Parental Rights Tn

Y-Peer, Advocates for Youth Abortion and Legal Prostitution

2011-08-08T05:12:00.002-05:00

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.”

Kentucky Third Graders Searched by Teacher

2011-08-03T06:09:00.000-05:00

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.

Your Rights with DCS (by Nathan Tutor)

2011-08-01T22:09:00.000-05:00

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

Child Protective Services and Obese Children

2011-07-21T23:50:00.000-05:00

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.

Stimulus Money for Education

2011-07-18T05:29:00.000-05:00

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!

Homosexual Role Models in Textbooks

2011-07-15T05:27:00.000-05:00

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.

Sexual Freedom and Your Child

2011-07-13T16:26:00.000-05:00

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!

ACTION ITEM FROM THE NATIONAL OFFICE

2011-06-28T07:55:00.001-05:00

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

Sincerely,

Michael Ramey

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

2011-06-25T07:52:00.001-05:00

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)

No Oversight for Judicial Bypass that Allows Adolescent Abortions

2011-06-22T07:46:00.002-05:00

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.

Part 27: More of What You Can Do

2011-06-20T19:46:00.000-05:00

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.

Canadian Attacks on Homeschoolers

2011-06-06T05:41:00.000-05:00

(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.

New Zealand: Abortion and Prostitution for Children

2011-06-04T05:38:00.000-05:00

(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.

Part 26: What You Can Do

2011-06-02T22:38:00.002-05:00

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...

MTHEA Home Education Expo This Weekend

2011-05-17T06:18:00.000-05:00

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.

Part 25: More Reasons to Support the Parental Rights Amendment

2011-05-16T09:18:00.000-05:00

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.

Breathalyzers for Adolescents at School

2011-05-06T06:00:00.000-05:00

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.

Where will your adolescent daughter get abortion advice?

2011-05-04T05:44:00.000-05:00

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 !

Part 24: The Final Answer to the UN CRC

2011-05-03T06:00:00.000-05:00

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

SECTION 1
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

SECTION 2
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.

SECTION 3
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.

Rejoice in the little victories!

2011-04-23T15:38:00.000-05:00

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.

Amen

The Opposition's Trumpet Call

2011-04-22T15:36:00.000-05:00

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!

Who is watching your homeschooling?

2011-04-21T15:35:00.002-05:00

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.

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

2011-04-20T06:33:00.000-05:00

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.

Obama's Plans for UN CRC Ratification

2011-04-02T13:54:00.001-05:00

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.

Planned Parenthood Says UN CRC Supports Abortion for Children

2011-03-31T13:51:00.001-05:00

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."

TO READ MORE

Part 22: Even WIthout Ratification of the CRC

2011-03-29T13:51:00.002-05:00

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.

Tennessee Resolution Supporting Parental Rights Amendment

2011-03-18T15:47:00.000-05:00

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.

Part 21 When Will It Happen?

2011-03-17T08:46:00.000-05:00

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.

Tennessee Homeschooling Laws

2011-03-16T11:19:00.002-05:00

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
HERE and HERE.

Call Blitz for Tennessee's Senators

2011-03-15T15:45:00.000-05:00

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.

NEA to UN: More Graphic Sex-Ed Needed

2011-03-13T11:14:00.003-05:00

(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.

Part 20: International Hindsight

2011-03-12T10:31:00.001-06:00

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)

Smartphones may be "too Smart"

2011-03-10T11:18:00.000-06:00

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

2011-03-10T10:28:00.001-06:00

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.

Part 18: To Be Fair to the CRC

2011-02-28T10:56:00.002-06:00

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

2011-02-28T10:43:00.000-06:00

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

Part 16: Foundational Articles of UN CRC

2011-01-31T11:04:00.000-06:00

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.

California and Forced LGBT Education

2011-01-28T08:05:00.001-06:00

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.

Florida Schools to Grade Parents ?

2011-01-27T15:16:00.000-06:00

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.

Response to Come Out and Play

2011-01-26T17:10:00.000-06:00

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.

Sincerely,
Eric Potter MD

Judge Eviscerates Parental Notification Law in Alaska

2011-01-26T08:17:00.000-06:00

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.

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

2011-01-25T10:59:00.002-06:00

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.

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

2011-01-17T10:50:00.001-06:00

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.

The Gay Agenda in Schools

2011-01-13T11:13:00.000-06:00

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.

Good Morning Snow!

2011-01-10T11:16:00.000-06:00

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

2011-01-10T10:42:00.000-06:00

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.

The Coming Persecution!

2011-01-01T14:18:00.000-06:00

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.

Part 13: The Emerging Worldview that Threatens Our Children, Section 3

2010-12-20T20:56:00.001-06:00

Does this view of the world agree with your own beliefs about parenting? Have you fallen for their deception that you are incompetent and should just trust them all the time? The second aspect of this warped worldview is that many groups and leaders also have a different view of legal rights than the majority of America holds. This view synergizes with this philosophy towards government knowing best.

Americans have long viewed rights as boundaries that government was assigned to protect so that freedoms could be practiced by individual citizens. Within those boundaries, citizens are free to practice or to not practice those rights. For example, gun rights or freedom of speech. You can carry a gun if you don’t break the law, but you are not required to do so. What gun rights would we have without the Bill of Rights? On the contrary, International theory of rights understands rights as something that the government is obligated to provide as a service or to meet a physical need or to equalize two groups. Citizens can demand that right and expect the government to provide it. That may be health care, education, social programs. It often includes taking from one and giving to another.

When these two philosophies or worldviews are combined and applied to children’s rights, the following results: Government knows what is best and is legally bound to provide that to the child regardless of parent’s wishes. Children can demand that the government provide this right over the protest of parents. Parents must carry out the government’s plan for what is best for the child, not their own belief in what is best. Under these circumstances, children are not really emancipated from their parents, but instead they are enslaved to a faceless, unemotional government bureaucracy rather being protected by loving parents.

Part 12: The Emerging Worlview that Threatens Our Children, Section 2

2010-12-16T20:53:00.001-06:00

Many so-called experts in pediatrics, education, social services, and other child related professions hold to this philosophy. One major example is the American Academy of Pediatrics. Working as a pediatrician for several years, I believed this deception until I realized what was really happening. Parents are slowly, but surely convinced that they need help from experts. Parents are trained to feel incompetent. To some degree even the pediatricians don’t recognize what they are doing.

Another powerful example is the US Department of Education. It also covertly spreads the lie that “teachers know better than parents”. Now we are facing the growth of national standards in education which will do little for math or science or reading. Instead, we will have a federally mandated curriculum for anti-bullying and tolerance which degrades Christianity.

In the introductory quiz (last blog post), I asked what is parens patriae. This is the legal term that says parents lose the right to direct their children’s education once the child enters school grounds. Parents essentially abdicate any say in the process under this legal attack on parental rights. Several stories from affected families will further elucidate this legal principle. A family moves to a Mississippi small town and enrolls their child in public school. The mother is told that the child is not allowed to walk 2 blocks to school. One day, the mother walks to school to pick up her child and is told that she must go home and return with her car if she wants her child. In a similarly egregious example, a child was sent from school by taxi to get an abortion without parental knowledge. In other schools, a debate is raging over what age schools can begin offering condoms to children.

Part 11: The Emerging Worldview that Threatens our Future Generations, Section 1

2010-12-11T20:20:00.001-06:00

There are three different aspects of this worldview which synergize to threaten our children. First, much of the international community and many inside our own country promote the philosophy that the government is the one who will make the best choices for children, NOT PARENTS. Second, they believe that government and its authorities know what is “best for the child” even more so than parents. Therefore, they should intervene to guarantee this “best”. Finally, this fits with the idea of a Nanny Sate that always knows best and attempts to construct an externally controlled utopia. It is externally controlled in that it uses laws and punishment versus internal control of will and desire in a morally directed society.

Who believes in this philosophy? Surprisingly, many state leaders, US congressmen, and state department leaders hold to this philosophy. Some have even spoke this aloud in our halls of government One of Tennessee’s own state Senators stated publicly that he did not for the life of him see what was wrong with the UN CRC, which is the most explicit expression of this philosophy in the world (HANG ON, I will soon explain the details). Several in the Tennessee House and Tennessee Senate voted AGAINST a state resolution opposing the UN CRC last year although it eventually passed both houses. Some have even written books about a village raising a child.

Having children myself, I agree that parents need a community around them. However, the parents should choose who influences the child, not a government or its agencies. I liked what someone else said in that it takes a tribe, not a village. Parents choose the tribe, or community that surrounds their children, not the government.

Part 10: Quiz Intermission

2010-12-08T21:34:00.001-06:00

At this point in my August 7th speech, I stopped for questions and dialogue.

Questions to you, the reader:

Who is responsible for a child’s education according to the Bible?

What are the goals of education for Christian families?

Can a secular state teach morality or religion fairly?

Does neutrality exist?

If you aren’t sure, go back and read the prior posts…..

And now, a little quiz to introduce the next section…

Who knows what is best for children?

It takes a _________ to raise a child.

What is parens patriae?

A right is a) opposite of your left, b) freedom within boundaries, c) guaranteed services from the government.

Part 9: The Legality of Parental Freedoms

2010-12-04T18:28:00.001-06:00

First of all, parental rights in our country stand on clear tradition from even before the founding of our nation. These are Judeo-Christian Biblical values and traditions brought to America by our forefathers from Europe. Parental rights in our country also stand on many precedents and legal facts.

First, the Tenth Amendment protects parental rights by setting limits on federal government from intruding on rights reserved to the people and to the states. Therefore the federal government only has powers delegated to it and power over non-criminal family activity has not been so delegated by the Constitution.

From this basis, Supreme Court precedents have followed this reasoning. Multiple cases beginning in 1925 have upheld parent’s rights to raise and educate their own children. You can study them on the Parental Rights.Org website. This has been unquestionably upheld until 2000 Troxel v. Granville. Only a plurality, not a majority opinion, upheld parental rights as being constitutionally protected in that case. The plurality opinion means that 4 or less justices voted that parental rights are constitutionally protected. They rule in favor of the parents in the actual case, but the lower courts are left to decide for themselves about the extent of parental rights since not all justices agreed.

More on this important arena of the parental rights battle will come later.

So, besides a Biblical duty, we also have a constitutional and historical foundation for parental rights which reiterate the Biblical understanding that parenting belongs to parents.

Response to Questions on Last Posting

2010-11-29T14:41:00.000-06:00

(In response to comments on my post "A Quiet Threat to Homeschooling")

Dear Come Out to Play,

That children have rights is not disputed. The extent, nature, and definition of those rights are the actual hotbeds of debate. Permit me to explain my stand in this debate by first pointing to the source of all rights, God and His Word. Only with that foundation can one determine the rights and duties of any group, including parents, children, and the government.

Psalm 127:3-5, as below, says that children are a "heritage", a "reward", and a "blessing" all from the Lord.
3 Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord,
the fruit of the womb a reward.
4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior
are the children of one’s youth.
5 Blessed is the man
who fills his quiver with them!
He shall not be put to shame
when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.

So, children come gratuitously from God. Thus parents will be held accountable by God on how they raise their children (consider Matthews 18:6, the millstone around the neck). Deuteronomy 6 and Ephesians 6 also clearly state commands to parents concerning how to raise their children. Commands imply accountability. Parents are therefore made stewards by God.

Stewardship implies parental rights (freedoms to exercise stewardship) AND parental responsibilities to fulfill that Biblical stewardship. As a consequence of these parental “responsibilities”, children can claim “rights” in the sense that they can point (or someone can point for them) to God’s commands directed at parents. This results both in their sharing some rights with adults (i.e. to life, to worship as they wish, etc.) and having some rights beyond those of adults (i.e. to have parents provide for them, to have parents to protect them, to have parents guide/discipline them). Of note, the shared rights may also differ in extent (i.e. limits on freedom of association, on freedom of speech) in comparison to adult rights. Then, as the child matures, the rights also mature.

Based on the evidence and logic above, I will be praying for parents to recognize the source of their children (God) and to recognize ALL the implications of the stewardship placed upon them. If this prayer is answered, there is no need to pray for children’s rights. The fulfillment of their “rights” will come in the fulfillment of parental stewardship. As a corollary to the above prayer, I will also be praying that no government power will interfere with the exercise of parental stewardship nor the enjoyment of the blessing of children. When government interferes with Biblical exercise of parental stewardship, it is the duty of parents as stewards to resist this interference. Even if the government claims to be protecting a child’s rights, if they are not using the Biblical guidelines, they are acting wrongly. However, if the government, for example, were to interfere in order to protect a child’s right to life (if it is threatened by anyone, including a parent), it would be acting rightly. Our current system approximates this latter situation in prosecuting child abuse. The proposals of international child rights advocates are basing their definition of child rights not on Biblical guidelines, but on their secular philosophies. These must be resisted and battled against. I am not praying against all governmental actions taken against parents, just those that contradict Biblical guidelines.

In regards to the US Constitution, it grants none of these rights. It has no power to grant anything. It can only recognize rights and pledge to protect both the above stated rights of parents and the above state rights of children.

I hope this answers your objections/admonitions as well as clarifies what seems to be a misunderstanding of my stand. If not, I look forward to your continued dialogue.

"A Quiet Threat to Homeschooling"

2010-11-28T08:03:00.000-06:00

An undated article caught the attention of a friend recently. This article, as titled above, describes an intellectual trend that may catch many parents (not only homeschoolers) off guard. The article addresses a simple idea: "Children have a constitutional right to learn about beliefs and ways of life other than those of their parents, and the state has a duty to secure that right for them." Rob Reich, a political science and education professor at Stanford University, argued exactly that at the 2001 Convention of the American Political Science Association.

If you don't read the entire article, at least consider the pieces I have included here. The following quote is directed at homeschoolers, but it takes little imagination to see how all parents would be affected by the application of this philosophy in our legal system.

"In his writings, Reich proposes that homeschooling should be monitored by the state to ensure that parents teach their children beliefs and lifestyles that they may oppose - that parents may even believe to be evil."

A reviewer of Reich's book on Amazon said it well in describing the purpose of this philosophy:

“The leading goal of education is to develop autonomy in children.”

This is the worldview which confronts our parenting, our children, and the future of our families' coming generations. Will you please begin to pray and then take up your battle armor?

"The Child" Documentary

2010-11-23T02:27:00.000-06:00

Watchman Cinema has produced an amazing documentary detailing the current struggle for parenting freedoms. Months of hard work have paid off in their 85 minute video which includes interviews from a wide variety of legal experts, parenting experts, physicians, and most importantly the stories of families scarred by the overzealous interventions of government.

If you love your children, this video should scare the living daylights out of you! By providing a 360 degree view of this crucial issue, Watchman Cinema has held nothing back and left you no excuse for inaction. We are facing the attempted eradication of parental freedom by leaders in various sectors of our society all in the name of protecting children. Parents will soon become the babysitters for the government's children IF we continue our complacency.

For more information on the video and how you can use the video to share this message, go to Watchman Cinema. This documentary should knock you to your knees in prayer.

Part 8: The Role of the State in Raising Children

2010-11-22T23:32:00.001-06:00

The Bible only permits the state to have the role of punishing wrong doers in Romans 13. The state does have a duty to protect children from criminal actions, but it does not have the jurisdiction to dictate how children are raised in a non-criminal family environment. This idea of jurisdiction is similar to the theology of Abraham Kuyper, a great Dutch theologian and politician from around 1900. He separated the spheres of authority between the family and the state, as well as other spheres of authority based on his study of the Bible. While he saw God as ruling over all of life, different spheres had their own jurisdictions and hierarchies of earthly authorities. Church, family, the state, labor, and other areas of life were mostly interdependent but separate spheres. The family sphere, thanks to our lackadaisical attitude, has allowed intrusion inch by inch over many decades. The state should not intrude into another sphere no more than the church should run the state nor the family run the church. This is even more true in our own contemporary culture as the state becomes more secular.

Raising children is a religious enterprise which if entrusted to a secular government will fail to produce religion except worship of the state. Not only will the secular state not teach any form of religion, it will teach against religion. There is not neutrality in regards to what is taught in school. Either all things are taught as relating to God as creator and father. Or they are taught to either replace God or to ignore God. An education neutral to all religion is thus atheistic by definition and practical implication. Furthermore, one of the mantras of our culture is tolerance. Feigned neutrality and tolerance go hand in hand. Teaching all religion is seen as good, all except one, Christianity. Christianity is viewed as intolerant and therefore its true form cannot be taught as children must be free to choose for themselves. Since, in their view, there is no private sphere of the family, all is public and open to their regulation. They are compelled not by neutrality, but by anti-Christian intent.

In summary, from a Biblical and Christian perspective, it should be abundantly clear that parents are Biblically commanded to raise and educate children, not the secular civil government or state. With this Biblical foundation in the forefront, I want to further clarify our parental freedoms from a legal standpoint.

Part 7: Biblical Basis For Parenting, Section Three

2010-11-15T23:30:00.001-06:00

With all this in mind, what is the purpose of this command? The purpose is simply the glorification of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost through the salvation and sanctification of our children by the means of parents. We are the means to this end even as we work our own salvation with fear and trembling. Therefore it is Biblical that parents educate, train, and discipline their children I order to obey God and to glorify Him.

Now, consider a tangential question to stimulate though along the lines of why I writing this piece. “What if the civil authority interferes with the ability to carry out this command?” I say that we must defend the family sphere and say no to Caesar. Peter and Paul both exercised civil disobedience when told to stop preaching the gospel. We are likely reaching the point where the government will soon tell us to stop preaching the gospel to our children. Many are already advocating to prohibit parent’s religious education. What will we do then? Some will say that tomorrow has enough worries of its own, “what about now?” Should we try to stop this before it comes to requiring outright civil disobedience? Do you tell your kids to toe the line of sin or to stay three steps back. Why would we want to allow the legal situation to reach that point.

My actions are my attempt to fulfill this command of training my children. I am not claiming that my specific methods of defending my parental freedoms are explicitly Biblically commanded. However, I believe an answer from parents is demanded regarding how they raise their children. We will answer to God for our parenting. Later, I will elaborate on how we can prevent the educational climate from going too far.

Part 6: Biblical Basis For Parenting, Section Two

2010-11-09T23:28:00.001-06:00

If that is not clear enough, read Deuteronomy 6:6-7 “And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.” Obviously, being from the Old Testament, it was directed at the Israelites. Can we then just ignore it today? Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the law, but to uphold it in Matthew 5:17-20. I believe that the principle of this command is still binding on parents based on Ephesians 6 and numerous other verses in the Bible. Therefore, parents today are still bound to teach the next generation born into their family. These scripture references clearly indicate that God’s commands include religious instruction as we see in these verses. By the description given, this is more than just sending them to Sunday School or vacation Bible School, but the responsibility of parents in the midst of daily life. Sunday School and VBS are not inherently wrong, just inadequate for obedience if parents ignore actively participating in the religious education of their children.

In order to provide more New Testament scripture, read I Timothy 3:2,4,and 5 “Therefore an overseer must be above reproach … He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” Unless we are willing to read this as saying that only deacons and elders must know how to manage their own household, we are bound to strive for obedience to this command. Digging deeper into the original working is once again helpful. “Managing his own household” comes from prostEnai, or to “preside over”. The definition of “preside” is “to exercise guidance, direction, or control” (Merriam Webster Free Dictionary). There are other verses I could mention to further solidify the claim that parents are commanded to nurture, train, teach, and to preside over their children. I hope that these are enough to convince you of your Biblical duty.

Message from my newsletter....

2010-11-02T09:52:00.000-05:00

COPIED from my newsletter, (no time to edit)

Good morning,
I just sent out a newsletter in the last few days, but I am writing this because today is election day. I could endorse specific candidates, but instead I want to focus only on principles in this newsletter. Candidates will come and go, but principles, which guide our lives and which should guide our votes, should remain steadfast and based on truth. Therefore, this election is no different than any other election. Each opportunity that God affords us to cast our vote, is an opportunity to influence not only our future, but the future of generations to come. Each election is an opportunity, or maybe better yet, a DUTY to vote on the principles which guide our lives all other days of the year. Here is my advice for you today:
First, consider your principles and the basis for them. For my family, the basis is the Word of God. Therefore, one of the principles that will guide my vote is how the result of the election will affect my freedom to follow Ephesians 6:4. Will the elected official protect my freedom to raise my children by Biblical truth or will the official restrict it?
Second, study the candidates by not only what they say, but what they have done. Their character is just as important as what they say, if not more so. Without a trustworthy character, their words ring a hollow tone of false hopes, if not outright deception. Ask yourself if you will continue to have freedom of directing your children's upbringing under their authority. Your vote has consequences.
Finally, only after you consider this, should you leave your home in order to vote. Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that this is the only rule by which to measure a candidate. I am just stating my firm conviction that in the long run, this standard is one of the most important criteria to consider.

The LGBT Agenda for Your Children

2010-10-26T11:06:00.000-05:00

"Pro-gay books are being read in elementary school classrooms, teachers are being mandated to use gender neutral language, gay activists have been welcomed in the White House, and young evangelicals see no problem with same-sex marriage."

While not focusing on parental rights, this article from The Christian Post touches on one front in the fight for parental freedom, the LGBT agenda. The education establishment is forcing this re-sexualization on our nation's children is insidious, yet destructive ways. Transgender students are allowed to choose their bathroom. Teachers are told to address the class as "friends" rather than "boys and girls". Sexuality surveys are being passed out to children asking about gender and sexual activity.

PS: Be thankful if your children have not been exposed to this yet, but don't wait until your own children, your nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and neighbor's children are assaulted with this attempted indoctrination. Do something to stand up for your parental rights. Then talk to other parents and open their eyes to this agenda before the damage is too far gone.

Part 5 Biblical Basis for Parenting Part 1

2010-10-25T11:12:00.002-05:00

Any argument needs a sturdy foundation, something we can all agree on wholeheartedly. Before I can convince you to gather into an army, I must convince you that it is your responsibility. Hopefully, the majority of you can be convinced (if you are not already) with sound Biblical exegesis and without too much debate. While there are many scripture texts that illustrate the principle that parents are responsible for their children’s upbringing, I will focus on three that are the most direct in the commands. These three are Ephesians 6:4, Deuteronomy 6:6-9, and I Timothy 3:5.

Ephesians 6:4 reads “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (ESV). While fathers are named directly, both parents will likely be held accountable for their contribution to children’s upbringing. In this verse, parents are told to “bring them up” or ektrephete auta in Greek, in the “discipline” paideia of the Lord and the “instruction”, or nouthesia of the Lord. The Greek word ektrephete auta translated as “bring them up” means to be nurturing. What does it mean to nurture? I believe it is safe to say that feeding, clothing, protecting are included in the concept of nurturing among many other such tasks. Then the Greek word paideia is translated as “training”. Earlier in 2 Timothy, teaching in mentioned, so this word for discipline probably is intended to say more than just teaching. It appears to indicate a more active, involved, and interactive training process for children by their parents. Finally, the Greek word nouthesia, translated as instruction, is a word with more of an admonishment connotation than just the concept of teaching. With this connotation, we are commanded to warn our children of morally wrong behavior, sinful choices, and other potentially self damaging behavior. Nurturing, training, and admonishment are therefore central tasks assigned to parents by God, even commanded.

Even the bare conscience of man knows that parents have a duty to carry out these tasks as well as protect their children. We instinctively abhor the parent who neglects their child to the point of that child being harmed. However, this function of conscience is not sufficient as it can be seared and shrugged off, or justified as simple cultural differences in child rearing. Therefore, the Bible speaks loudly and clearly in these verses. It really leaves no doubt on the matter. Considering God’s clarity and boldness, neither our sloth, nor our ignorance, nor any early power’s stand against our duty is a sufficient excuse for us to not obey this command. I will return to this though of earthly powers standing in our way a little later.

CPS Baby Snatchers! Bagels and Oathkeepers Beware!

2010-10-23T17:02:00.000-05:00

Good evening American Parents,
I want to interupt my current series for a special article. This article should rattle any parent, especially any that eats bagels or joins organizations which stand for protecting our country's liberties. What do bagels and liberty have in common with Child Protective Services? Both can cause Child Protective Services to abduct your newborn baby and then to accuse you of being an unfit parent.

First, a Pennsylvanian woman was obviously ecstatic earlier this month having given birth to a healthy little baby. She left the hospital with her bundle of joy in her arms, unsuspecting of the nightmare that was soon coming to her door. What happened next that was so horrible? County welfare workers came knocking on her door and left her home carrying that little bundle of joy within a day or two. What? How did that happen? Simple... Mom's urine drug screen showed opiates at the hospital. The story doesn't seem complete in the news yet, probably since the ACLU is looking to represent her in a lawsuit against the hospital. However, the simple facts, as are being publicized, are that this Mom did something horrendously offensive... she ate a bagel. Yes, a bagel... with "poppy seeds" before coming to the hospital. For those of you who don't know the science, opium is made from poppy seeds, the very same poppy seeds that you can purchase on your favorite bagel shop bagel. A urine drug screen done after such a bagel just might give anyone a positive opiate result. Anyway, all ended on a much happier note. The bundle of joy has been returned to the Mom safe and sound. As icing on the cake, the ACLU, normally one of my least favorite lawyer organizations, is actually working to protect parent's rights from such nightmarish future occurences. Hurray! (For links go here .)

Last, but possibly just as frightening: Don't join any organization that could be construed as a militia and don't buy any guns or tasers before your wife has a baby. Why not? Because the New Hampshire Division of Family Child Services might deceptively wheel your new little bundle of joy down the hall and start frisking you right in the hospital room. What could provoke normally polite social workers and their police escorts to perform such a dastardly deed? According to the legal affadavit filed by the DFCS, the reason was that the father was a member of a militia organization called "Oathkeepers". If you don't know of this group, you should finish this blog and go read about them immediately. They are a noble group of current or ex-servants of our society (police officers, firefighters, etc.) who pledge to uphold our constitution and our nation. Back to the story. Last word is that the parents are waiting with hope for a coming reunion with their newborn, but nothing final yet. (For links go here or here.)

The moral of the story. While many social workers and child protection service employees are well-intentioned, the system itself is corrupted with the philosophy that parents are guilty until proven innocent. This leads even the noble intentioned workers into all sorts of harmful behaviors against parents. It is not just the United Nations and their crazy treaties that are out to get American families, it is our own fellow citizens who have been brainwashed into believing that the government always knows best and therefore should dictate every last aspect of even our private lives. God FORBID....

Part 4 of Many: Nothing New Under the Sun

2010-10-20T13:33:00.001-05:00

A little research will quickly reveal how this trend has been growing for decades, even centuries. However, after years of incrementally slow changes, political forces are now moving faster and attempting to solidify a legal foundation for their philosophy of parenting. This is done in the name of “we’re from the government and we are here to help”. They claim to be championing the cause of abused and oppressed children across the globe. Many are even brazen enough to champion protection from parents by claiming exaggerated statistics about child abuse.
In order to combat this intrusion and thus defend our children, you must understand each of the following aspects of this issue. First, you must understand the Biblical basis of your parental calling and duty. This is not simply a “be a parent because it benefits you” situation. You have a command from God to bear direct responsibility for your children throughout their formative years. Next, you must understand your constitutional rights and the legal history of our country’s family law. This provides confidence in your legal standing and weapons for the battle at hand. From there, a necessary ingredient is a clear vision of the worldview behind this push to remove parental influence. You must know your adversary, their motives, their methods, their logic, their fears, and their weaknesses. Along with this understanding, you must read and know the details of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This treaty, in all its proclaimed good will, is the tangible manifestation of the worldview above. It is one of their most dangerous weapons. With all this information in your head, you must then press a little further into the issue to understand the political situation which makes this worldview potentially implementable. Finally, with such wisdom of the adversary, you must do more than respond with a reflexive cry of frustration or anger. Parental Rights.Org has formulated a response that requires mass participation by parents through both a concerted voice of opposition and individual behaviors that will synergize to stop this attack on our children in its tracks. You must understand the logic of the response and your necessary involvement. Then you must fulfill your calling as a parent with these weapons of knowledge and wisdom in an epic battle for the hearts, souls, and minds of your children

Part 3 of Many: Introduction to the issues facing American Parents

2010-10-11T13:17:00.001-05:00

The simple, cold, hard truth is that the traditional view of parenting is under frontal assault. What is this traditional view in danger of passing away with the hula hoop? The American tradition of parenting has long viewed parents as free, within the bounds of the law, to raise their own children according to their values and beliefs. Only clearly proven criminal behavior, proven by due process, terminated a parent’s right to direct their children’s education and upbringing. This traditional view clearly finds its roots in the Bible and is evident across even other cultures and throughout history.
Contrasting this view, which most of you probably hold, is the view held by many in positions of governmental power or by so called child experts. As the quiz in Part 2 of this series and even an hour of research into this issue proves, these leaders and experts believe that they have a right and a duty to intrude into your family’s parenting practices. Many want to dictate increasingly intrusive regulations for how parents raise their children and what parents teach their children. In the realm of education, the National Education Association and the US Dept. of Education currently decide what children must learn in public schools. Through their overpowering financial influence on textbook publishers, they also indirectly guide the curriculum of many private schools. These decisions involve not only subjects like math or reading, but morals like tolerance and sexual values. Together with doctors, bureaucrats, and vaccine producers, schools press parents into vaccine administration through campaigns of fear. (Disclaimer: some vaccines are good, some I question. Do the research yourself. I am not advocating for or against any vaccine and will not answer any specific questions on vaccines). Child Protective Services and Department of Health and Human Services want to tell you how you discipline your children or at least fear their actions. Certain leaders proclaim that a village is needed to raise your child. Against this notion, consider the idea of children being raised by a “tribe”? A tribe would simply be a group of individuals which the parents choose to relate with their children, rather than a bureaucrat or group only related by proximity instead of shared values? Finally, the United Nations refuses to be left out of this big government intrusion. They want to force our federal government to teach the values of tolerance of immoral behaviors through their Convention on the Rights of the Child and their UNESCO Sex Education guide.

Part 2 of Many, A Little Parental Rights Quiz

2010-10-07T13:14:00.001-05:00

PART 2
We often need a significant jolt of fear, a rather sour taste of anxiety to recognize danger which has stealthily approached us in our blind spots. Parents across America are now sporadically receiving such jolts and developing such anxiety as they are personally faced with governmental attempts to intrude into family decisions. Our national office has pieced together a little quiz for those needing their own jolt of reality.

1. True or False: A mother in Minnesota was told that she could not access the medical records of any of her children 11 years old or older, or discuss her child's health with the physician, without obtaining her child's permission.

2. True or False: A mother in Illinois was twice refused her request to opt her daughter out of sexual education lectures that she found objectionable.

3. True or False: A mother was refused her 13-year-old daughter's grades when she enrolled her in an algebra class.

4. True or False: In most states, you will be denied access to library information about your children, including the titles of books which are accumulating late fees.
For the answers to this quiz and even more questions that will rattle your false sense of security, go HERE.

(Return soon for part 3....)

Part 1 of Many, Transcript of Recent Lecture on Parental Rights

2010-10-04T12:04:00.001-05:00

On August 7th I delivered an hour’s worth of education on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to a group of homeschoolers here in Tennessee. I want to share that talk with you in bite sized portions over the coming weeks in order to deepen your understanding of this crucial issue, to challenge you to join our effort, and to equip you in many ways for this battle. Below is part 1 of that talk.

For those of you unfamiliar with me or my involvement in this issue, permit me to introduce myself and to provide some credibility for what follows. I am a physician in Tennessee who trained in both adult and pediatric medicine. After practicing both areas of medicine for 5 years, I moved into adult medicine alone for the sake of being a father to 2 wonderful children whom we are homeschooling. It is through homeschooling connections that I learned of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in February of 2009. A fateful e-mail alert, which I will never forget, led me down a trail of research that even today continues to startle me. In this process, I have strategically researched the issue from multiple angles and debated others from the variety of perspectives weighing in on this issue. As a final ingredient, I have begun studying the Biblical responsibility of parents to direct the care and upbringing of their children.

I offer the accumulation of the past year and a half of study to you with the sincere hope that you will arouse as parents from your slumber with a clear call to gather into an army for the sake of your children and mine.

Botswana Homeschoolers Threatened

2010-09-27T21:43:00.000-05:00

The Future of Homeschooling?

A few Botswanna Homeschooling families are in legal limbo as they await a judge's response after their refusal to send their children to public schools. These families from Seventh Day Adventist churches in Botswanna were ordered to surrender their home school materials and enroll their children in public schools or face an undefined penalty. Police later raided the homes and confiscated their school materials. All of this has happened despite the children expressing a desire to continue home schooling and no evidence of any harm to the children.

The reasoning for this legal action is based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Are we seeing the future for our country? Please read more at HSDLA's site.

Senator Alexander Agrees with President Obama's Education Plan

2010-09-18T18:40:00.000-05:00

I want to mention a recent blog posting in the Tennessean online that quotes Senator Alexander as praising President Obama's educational plan as well as Secretary of Education Arne Duncan's "big heart" and his working in a bipartisan way. I am appalled at our Senator's support of government control of schooling. Please study the Obama / Duncan plan to see how they plan to take freedom from parents and give power over our children to beaurocrats.

Please call him this week to express your frustration with his delay in co-sponsoring SR 519 and his unbelievable praise for President Obama's planned government takeover of education.

Sen. Alexander 202-224-4944
CLICK here for local offices

Parents, The First Educators

2010-09-17T21:47:00.000-05:00

While this article does not directly address the UNCRC, it serves as great pragmatic evidence for parent's role in children's upbringing. The main theme of the article is:

"Married, biological parents are the gold standard for raising children successfully."

Should you run across someone who argues for greater governmental control of parenting, consider this article as a little morsel of truth that they can either digest or choke on. If they are seeking truth, it will be nourishing to them. If they are unwilling to listen, they will cough, sputter, and gag trying to ignore the clear evidence. Either way, feed it to them gently, but don't hide it from them.

Hot, Sexy, and Safer for your High Schoolers ?

2010-09-09T21:45:00.000-05:00

Forgive the racy title, but you must read this court case (synopsis -- full court decision) in which a "Massachusetts public high school hosted a mandatory, school-wide assembly conducted by Hot, Sexy, and Safer Productions. This assembly was characterized as an AIDS awareness and sexual education program." Parents sued as there was no notification nor any opt-out opportunity, but the parents LOST the suit.

Some of the quotes from the decision are below:

"...the Supreme Court has yet to decide whether the right to direct the upbringing and education of one's children is among those fundamental rights whose infringement merits heightened scrutiny."

"We do not think, however, that this freedom encompasses a fundamental constitutional right to dictate the curriculum at the public school to which they have chosen to send their children."

"We ... find that the rights of parents as described by Meyer and Pierce do not encompass a broad-based right to restrict the flow of information in the public schools."

Those of us who homeschool currently feel a little safer from such legal insanity as this, but we must remember two things. First, this insanity will find its way into our homes one day if we don't stop it dead in its tracks now. Second, our friends next door, next to us on the church pew, and our relatives with school age children need to know about this. Only if we all band together will our voices have any chance of being heard. You must begin raising your voice now by forwarding this e-mail, by inviting one of us to speak to your groups, by sharing your concerns with everyone you. Please, don't wait any longer.

Some Thoughts from my Heart

2010-09-09T21:38:00.000-05:00

The opening of my latest e-newsletter which I wish to share with you also...

Good Evening,
I am working late tonight, but wanted to send out an update on Parental Rights Issues facing American Parents. First, a few thoughts weighing on my heart.
God's providence has kept my mind and my hands busy with many tasks over the past month, mostly unrelated to parental rights, but necessary to the well being of my own family. I have left many activism ideas simmering, undone, or even opportunities lost in the midst of flood repairs and life's recent challenges. I apologize if I have dropped the ball with any of you. I have been forced to trust God with circumstances beyond my control, to trust that He is working to preserve His people through parents passing a Christian heritage on to their children despite the increasing pressure opposing that inheritance. I have had to pray for co-laborers in this fight and have had some prayers answered.
Today, I again renew my prayers for each recipient of this e-mail to pause long enough to consider how you can participate in this watershed moment of history. Will Christian parents continue to possess the freedom of passing a Christian heritage to their next generation? Or will loving parents sit back, idly watching government strip away layer after layer of freedom until nothing is left but baby-sitting? God will determine the outcome, but we as the parents are the means of victory in this battle. If we forsake this God ordained duty, our children and our society will suffer irreparable harm.

Senator Lamar Alexander needs to hear from you

2010-08-28T15:23:00.000-05:00

SR 519 -- Alexander

While I do not have the details, Senator Corker seems to be on our side of this issue (see footnote below), but is unwilling to become a sponsor of SR519 (CLICK HERE if you do not know about SR519). While I hope to press Senator Corker a little further into a more solid commitment, for now we need to focus on Senator Alexander. Please call and ask him to become a cosponsor of SR519, a resolution before the US Senate that says he will NOT vote in favor of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. To be clear, we don't expect that this resolution will pass the entire house, but if we can obtain 34 cosponsors, we effectively prevent treaty supporters from obtaining their 67 "yea" votes for ratification. This is crucial to place a major obstacle in the path of the UN CRC and to allow time for the Parental Rights Amendment to continue its course.

Please call him this week to express your frustration with his delay in co-sponsoring SR 519.

Sen. Alexander 202-224-4944
CLICK here for local offices

Footnote:
While Senator Corker has stated to our office that he opposes the UN CRC, his direct letters to constituents has been less encouraging. After you call Senator Alexander's office, please call Senator Corker and ask for a clarification of his position on SR 519 and the UN CRC.
Main: 202-224-3344
Fax: 202-228-0566
CLICK HERE FOR LOCAL OFFICES

Action Item to Protect Parental Rights

2010-07-27T11:25:00.000-05:00

Good Morning,

If you are new to this blog, you may not be aware of the threat posed to the American family by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN CRC). While our website at ParentalRights.Org or postings further down in this blog can provide the full story, I will simply say here that this treaty will place the federal government in the legal position of dictating how each of you raise your children. Forget the takeover of healthcare and banking. This is worse, telling parents what they can teach their child, where they can send them to school, how they are permitted to discipline them, and much more. All of this will be monitored by the United Nations. They even want to allow children to petition directly to the UN when they disagree with parental decisions. Absurd!

There are many ways our organization is fighting this threat. The most urgent method is Senate Resolution 519 (SR519). SR519 simply states resolute opposition to the UN CRC. This resolution, if it can gain 34 cosponsors, would effectively close the door on any chance of the UN CRC being ratified (treaties require 67 "yes" votes for ratification). 34 "no"'s is the major number to guarantee its defeat.

Amazingly, Senators Alexander and Corker HAVE NOT committed their suppor of this resolution?!? Therefore I am asking each of you to call our Senators and ask why they will not become cosponsors while urging them to listen to your objections to the treaty. (If you live outside of Tennessee, go to THIS LINK to learn whether or not your Senator is cosponsoring SR 519).

While I could provide a list of our Senator's previously expressed excuses, it is simply a matter of either procrastination, disregard for the traditional family, or secret support of the treaty on their part. We must challenge them to choose sides in this battle and reveal their true colors. There is too much at stake for a position of neutrality (actually, no neutrality truly exists on this matter).
Thank you for your time and effort spent protecting our precious sons and daughters as well as for all the work you do in protecting our freedoms. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.

Our Senator's contact information is below:

Senator Lamar Alexander
DC office:
Phone: (202) 224-4944
Fax: (202) 228-3398

Link to local offices:
http://alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=OfficeLocations

Senator Corker
DC office:
Main: 202-224-3344
Fax: 202-228-0566

Link to Local offices:
http://corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=OfficeLocations

Protecting children by empowering parents,

Eric Potter MD

Tennessee Director for Parental Rights.Org

2010-05-10T17:08:00.000-05:00

Good Afternoon,
Okay, finally starting to catch my breath from the past week. Thank you for your prayers. Our house managed to avoid significant flood damage thanks to some angels/friends that helped my wife while I was trapped working at the hospital. And thanks to some other angels/friends, we are putting the pieces back together. However, many others have not fared so well and are cleaning up after losing homes, vehicles, and many belongings. Please continue to pray for them and consider helping out by going to Hands On Nashville.

Two Great Articles

The first article comes from Family Security Matters. This website has provided a variety of good articles on other similar subjects. I can't vouch for the entire site, but so far it has been a pretty sound resource. The ARTICLE discusses the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and its impact on the American Family. It would be a good article to forward to others (hint-hint) that need to hear about this issue.

The second article addresses Ontario's recent proposal for their public education sex-ed curriculum. While this proposal eventually was rejected, the quote below indicates what many think is the "best" for children.
"By the third grade, which in Ontario generally means children aged 7 or 8 years old, teachers would introduce topics such as homosexuality, gender identity and sexual orientation. In grade six, masturbation would share time with grammar and complex math problems, while in grade seven, children would begin to learn about oral and anal sex."

If you think, so what, that's not in our country?, consider this quote from the National Post in which US education "experts" were quoted praising Ontario's plan.

"I thought this is so fantastic that someone is finally setting the stage that, to be comprehensive, sex education cannot start in high school or even middle school - you have to start early because everything is a building block," said Elizabeth Schroeder, executive director of Answer, an organization based at Rutgers University providing and promoting comprehensive sexuality education.

Read more: HERE

Reflection on Parenting

2010-04-21T07:28:00.000-05:00

Good Morning,
This week's theme is simply "Reflection". Please take a few minutes to consider two things this week. First, what is parenting to you (if you are a parent or hope to be one)? Think along these lines: Why do you do what you do? What exactly do you do? What are your parenting goals? And one more challenging question: Have you fallen prey to culture's deceit that the "experts" know how to raise your children better than you do?

Second, what does today's average parent think of parenting? Is it a chore? Is it best done by delegating parenting tasks to select "experts"? Is it a priority or a nuisance?

What am I getting at? Our culture seems to have swallowed the deception hook, line, and sinker. A high percentage of parents seem to believe that they are either incapable of directing their child's upbringing or they don't seem to understand that they even have a responsibility to direct the child's upbringing in the first place. "Experts", some well meaning and others ill-intentioned, have convinced many in society that parents aren't smart enough to raise their own children. Parents are told that they must always follow the latest "expert" advice. As parents, we all need wisdom from others at times or a helping hand, but when have we crossed the line and expected various "experts" to do our job for us.

In contrast, the Bible has delegated this responsibility to parents (see Ephesians 6:3 and other scripture) not to "experts" and policy makers. We must help parents see this responsibility before they will be concerned with defending their "parental rights".

Please reflect on your own perspective on parenting and consider the trends in our culture. The biggest hurdle may not be the passage of an amendment, but the apathy of our nation's parents.

Tri-lingual couple with TWO Ph.D.'s and Masters Degree are not qualified to homeschool their children?

2009-12-08T09:25:00.000-06:00

A 2006 article by American Thinker is very pertinent to today's debate over the UN CRC, especially if you homeschool. In America, we have had legal battles about whether or not a parent must have a teaching degree or license in order to qualify for homeschooling. Relative to an incident in Belgium in 2006, that requirement is "child's play". Read below or at this LINK to learn how a father was called into the police for interrogation and informed:

"that, as a homeschooler, he has not adequately educated his children and, hence, is neglecting his duty as a parent, which is a criminal offence."

Was he or his wife somehow deficient in their own educational preparation? Let's see if their credentials fall short....

1) Father: Ph.D., fluent in Dutch, English, and French.

2) Mother: Master's degree in Linguistics, doctorate in Philology, lecturer at two universities, author of books on topics which are so intellectual that I do not even understand the titles. Gave up full-time work to homeschool their children.

If that isn't qualified, what is? What did the Ministry of Education say was their crime? They refused to sign an oath:

"respecting the respect (sic) for the fundamental human rights and the cultural values of the child itself and of others."

Please, pause, take a deep breath, and consider the implications of this philosophy (inherent in the UN CRC) on your family. You can't even hide behind a Ph.D. to prove your fitness to homeschool if you don't follow their rules.

Our Response - Part 5 of 5 in the Series

2009-11-21T16:03:00.000-06:00

Hopefully, by this point, only one question remains in the minds of readers, “Is there anything I can do to stop the insanity behind the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child?” If that is not the question you are asking, then go back and re-read the prior 4 postings before reading this one. Without that question in the forefront of your mind, there is no need for reading this posting. From there the title says it all. “Our” means that a victory for families will require the combined voices of parents across the nation shouting “no” to this treachory. “Response” means that parents cannot sit back and hope for the best. They must take action. From there the script should go like this.

First, parents must educate themselves on this issue by reading these postings and other information on the Parental Rights.Org website as well as the UN treaty itself. Then, each “educated” parent must alert other parents by simply sharing with them what they themselves have learned about the issue. Patience is required at this step as many will no believe this news nor even want to consider the possibility that it is a reality. From there, pressure must be exerted on our Senators who are the final step in this treaty’s ratification. If they fall prey to the deception, this treaty becomes “as-if” Supreme Law of the Land according to Article 6 of our constitution (see future post for an explanation of “as-if”). American parents must present their stance politely yet firmly by phone, e-mail, fax, and even in face to face meetings with Senators and their staff.

The Senate’s defeat of this treaty, however, is not the end of the story, but only a temporary victory. This treaty can reawaken later for ratification if the only action is a “no” vote. The underlying philosophies will still continue to simmer and are even now eroding parental rights through developing legislation and deceptive practices by government agencies including the public education system. Unless something more is done, the only difference will be between an immediate victory for the treaty supporters and a delayed victory of slow but eventual complete erosion of these rights. The complete and final answer is a Parental Right Amendment that is currently before both houses of the US Congress. This amendment uses wording from past Supreme Court cases that upheld parental rights and combines it with a section that exempts parental rights from any international treaty’s effects. If ratified, it places clear and explicit protection in our constitution for parent’s right to direct the care and education of their own children. Currently, this right has only been implied from the 14th amendment and is on shaky ground thanks to the last Supreme Court case in 2000 regarding parental rights. Without going into the details, it basically left open the question of whether parental rights are constitutionally protected or not, to the lower courts where there is no guarantee of safety for these rights. The Parental Rights Amendment now proposed would recognize parent’s God-given rights and would finally close the door on such unconstitutional international treaties. It would provide a clear constitutional ground for protecting our rights. For the parent desiring to retain their parental rights, this means a call to both Senators and Representatives to urge support for this amendment.

So, our response, as parents with God given rights and responsibilities towards our children, should be 1) to educate ourselves and alert others to this threat, 2) to jointly urge our Senators to vote “NO” on the treaty, 3) to urge all our Congressmen to sponsor the Parental Rights Amendment. For those desiring to go further in defending their rights, www.parentalrights.org has more ways that you can contribute. If you live in Tennessee, please contact our Tennessee organization through www.tennesseeparentalrights.com.

Thank you for reading this series. I pray that together, with God’s help, we can retain the freedom to raise our children according to the values and beliefs which we hold dear.

Specific Rights in the UN CRC - part 4 of 5

2009-11-06T11:32:00.000-06:00

The previously described philosophies (see part 3 of this series) are spelled out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by way of “rights” codified in the treaty’s articles. Many of these so-called “rights” are benevolent, like outlawing child abuse, outlawing using children as soldiers, and outlawing child prostitution. However, most if not all Americans should recognize that we already have laws for protecting children in these circumstances and absolutely do not need a duplication of those laws. This is especially true if parents realize what other baggage comes packaged in this treaty.

At first reading, some of these other rights seem harmless at face value while others are obviously at least concerning. The reader of the treaty could be left wondering whether there is cause for fear or not until they look at how the treaty has been used in other countries and the United Nation’s actions through other human rights treaties. The right to privacy found in article 16 was used in Japan to prevent parents from accessing their children’s text messages, chat rooms, and e-mails. In Britain, this treaty is being used to legislate that home-schooled children can be subjected to an unannounced in-home examination without their parents present through its right to an education that government determines is best. In Belize, the committee overseeing the treaty recommended that the Belize government create formal avenues in which children could legally protest their parent’s violations of this treaty’s rights. The treaty also guarantees a right to health care including reproductive health care which seems noble. However, the intention of this right needs to be considered in light of another UN treaty called the Convention to End All Discrimination Against Women, or CEDAW. CEDAW has been used to force countries to legalize abortion and decriminalize prostitution (1,2,3). Given the treaty’s right to health care provision, children could be guaranteed the right to abortion even without parental consent as it is a reproductive health care right. One final issue should cause great concern for American gun-owners. Given the treaty’s stance that government should always seek the best interest of the child and the UN’s stance that guns are bad for children, this will naturally lead to gun control in our country in the guise of protecting children. Parents will be forced to part with their guns voluntarily or possibly lose their children to government officials like child protective services. Many more examples could be provided, but this alone should be enough to raise the alarm of American parents who believe that God has given them the responsibility and the right to raise their children according to their own values and beliefs, not those of the government.

As stated at the beginning, some of these “rights” sound vague, benign, or sometimes benevolent when first read. However, each is ultimately an open door to further control of our private family life by the federal government and the United Nations. As a whole and individually, they infringe or forsake our constitutional rights in multiple ways. In doing so, they spell the end of the American tradition of parenting. America’s future under this treaty can be forseen in the effects they are having in other countries (see www.parentalrights.org for more examples). Do we want our federal government to begin teaching our 4 years about sex like the Netherlands educational system does (based on same philosophy as the treaty? Especially when the United Nation’s idea of sex education at that age includes an explanation of masturbation? (4) Shouldn’t the parent decide upon the appropriate timing these discussions?

Stay tuned for the final part 5 in the series.

Footnotes

(1) Web posted letter from National Right to Life to US Congressmen: http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ForeignAid/SenateCEDAWletter020107.html
(2) Catholic Exchange Article, CEDAW Committee Abortion Misinterpretations Infect Human Rights Committee, Sept. 11th, 2008, Samantha Singson. http://catholicexchange.com/2008/09/11/113696/
(3) United nations Report, Women and Health Mainstreaming the Gender Perspective into the Health Sector, Expert Group Meeting 28 Sept. to 2 October 1998. http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/healthr.htm
(4) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, International Guidelines on Sexuality Education:…, June 2009 http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/082509_unesco.pdf

The Two Philosophies Behind the Convention on the Rights of the Child

2009-10-29T15:42:00.000-05:00

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child seems benevolent or at least benign to many parents. Parents ask, “Who could oppose such a noble endeavor?” However, before supporting or simply ignoring this treaty, they must understand the philosophies that underlie it and the potential impact. Two philosophies summarize the heart of this UN treaty. The first is that the government knows what is best for children better than parents. The second is that, as international human rights theory promotes, governments are obligated to protect not just rights, but also to provide services at the child’s request, even over the parent’s objections. Taken together, this means that government has the final say in the upbringing of children.

The two philosophies work together but can be understood best by first examining them separately. The first philosophy has been promoted by Hillary Clinton in a number of her books and also by other prominent figures. They all advocate that government or its experts are better equipped to decide how a child should be raised. Article three of the treaty says that government will always seek the best interest of the child in all it does. While all parents would agree with seeking the best interest of their own children, the crux of the problem lies in “who decides what is best?” According to this philosophy, the government decides rather than the parent. This alone is a dangerous philosophy to apply in American law.

The second philosophy is an application of general international human rights theory to the area of child rights. America has long held rights to be God-given, or inalienable, and thus protected both by the government and from the government. The international view goes further and also holds rights as services or goods that the individual can claim from the government. Article 18 of the treaty creates a vague open door by saying that parent’s primary responsibility is to seek the best interest of the child AND the government will provide appropriate assistance. The central question to ask are “who decides when that assistance is needed?”. Under this philosophy, the government and its experts will make that decision. From there, article 12 adds fuel to the fire by saying that the child should have their voice heard in all administrative and judicial matters affecting them. Therefore, the child can petition the government directly to complain that their parents are not seeking their best interest and expect that the government will step in to provide appropriate assistance. Ultimately, articles 18 and 12 do not give the child freedom, but it instead enslaves them to the government and removes their most ardent protectors, the parents. Under the current system, parents serve as barriers to outside forces that would harm children or infringe on their rights. This new system would be replace parents with government representatives who would become the final line of defense protecting “their” children.

Taken together, the federal government and its experts decide what is best, the child can petition the government to overrule their parents, and the government is obligated or empowered to intervene on behalf of the child even against the parent’s wishes. The government becomes the parent and the parent becomes the babysitter. Is this what American parents want for their children?

(Return soon for part 4 discussing specific rights outlined in the treaty.)

Silent, but Urgent Threat to Parental Rights

2009-10-27T09:48:00.000-05:00

Very few recognize the slow, yet continual erosion of parent’s rights by many forces in our government at local, state, and federal levels. The erosion has occurred without fanfare and, what little media attention it garners, usually casts the parents in a negative light or takes only the most egregious examples of bad parents to make the point against all parents. Even when parental rights were restored in some cases, the media often still accused the parents of wrongdoing. Often the media would lament that the child protective workers just couldn’t get enough evidence to prove the parent’s guilt. The media never assumes that maybe the “protective” workers were not so innocent and the accused parents were not so “guilty”. Besides such individual cases and the overgeneralizations, dangerous court precedents are being set one case at a time, usually disregarded by the media as unimportant. If that is not enough, bills are working their way into laws which erode parental control over education, healthcare, religion, and other important areas. Slowly the heat is being turned up on parents wading in the waters of our nation’s culture. Those simmering parents must realize the urgency of the next few degrees of heat that will bring the legal waters to a boiling point and will mean the end of parenting in America as we know it.

Why do the supporters of government-controlled parenting enjoy the silence and stealth? In the quiet, they can slowly turn up the heat one degree at a time without anyone taking much notice. American parents just learn to accept the warmer water as being natural since they trust the government to do what is best. The supporters set up law after law, one court precedent after another, until, with a simple tweak of one more degree, everything boils and American parents are stunned to find themselves in boiling water, unable to escape. If parents saw the final goal held by these forces or read the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN CRC) with open eyes of understanding, they would protest with outrage. The UN CRC aids our understanding because it is the most tangible manifestation of the philosophy that government knows what is best for children and should overrule parents in their decisions for their own children. As it is now, if no parent reads the recipe in that treaty, we will all suffer a common demise of our parental rights in this legal environment.

Why is it urgent? The US State Department is processing this treaty as fast as Senator Barbara Boxer can push them. She wanted to present it to the US Senate for a 2/3’s ratification vote in April of this year. The State Department thankfully wanted time to process it properly. Senator Boxer and others such as our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, believe that their long awaited dream of ratifying this treaty by 67 Senate “yes” votes is ripe for the picking. Furthermore, our president and many in his chosen administration believe that it is a disgrace that America has not yet signed this treaty. Even though this treaty hands over state and national sovereignty unconstitutionally, they will do so and act “as if” it is constitutionally allowed. Meanwhile, outside Washington D.C., many groups are building momentum to help push this through the Senate. They have held conferences, raised funding, and started grassroots campaigns. No punches are being pulled in this battle for who controls the future of our children.

In summary, supporters enjoy the relative silence compared to the roar surrounding other government issues facing Americans and their fading liberties right now. They benefit from American parent’s deafness and ignorance towards this crucial issue. Yet the situation is growing more and more urgent as each day passes without American parents awakening to this threat, a threat that is ready to boil over at any minute.

(Return soon for part 3 of the series which discusses the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child itself.)

Why the Convention on the Rights of the Child is a Core Issue

2009-10-23T08:56:00.000-05:00

(Part 1 of 5 in a series)

There are certain issues in our epic battle for freedom so fundamental that winning all other skirmishes, but losing these critical battles still results in defeat. With multiple attacks on freedom coming at us daily, discernment, focus, and coordination are required by America’s citizens if these issues are to be targeted for special efforts. The right of parents to decide how their children are raised and what their children are taught is one of these core issues. In America we have long held this tradition as a fundamental right granted by God. However, this tradition is being challenged by forces from within and from outside our own nation. If, through slow erosion in the courts and legislatures or through the floodgate of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the government gains full control of “parenting”, one thing is guaranteed. The passing of the current generation will leave the next generation shaped, molded, and indoctrinated according to the values of our government’s leaders and experts. That generation will be enslaved to the government as the one to whom it owes allegiance, and freedom will be forsaken.
Three simple truths prove the fundamental nature of this issue. First, God ordained that the family has the primary responsibility for directing the intellectual and moral education of children. Within this family structure, parents were made the primary source of influence as to what values and beliefs are passed to the next generation. If parents abdicate that role to the government, then the values of the government, not the family, will shape the next generation. Second, a simple historical investigation reveals how multiple dictators targeted children for indoctrination from early ages. The dictators knew that their future power lay in the hands of the next generation’s submission to government authority. Even Plato was concerned that the very stories told to infants were important in shaping society’s future. Finally, as the introduction tried to highlight, only one generation’s passing stands between freedom and its disappearance if parents allow the government to control the next generation’s upbringing. You see, if the government controls their upbringing, they will be taught that submission to the government and its values is of the highest importance. Whatever sense of freedom that our generation holds dear will not even be a memory in the next generation’s mind after such indoctrination.
Health care, the banking industry, the car industry, and other areas are unquestionably important skirmishes, but the intellectual, spiritual, and moral development of our next generation is not a battle that we can afford lose if we hope to win the ongoing war for freedom. As Wendell Phillips said in 1852, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”. May God help American parents to recognize the magnitude of this issue and to be eternally vigilant in protecting children by protecting our rights to parent them.

Stay tuned for part 2 of 5 in this series.....

Good Morning America !

2009-10-08T13:07:00.001-05:00

While not packed with juicy morsels to raise your blood pressure or drive you to insane irritation at our government's intrusion into private life, I did not want to pass up an opportunity to ask how you are handling our brave new world. In a day when the issues come flying by you at warp speed, reminiscent of the blurring stars in a Star Treak or Star Wars movie, how do you stay sane?
My answer: I spend each day living another analogy, that of standing in a burning building with one bucket of water. So many fires, so little water. I just have to stop and pray for wisdom. I pray that God will lead me to use my bucket of water (time, resources, energy, talents) in the direction where it is most effective and fits in with His plan. Then I pray that others will go through the same process in using their buckets of water. With God's directing and our listening, some coordinated effect should result.
So grab your bucket, ask for direction, and go put out a fire today. Tomorrow, start all over and do it again......

Sincerely,
Eric Potter MD

Berkeley and the United Nations

2009-09-30T15:06:00.000-05:00

Berkeley dealing directly with United Nations

A good friend forwarded a very concerning article to me this morning. The city of Berkeley, California, will soon be voting on a measure to begin reporting directly to the United Nations on their compliance with UN human rights treaty. I believe we would all agree that torture, civil rights, and racial discrimination are important issues. However, should a city forge a "treaty" of sorts with the United Nations. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the people of the United States of America delegated that power to our federal government. Under division of powers in federalism, a city can not do this constitutionally.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is not explicitly mentioned, but obviously would be a logical initial piece of the plan or later addition. In this you can see the direction of our nation.

Read THIS LINK for more information.

2009-09-24T10:48:00.000-05:00

Fellow Americans,

I am calling on you to awaken to the reality before us. The reality is that a battle is being waged against your right to raise your children. The reality is that intellectual assent to this reality will not protect you or your children. If you are not already working to spread the word and fight this battle, you must awaken from your slumber and find your role in this battle. If you are already waging battle, keep up the good fight and don't give up.

Why am I fired up this morning? First and foremost is the growing recognition that this is a spiritual battle even more than a physical or philosophical battle. This is about the God given right to teach our children about the glorious Creator God and His Son. Therefore, the battle neither begins nor ends, nor is won by words or deeds. It begins in repentance to God for our part in allowing our culture to degrade to such a point. Next comes a continual prayer for an awakening of the body of Christ. Then a prayer for guidance in what each of our roles should be in this battle and a prayer for strength and perseverance in that role. When we stand up from that prayer, we must keep our eyes on God and His work in this battle. We know our children are loved by Him even more than we love them, and can trust that He will move mightily to defend them. If we are distracted or driven to despair by looking at the works of evil, we will not be effective in this fight.

The second reason for my fervor is a video that surfaced in the past 24 hours showing school children being led in a song of praise to our President. CLICK HERE or read more about it at THIS LINK. This is what our nation is heading towards. Do not be deceived that this is an isolated incident. Stop and look at the pieces of the puzzle. It is another part to the machinery of indoctrinating our children with Statism (read more below).

Statism is just a fancy term for the belief that government can, will, and should supply all our needs. Our Founders did not create such a government. We have not thrived as a country based on this belief. AND WE SURE DON'T NEED IT NOW ANY MORE THAN THEN.
However, our leaders are preaching this more and more to the masses. More entitlements. More forfeiture of liberty and property for the "greater good". More government and LESS freedom.

Will we allow this to take our children? Do not answer this question with words unless those words are directed to God in prayer. Then act on God's calling in His Word and in your heart.
May God save our country,Eric Potter MDTennessee Director for Parental Rights.Org

Constitution Week Calling Campaign

2009-09-14T11:15:00.000-05:00

Celebrate Constitution Week!!!

This week marks the anniversary of our US Constitution, the oldest democratic constitution still in use. By God's grace, this document has protected freedoms within our country for over 200 years and has been a light of freedom across the globe as well.
Besides pausing to appreciate this treasure this week, please take a few minutes to help uphold these rights. We are asking you to call those Congressmen who have not committed to sponsoring the parental rights amendment yet and ask them to "get off the fence". We would also hope that you can tell at least one other person to do the same. Together we may keep our rights to raise our children according to the values and beliefs that we hold dear. Without each other, we may lose those rights to our government.

During this time we must also remember that the Constitution is only a piece of paper and "we, the people" are entrusted to uphold its principles and to hold government accountable to these principles.

"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." -- Daniel Webster (1834) "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" -- either Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry ?

Our parental rights to raise our children according to a heritage of values and beliefs that we hold dear is now at stake on a bartering block for the noble cause of "child rights". If we do not pay the price for their hearts and minds, their future will pay the price of our negligence.

The smallest token you can deposit in the bank of freedom this week is to call your Congressmen if they haven't committed to sponsor the Parental Rights Amendment yet. Go to THIS PAGE and, if your Congressmen is NOT a sponsor, call and urge them to join this battle.

You can find out who your Congressmen are by going to THIS LINK and typing in your address or zip code. It will give you names, phone numbers, and web contacts.

2009-08-17T10:20:00.001-05:00

We are not in Kansas anymore!

Often, we find that someone we expect to be an ally, has placed themselves in opposition to our method while maintaining the same goal as we hold dear. Much frustration arises as we struggle to understand why we must work at odds rather than working together towards a goal we both profess and seek wholeheartedly. This has become a common experience in working to protect parental rights in our nation from the threat of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is hard enough to fight against the treaty’s advocates, but to feel betrayed by fellow parents that argue blatantly against your plan of defense against the common foe. The need for a Parental Rights Amendment seems so clear that no one could possibly accuse it of being as dangerous as the United Nations’ plan for raising your children according to their values. However, a number of sincere and outspoken advocates for parental rights are doing just this. At first, this was both irritating and confusing. Then, the key to understanding our divergence was found and unlocked the mystery.
In reading their arguments, one finds good evidence and some good reasoning, but one must look for what is not there. There are several areas of evidence that weigh heavily in the debate which are left out. Suddenly, it is clear. They are operating under the past assumptions of law, society, and precedent. Their plans for defending against the government’s intrusion into family life might work under past laws and national settings. However, today, the vague laws of the past which allowed parents to slide through loopholes of ambiguity or hide in the shadows of vagueness are all but obsolete. The authors of the laws learned from their mistakes and are regrouping with sharper edges on the laws and harder to find loopholes. A simple request for proof of a legal statute in the past was met with authorities backing down as they had nothing to show. However, today, the authorities are coming with stronger laws that can be enforced. Hiding in the shadows will no longer work. Parents need a stronger law than the authorities and a constitutional amendment is just the needed tool to protect parents and their children from the government.
Let us not forget one other significant change that many of the anti-amendment types have overlooked. In the past, parents faced simple local and state laws. They were poorly worded as described earlier and being at a lower level of government, they were often easier to bypass or overturn. Today, parents face international law, forged in the meetings of international intellects and experts. The laws are crafted much sharper, extend further into the previously safe shadows, and leave no holes through which to slip. If that is not threatening enough, they are infiltrating our country through activist judges without any approval by American citizens or without any warning. New York state and Ohio have already witnessed such use of international law to judge against American parents even without any ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The hope of hiding should be clearly extinguished by now.
With these contemporary realities in mind, the need for the Parental Rights Amendment should be abundantly clear. The amendment protects against international law in our own courts by section 3 which says that no international treaty nor source of international law can supercede or modify this parental right. The amendment also protects parents in the international courts which follow the Vienna Convention of International Law where such language of section 3 affords similar protection. We are no longer living in Kansas and we must face the realities of what is before us as Dorothy did in the land of Oz. What worked in Kansas won’t work today as we face the United Nations and international law.

Seeing More Clearly Now

2009-08-08T15:54:00.000-05:00

I have struggled to listen many times as well intentioned and bright individuals argue that a Parental Rights Amendment would just open the door to federal control of our families instead of closing it. Often, the evidence that seemed so clear to me, only led them further down their line of reasoning and further away from agreeing with my stance. Then over the course of two or three days, several clarifying points hit me, allowing me to understand how we could see the same evidence and yet come to such polar opposite conclusions. From that illuminating point onward, I looked backward and began to see clearly where the divergences occurred.
A most significant discovery was that to some, most if not all laws are “bad”. Their automatic presupposition was that a new law inherently by its nature either creates limits on liberty or forces actions undesired by the affected citizen. Liberty to them has a great value, and I agree with them on that point. However, while recognizing the great worth of liberty, I recognize the wisdom of our nation’s founders as they understood that liberty does not reside securely in chaos, but in order. The chaos of anarchy, or absence of some degree of governmentally imposed order, offers no guarantee of liberty except to the strongest and wealthiest. They would respond that liberty neither resides in the shadow of a tyrannical government. I agree quite wholeheartedly. Are we then at an impasse?
While liberty finds no security in anarchy nor tyranny, it finds its most secure home in an ordered society where a limited government safeguards the rights of minorities while granting freedom to the majorities. If this is so, then laws are not inherently evil as their perspective proclaims. Yes, laws can be bad, but they are not inherently evil by nature. Laws are only as good as the people that make up the government which creates them. If those of the “all law is bad” persuasion can move past their above revealed presuppositions, they might see some value in an amendment protecting parental rights. While they may still not agree with the exact wording, they could see some value, at least enough to provide constructive input into creating an even better amendment (if such exists) rather than simply dismissing its potential benefit. Then rather than struggling against those such as myself who also seek to protect our parental rights, we could combine our efforts, wisdom, insight, and creativity to fight our real foe, those who want to steal that parental right from us.

Congressional Visits

2009-07-30T20:39:00.001-05:00

Hello to all parents,
Last week we called on everyone to contact their congressmen by phone or e-mail to let them know that parents should not lose their rights to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Now we are looking for parents willing to join us in meeting face to face with our Senators and Representatives. Please contact me at parentalrightstn@fastmail.net to find out how you can join us in August during their congressional recess.
If you have not heard about this threat, go to www.parentalrights.org to learn how those in our federal government are working to ratify a UN treaty that would place the government above parents regarding the right to raise children. This sounds far-fetched, but so has a number of other federal actions of late. Government Motors (GM), Bank Takeovers, and next Papa Government - Grandpa United Nations. If you doubt it, check out the website or ask me by e-mail to explain more.
Sincerely,
Eric Potter MD

2009-07-22T11:07:00.000-05:00

Good Morning Tennessee!
I want to post an important "Call to Action" for Parental Rights here on my blog. Please read below and consider joining other voices across Tennessee in standing for parental rights.
-----------------------------------------
July Congressional Contact Campaign
As citizens of this great state and noble country, we must be eternally vigilant in holding our leaders accountable to those whom they serve. Our U.S. Congressmen serve as a privilege, not a right, and owe their constituents a respectful ear.
In order to win our battle for Parental Rights, we must interact with our U.S. Congressmen in a clear and forceful manner, yet respectful of the duty they carry out. We are therefore planning a phone campaign for July 21-23 (NOTE: 1 day shift from last e-mail update in order to coordinate across the nation) to all our Congressmen, both Representatives and Senators. For those who have not committed their support to the Parental Rights Amendment, we will ask their stance on the issue, explain concisely our reasons against the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and ask for them to join as a cosponsor of the amendment. For the handful of Tennessee Representatives who have pledged their support, we want to e-mail a simple "I want to thank Rep. ________ for their support of American Parents in their sponsorship of the Parental Rights Amendment." For a simple script on how to talk with your Congressman about this issue, go to Forms and Flyers and click on the link titled " Easy Script for Calling Congressmen". To find your US congressmen's contact information, go to www.congress.org or click Forms and Flyers above and click on "Tennessee Call to Action".
Please join the voices of other parents across Tennessee on one of these three days in July. Together our voices will be heard.

2009-07-11T11:03:00.000-05:00

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is destructive to the tradition of parental rights in America. The treaty sets what appears to the casual reader to be a benign standard in its Article 3 of seeking the “best interest of the child” which is hard to disagree with. Later it adds Article 18, which places the government in the role of delegating to parents the "responsibility" to raise their children. Obviously, if the government "gives" that right, it can determine how parents should carry out that responsibility and hold them accountable. Article 6 of our own constitution then makes this international human rights treaty, if ratified by 67 of our U.S. Senators, the Supreme Law of the Land, practically equal to the constitution. The only recourse of protection from this “supremacy” is explicit wording denying it in our own Constitution which I will explain in the future. Scanning through the rest of the treaty, one finds what the United Nations defines as the “best interests of the child” and these definitions may startle most of you (at least I hope you understand it well enough to see the underlying reality). The government will decide what is best for your child based on this treaty. The treaty guarantees protection of privacy to children even in their own home. The treaty encourages children to appeal parental decisions, with which they disagree, to government authorities as final arbiters. The government is charged with protecting the child’s right to access information deemed “best” for them. The government is also charged with overseeing the education of children. Given their current success in education or lack of it, this should be frightening to all, whether home schooled or private schooled or even in public schools. And one last note, the government will protect your child’s right to health care which according to other U.N. treaties and practices, will mean contraceptive access and abortion without parental consent. Ultimately, the government becomes the decision maker and the parent simply must carry out the values and intent of the government.

A simple way to understand this is: the federal government is the new parent, the United Nations is the grandparent, and we, the parents, become the babysitters, carrying out the government's instructions.

Parental Rights in Jeopardy

2009-06-20T14:00:00.001-05:00

Welcome to my inaugral entry into blog moderation.

In the past four months, I have undergone a transformation which I recommend for all parents that cherish their freedoms. The quiet, yet fretful, father-physician, that I once was, has metamorphosized into a unquenchably passionate activist, addicted to defending our right to parent. Every effect requires a cause, and such a powerful effect requires an equally great cause.

With that introduction, I come to my point, "What was the cause of my metamorphosis?" In February, I learned of a threat to the American way of life so great that I could no longer linger in my intentional denial of the changes taking place in our country. That was when I learned of the forces gathering to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I will not provide the details now, but I will strip away those layers of flesh to reveal the heart of this issue that provides me with such passion and motivation.

The heart of the issue is bound up in the consequences of ideas. All ideas have consequences; they do not happen in a vaccum, devoid of impact. The idea here is the philosophy that government, its officials, its experts, its bureaucracy, and all their trappings know what is best for the individual citizen and furthermore should force it upon them. Despite the antithetical nature of this philosophy to the foundations of America's republican form of government, many Americans are promoting this philosophy in the form of this United Nations treaty. They sincerely believe that they, in their roles of government leadership and expert opinion, know better than a child's own parents what is best for the individual child. They reach beyond claiming knowledge of the best common good and intrude into decisions for the individual good of families, particularly the children.

By claiming this superior wisdom and seeking the power of this treaty to implement it in our great nation, they will strip parents of the very right to pass values, tradition, and beliefs to their next generation. They claim high motives of protecting against child abuse, protecting from unhealthy influences by parents, assuring the proper education of all children, and so much more. They practically claim that they will provide salvation of all that is bad in the world for children. This mostly means salvation from parents and parental influence.

There I find myself, engulfed in the flames of passion, hearing forces claiming that we as parents do not possess the wisdom nor the intention to provide what they deem "best" for our own children. I will give up many privileges, many perks, many luxuries, but I will never, ever, give up the right to raise my children and direct the provision of all that is good for their growth into mature citizens of our great nation.

Therefore, I work against this United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child and for a Parental Rights Amendment which I believe after much research is our best hope against the gathering forces for the treaty.

Please refer to www.parentalrights.org for further background on this treaty. If you live in Tennessee, search Tennessee on that website for our Tennessee webpage.