them "comments". I have included her comments with mine following the "----"'s.

Dear Come out and play,

"Your country's constitution separates religion and state so any Biblical arguments have no constitutional locus bar that rights are endowed by the Creator."

---- First, I think you are misunderstanding my perspective and audience. My focus on a Biblical understanding of the Constitution is directed at Christians and therefore encouraging them to use a Biblically based worldview to evaluate the Constitution, domestic law, international law, and their behavior in response to each of these. Ultimately, God’s Word stands above the Constitution or any other law of man as the final standard for a Christian’s actions. I am encouraging Christians to respond Biblically to this issue. It makes no difference if the Constitution recognizes it or not.

----Second, have you read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence lately? While I grant that the Constitution does not contain this wording, I wonder if the authors thought it unnecessary to repeat what was so well written into the Declaration of Independence.

--- Finally, your theory of separation of religion and state are subject to the widespread deception of our day. This phrase is not found in our Constitution. The Bill of Rights does say “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Wasn’t it Thomas Jefferson who used this phrase, “separation of church and state” in a letter to the Danbury Baptists. A personal letter, even from Jefferson, hardly qualifies for a ratified component of the Supreme Law of the Land.

---Back to an earlier point in this paragraph. If the UN CRC prohibits the free exercise of religion that includes the education of children along that religion’s lines, then it contradicts the Bill of Rights. I could go on, but I believe my points clearly state my case.

""practically equal" is loose terminology. Either it is equal or superior - other than that you have no worries?"

--- Since you want to be picky on the wording, permit me to expound further on my proper use of the word “practically” by defining my terms. Depending on which legal expert you consult, some place treaties (as ratified by the protocol of Article 6 of our Constitution) on par with Congressional law and others place treaties above the law, only subservient to the Constitution. Others would say that treaties can alter Constitutional provisions. Reid v. Covert in the 1950’s said that treaties override implicit Constitutional rights. This means, that unless the right is explicitly stated in the Constitution, the given treaty can take that right away. Parental rights are currently an unwritten, or implied right, that could be lost through the treaty process. The majority opinion of those in power is that “supreme law of the Land”, as stated below in Article 6 of our Constitution, means that ratified treaties are equal to the Constitution. Others make a reasonable case that this phraseology refers to their desire to uphold treaties made prior to the Constitution’s acceptance (i.e. 1776-1789). Regardless of opinions, “practically” speaking, treaties are “practically” at least equal to the constitution.

Portion of Article 6 “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

"The USA signed the UN Charter, in its explicit terms, the superior item of international treaty law, its effects can be binding even on non-signatory states."

--- If we are bound to follow the letter of the law without ratification, why not just wait for others to ratify and avoid the trouble of a Senate vote? No, we are a sovereign nation, free to enter into treaties or not to enter into treaties. You obviously subscribe to Customary International Law, which states in legal terms exactly what you stated above. While you are accusing the US of missing the mark, please look over the numerous egregious violations of these signatory countries. You will get much more bang for your buck there.

"Let us look at the US paying its dues - for quite some years the UN was in arrears, yet its duty was to pay. That was remedied last year."

--- This is essentially a rabbit trail, unrelated to this treaty. Regardless, you might want to research how many countries are in arrears. According to a Reuters article (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE59K5Y520091021), only 22 countries were paid in full as of October 2009.

"It is in breach, along with every other nation, of Articles 43, 45 and 47, concerning the establishment of armed and airforce contingents for peacekeeping and a Military Staff Committee. I see no challenge in your courts, this has been so since 1945."

--- So? What does that have to do with the UN CRC?

part 2
The USA has ratified 2 of the Protocols to the Convention on the use of children in armed forces and prostitution and exploitation. No argument advanced there against such a process.

----These were limited protocols in agreement with the basic law of our nation. We therefore agreed to do what we were already doing. While you are thinking about this, consider all the countries which have not signed these optional protocols. Are they therefore “for” children as soldiers and for child prostitution? Please take aim at them where real harm is occurring.

"I also have some problem with the use of the term "parental rights". This has been advanced in response to the idea of there being children's rights enshrined in a treaty and signed and ratified by the US? That Convention is explicit in what these children's rights are, they are detailed and set down."

"You use 'parental rights' in the plural, and make emotional appeals as to their defence. But surely you need to state what you believe these to BE? What ARE parental rights, in the plural?"

--- Again, nitpicky and silly, but I’ll play along. I wonder if you are a parent. If so, you might at least pause before asking such a question. A parent would already know by experience that no list could ever encompass the comprehensive scope of parenting rights or responsibilities. A parent would say “right-S” if only to emphasize the wide ranging nature of parenting.

--- Furthermore, any attempt to define parenting would undoubtedly leave out something. In the legal world, this “left out” facet would then not be legally protected. In other words, “not listed” means “non-existent”. As the amendment states, “The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.” Parental rights are the liberty to “direct the upbringing and education of their children”. This language comes from prior US Supreme Court Cases upholding parental rights. If it has to do with “care” or “education”, it is protected. If it was good enough for the Supreme Court, why not for you?

---If that is not good enough, look at the converse of the CRC for parental rights: right to educate your child, right to direct their speech, right to direct their choice of religion, right to limit their privacy, right to direct their associations, right to direct their media sources, and more. The CRC has hit on many of the high points.

"Unless you specify, you have no case for a Constitutional amendment. If you mean, for example that:"

"In the raising and disposition of their children, parents have total authority in all matters regarding the upbringing, welfare and treatment of those children" then you must be explicit. That I would call the 'owned chattel' approach, arguable I suppose, emotionally-laden, maybe has religious sanction (and by no means just Christianity or even Islam).

"Does your Constitution support such a claim? Discuss. Does the Bible? Likewise."

---Our Constitution does not provide what you describe above and neither does the Bible. You describe an absolute right when you use the word “total”. A fundamental right as defined in our country’s law is not absolute. Our organization is not advocating for “total authority”, just a fundamental right. We would oppose any law that proposed absolute authority. Therefore, you are misunderstanding us, or you are intentionally misleading in your rhetoric here.

---The Bible places the primary responsibility for child rearing on the parents, not the state, not even the church. That is clear and implies that parents must have the freedom or authority to carry out these responsibilities.

"So far, without such a claim being put to the people of the US, I think you will find that neither State nor Federal law supports a notion that kids are totally subservient to parents and have no rights under the Constitution which in those terms, of rights, I gather is superior to state constitutions? "

--This statement is somewhat unclear, so unless you expound, I will leave it alone.

Eric Potter MD

Judge Eviscerates Parental Notification Law in Alaska

Alaskans voted last year to pass a parental notification law, forcing physicians to notify a teenager's parents before performing an abortion unless an abusive situation was present. Superior Court Judge John Suddock just recently ruled that the law can stand, but without the penalities for compliance failure. So he left a law without any penalties for enforcement which is obviously worthless. Abortion practitioners who violate the law cannot be held accountable without any penalty of prison or fines or even lawsuits from parents.

As the source article from OneNewsNow notes, even "Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe v. Wade, voted himself to uphold parental involvement laws, both consent and notice laws, that had criminal penalties attached to them." Alaska has become the only state with laws requiring parental notification that have no penalty associated with it.

We are faced with a continuous assault on the right of parents to even be involved in major decisions faced by their children. We can not wait any longer to stop this erosion of our freedom to parent.

For more information on this story go to HERE or HERE.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Part 15: The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Itself

Now we come to the discussion of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child itself. Several times I have mentioned it in the prior postings. Now I will spend some time discussing this treaty after having provided you with a Biblical foundation for parental duties and hopefully a better understanding of the worldview which is threatening this Biblical perspective.

The first two philosophies which I discussed in recent posts find their tangible fulfillment regarding children in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is a UN treaty, completed in 1989 and signed by 192 of 193 countries, that binds ratifying countries as any other contract does so in a business situation. Our country’s constitution binds us in even stronger terms to this type of agreement than in those other 192 countries. In Article 6 of the US Constitution, any treaty ratified by the US Senate becomes quote “Supreme Law of the Land”, practically equal to the Constitution. This means that it will override state and local laws regarding the family. The jurisdiction of the federal government will then extend into your private family life.

It basically becomes constitutional law unless the constitution explicitly exempts a particular law from treaties (according to V.C of T, the Gold standard for treaties). Some of you, having studied the constitution, may object here on a variety of grounds. Some will claim that the 10th amendment protects us. A Supreme Court case in the 1950’s called Reid v. Covert clearly ruled that while a treaty cannot override an explicit constitutional law, it can become the final legal word if the Constitution does not speak to that particular area of law. Some will say that the founders never intended federal jurisdiction in this area of life and others will say that Article 6 treaty powers only meant for international issues. However, regardless of which interpretation is correct, the current legal environment has chosen to interpret Article 6 as a way to implement law through treaties rather than through a normal legislative process. To them, it becomes “supreme law of the land” regardless of what legal opinionists say in disagreement.

Monday, January 17, 2011

Part 14: The Emerging Worldview Threatening our Children, Section 4

Obviously, this view is different than most American’s beliefs and should be opposed by anyone who believes that parents have an inalienable right to direct the upbringing and education of their own children. If the government gains the upper hand, they will take over this role from the parents. This will occur through legal means, educational means, and administrative means. Who exactly will take over? The ruling political class and their experts.
In contrast, we recognize that God has given parents certain rights and duties, not the government. They are inalienable rights based on the duties commanded by God discussed earlier. They do not need the government to grant them, only protect them from its own power grab. Unless parents cross a criminal line, the civil government must stay out of the family sphere. The real perpetrator against rights is government. As will be seen shortly, the UN seeks to undermine the Biblical view of parental rights
As the final ingredient to a nasty recipe, many high ranking leaders of our country believe in Customary International Law. This is an entry point for the philosophy just discussed into our system of law. In simple terms, this means that International Law overrides our Constitution or Congressional law if the majority of other countries already hold to it. For parental rights this means that we should obey the CRC even though we have not ratified it.
One may examine the US Supreme Court Case of Roper v. Simmons in which the CRC was used to rule against the juvenile death penalty. My concern lies not with the death penalty, but with the use of the CRC to argue against it based on Customary International Law. Another example is a judge in NY and another in Ohio has even used the CRC to rule in cases involving American parents. This is another example of using customary international law although the Ohio judge simply thought that we had already ratified the CRC. If that is not irritating enough, San Francisco, Portland, OR, and Berkeley have adopted CRC (without legal jurisdiction to adopt treaties).
You should also be aware that very high ranking officials in the US Justice Department and the State Department believe this theory of law. Harold Koh believes this as a high ranking State Dept. lawyer. David Ogden -- deputy attorney general of the United States, the second highest position in the Justice Department also holds to this philosophy.
And last but not least, not only does our new Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor believe in the supremacy of international law, but so does our current tentative appointee, Elena Kagan. So you can see that the leaders entrusted to defend us and our law, don’t believe in defending us, but instead surrendering our freedoms to international law. If these leaders and their followers have their way, the CRC will probably become part of American law without Senate ratification through Customary International Law.
Obviously, while the first two philosophies combine to pose a great danger to parental rights, the third ingredient simply opens wide the door to their UNWELCOME intrusion and heightens the urgency of a response by American parents.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

The Gay Agenda in Schools

A Renew America article from 2006 tells the story of a Massachusetts parent who fought against the public school's refusal to follow state law (Parental Notification Law (M.G.L. Ch. 71, Sec. 32A). Why did he have to go to court in order to force the school to follow state law? The school refused to notify him when his 6 year old's class would be addressing sexuality topics. Imagine, the parent having to force the school to follow the law. Even more strange, but not unexpected, the ACLU fought against him. They fought to protect the rights of teachers to teach about sex and homosexuality (the book "King and King" and other such occurences).

This is the agenda which we must stand against. Occasionally, David's win against Goliath's, but more often these battles require an army of determined parents working in unity. The more we work together, the more probable our victory and the deeper our gain into the enemy's territory. We need your help in the mundane (i.e. forwarding these newsletters and sharing the information with others) and the more sacrificial ways (volunteering as speakers or hosting viewings of "The Child"). Most importantly, we need your constant prayers for all our children's futures.

Monday, January 10, 2011

Good Morning Snow!

Good morning,

As many of you look out onto snowy landscapes this morning in Tennessee, don't forget to thank God for the beauty of creation and his tender mercies. His mercies are new every morning (Lamentations 3:22-23).

Also, don't forget to thank God for the freedoms which we now enjoy, the freedom to pass a family heritage of faith and values to our children. Not all people across the globe enjoy this freedom nor have all our ancestors across the timeline. Finally, don't forget that we are not promised this freedom. A formidable adversary is working to ensnare our children in deceptive philosophies, if not outright destroy their faith before it even blooms.

Simultaneously, Deuteronomy 6 and Ephesians 6 leave us no excuse for complacency. We are commanded to instruct our children with the promise of God's effective Word, expecting the bearing of fruit where we diligently sow the seed of the Word. May we never grow weary in this calling and may we never forget to be eternally vigilant in protecting this freedom. Lord, forgive us where we have forgotten, where we have neglected, where we have disobeyed, and give us renewed vision as well as strength in obeying your clear command.

Board of Education Socializing Children

A past Renew America article caught my attention while searching their archives for parental rights stories. The majority of the article warns us of United Nations' efforts at globalization, but a quote towards the end of the article struck me as very alarming for parents. Although I underlined the quote's most worrisome verbage below, I want to explain the reason for my concern.

This legislation directed the Illinois State Board of Education to develop and to implement a policy aimed at the social and emotional development of children. Furthermore, they were directed to incorporate these standards into the Illinois Learning Standards. They are now guidelines for directing and measuring school's success in educating children. The schools are directed and empowered to direct children's social development. Bureaucrats on the state Board of Education will be deciding how to "socialize" Illinois children. I don't know about you, but this concerns me. May God prevent this from happening in Tennessee (oh my, I don't know that we don't already have this in place???)!

"This In the document of the 94th General Assembly, State of Illinois, 2005 and 2006, HB 1382 amends the Children's Mental Health Act of 2003. Makes a technical change in a Section concerning a children's mental health plan.

It states in Section 5(a) The State of Illinois shall develop a
Children's Mental Health Plan containing short-term and long-term recommendations to provide comprehensive, coordinated mental health prevention, early intervention, and treatment services for children from birth through age 18.

In Section 15(a) Mental health and schools it states that The Illinois State Board of Education shall develop and implement a plan to incorporate social and emotional development standards as part of the Illinois Learning Standards for the purpose of enhancing and measuring children's school readiness and ability to achieve academic success."

For the link to this Illinois public act GO HERE.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

The Coming Persecution!

Two lines of reasoning have so far failed in their attempts to crush the homeschooling movement. One claimed that homeschooling was far inferior academically...Ha-Ha! The other claimed that homeschooled children are not socialized...another hearty laugh. Both of these claims have been thoroughly debunked in recent years.

HSLDA's Nov./Dec. edition of the Homeschool Court Report describes "The Third Wave of homeschool persecution" with breathtaking quotes of legal experts opposed to homeschooling, particularly Christian homeschooling. Rather than my choosing from among these quotes and possibly distracting you from going to read the article yourself, I will simply urge you to go to THE ARTICLE by providing enough of an appetizer to push you over the "I'll look at it later hump".

In short, the legal community, mainly international human rights proponents, has begun to express their long held views regarding parents' rights to teach their own children Christian views of right and wrong. We are finding these opinions in the academic legal writings of many human rights advocates. Soon they will begin pressing these views in the court room and the legislatures. They state unequivocally that the teaching of views adherent to absolute truths, i.e. there is only one true religion and all others are false, should not be permitted.

Will parents and the church sit back and wait for this to happen? Better yet, will you sit back and wait while the state comes to replace your children's Christian worldview and their view of tolerance and relativism? Please take a small step forward today in this battle by either forwarding this to a friend or sharing the linked article with another parent. Your participiation in this work is vital to its success.