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, 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.