Author Archives: Editor

Bogus Complaint of Ohio ACLU Against Proposed Pledge of Allegiance Law

Posted on June 23, 2009 | Leave a comment

The Port Clinton News Herald published the following report about a proposed change in Ohio school law that would “strip Ohio School Boards of the authority to decide whether students should says the Pledge of Allegiance.” The law gives teachers sole authority to “decide if students in their classrooms will say the pledge.” Individual students would still be “allowed not to recite the pledge, but the proposal would prohibit anyone from altering it, such as adding or removing words.”

So, what is so bad about that?

“Christine Link, executive director of the ACLU in Ohio, said the proposed law violates free speech rights. School boards should retain the authority to decide if the pledge is appropriate.”

Whose free speech rights does this proposed law threaten? It is not students for they still have the right not to say the Pledge. It is not teachers who will gain greater discretionary authority in the classroom. That leaves those local school district officials who have decided students will not say the Pledge of Allegiance at school. Seeing the state already dictates school policy anyway, the loss of discretionary authority at the district level is almost meaningless.

The real problem is this: It “is a transparent attempt to force all school districts into mandating the pledge to be recited in all classrooms,” according to Link.

In other words, the proposed law threatens the ACLU’s socialist control over speech in the public domain.

Let’s evaluate this issue further. Children attend school to learn how to be good citizens of the United States of America. Engendering loyalty towards their national homeland is one of the original goals of public education. Who would grow up even to consider defending their nation if they did not highly value it? Stating the Pledge of Allegiance is instrumental in accomplishing that goal.

It must be acknowledged that the religion of some families forbid such acts. The flag could be viewed as object of idolatry, and a pledge could be compared to a religious oath. I cannot imagine any other reason for not pledging allegiance to their nations and the values it represents.

I almost forgot that the few atheists like those in the ACLU justify editing out of our nation’s historic Pledge those offending words like God through a secular interpretation of free speech rights.

Is it possible to edit out the same offending words and their synonyms from our nation’s founding documents? Even the second Constitution included the word Lord, which meant God not King Charles. It must be terribly offensive from them to read the multiple volumes of the Constitutional Convention debates. That is assuming they have actually read them. God was not left out. Then there are those federal building in which us etched scriptural references and even the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court chambers.

Over the edge are statements written into the Constitution of Ohio. For example, the Preamble states:

We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this
Constitution.

Article 1 Section 7 of the Bill of Rights states:

Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to pass suitable laws, to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction.

Ohio public schools are government institutions whose purpose is the inculcation of good citizenship in its citizens. It is the Constitutional responsibility of schools to teach children what a good government is, the essentials being religion, morality, and knowledge.

Requiring children to say the Pledge of Allegiance is not a violation of free speech whereas forbidding it is a violation of Constitutional law. When religion conflicts with offending practices, the Ohio Bill of Rights accommodates freedom of conscience. Even children of atheist parents have a right not to say the Pledge.

The intention of the proposed law is to eliminate politically incorrect censorship or denial of the Pledge in a nation under God.

Sources: Port Clinton News Herald, June 13, 2009.
                  The Ohio Constitution.

Leave a comment

Posted in family, news, Ohio, politics, religion, schools

Tagged , ,

Economic Crisis : A Commentary, Part 2

Posted on June 22, 2009 | Leave a comment

In the previous post, the commentary of Dr. Bill Ragle, associate professor of finance at Cedarville University, focused on the causes of the current economic crisis. Unlike most like a bad dreams, America is still shaken by the prolonged impact of the recession, which began during the failed policies of FDR’s New Deal and certainly by Lydon B, Johnson’s Great Society. But, the impetus pushing the economy over the edge is the result of deregulation–Community Reinvestment Act of 1995 and after–that occurred under previous Democrat regimes and not under GW Bush. That is not to deny Bush’s contributions to the problem.

This post presents solutions to America’s economic crisis offered by Dr. Ragel and others.

Solutions

According to Prof. Ragel, America’s economic problems can be fixed. He proposes the following three steps that would affect financial restoration.

(1) Tax policy must be restructured to encourage entrepreneurial activity. This means tax cuts.

(2) Government must allow market forces to work. Bankruptcy is often the result of either inefficient management or the lack of market demand. For these reasons, government should stop propping up poorly run companies and municipalities.

(3) Both individuals and governments must begin exercising fiscal restraint and pay off their debts. Fiscal restraint is a moral issue related to the concept of self-governance, which was the problem first addressed by Prof. Ragle. For Constitutional governance to work, moral self-governance is among the first principles as understood the founders like John Adams.

If the above are not done, Prof. Ragle warns America will likely suffer a prolonged recession, if not an outright depression. “We will continue to build our debt-based house of cards until it inevitably collapses.”

Cedarville president, Dr. Bill Brown, says the economy reflects societal values, which arise from worldviews. Revaluing our economy is synonymous with the above steps. Moral self-governance (restraint) begins with the providence and sovereignty of nature’s God over individual as well as public life.

Dr. Robert Parr, professor of sociology, sees economic crisis as good news for families. He wrote, “[E]vidence from both Scripture and society demonstrates that a tough economy reinforces the value of family. “Threat to survival provides opportunity to rebuild caring and helping relationships as opposed to narcissism or alienation.

Sources: The Torch, (Spring/Summer 2009), pp. 4-8, 3, and 19.

Leave a comment

Posted in news

Economic Crisis : A Commentary, Part 1

Posted on June 19, 2009 | Leave a comment

The Problem

In the latest edition of The Torch, Cedarville University provides readers with varied perspective on America’s current economic crisis. The theme mentioned on the front cover is aptly titled A Fragile Economy. Associate professor of finance, Dr, Bill Ragle, wrote the one article I want to focus on.

In Waking Up to an Economic Crisis, Prof. Ragle begins by setting the mood for his commentary. The recession is like a bad dream. The problem is it hasn’t faded away once since we began to awaken. As Prof. Ragle points out, “rousing from today’s economic debacle will be very slow in coming. We may want a quick recovery, but it isn’t going to happen.” Why? Because the current situation developed over several decades, it will not be resolved quickly or easily. He further clarifies this point claiming “[a] few multi-billion dollar bailouts and a massive redistribution of America’s wealth will not fix the problem.”

Prof. Ragle presents a number of causal factors that have led to the current economic crisis. They include the undermining of key principles of Constitutional governance in part because of the demoralizing effects of New Deal and Great Society welfarism and the enslavement of Americans to unsustainable entitlement debt. Christian morality is necessary for our form of Constitutional governance. As John Adams once said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The Protestant work ethic is antithetical to a welfare entitlement mentality. Many Americans have become totally dependent on government for nearly every part of their economic wants; the federal government has become just as irresponsible. Quoting Prof. Ragle,

“Another way to think of the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government is to compare their costs to their revenues. The cost to run the federal government in 2008 was $3.64 trillion. Total revenues of the federal government were $2.66 trillion, a deficit of $980 billion. During that year, expenses increased 25 percent, while revenues increased 1.3 percent.”

From this point of view, it seems valid to infer that the millionaires running the federal government feel entitled to spend way beyond working American taxpayer means. The Rich lawmakers did not get to Capitol Hill to change the economic status quo.

Prof. Ragle considers the Community Reinvestment Act as the camel that broke the irresponsible straw man’s back. By straw man, I mean national and international corporations like Fannie Mae, GM, Washington Mutual Bank, and Bear Stearns. Fannie and Freddie, Lehman Brothers, and now GM are like Bonnie’s and Clyde’s dressed in pin stripped suits. Unlike the pair of bank robbing legends, our modern institutional version were created and sanctioned by Congress. Their existence and actions violate the supreme law of the land, they rip off taxpayers, and any repayment to the federal government will be through inflation, which means by ripping off taxpaying consumers. Anyway, Prof. Ragle explains why the Community Reinvestment Act (1995) was the culprit crashing the economy.

“As the U.S. economy began to unravel in the spring of 2008, one of the main culprits was default on subprime mortgages. These loans were to individuals unable to repay them, yet the government forced financial institutions to provide them to citizens anyway. The name of the offending legislation was the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The CRA, as revised in 1995, stipulated that down payments, credit history, and proof of income was no longer required as qualifying criteria for mortgage loans. Banks that did not actively solicit these subprime loans were punished…. Lending to [these] unqualified borrowers … resulted in artificial demand for residential real estate, which in turn caused housing pricing to increase 120 percent. Borrowers stuck in interest-only adjustable rate loans or negative amortization loans were further unable to make payments, and many had no recourse other than foreclosure. The national home foreclosure rate in the spring of 2008 spiked to between 200,000 and 250.000 per month, a 300 percent increase from pre-crisis level of 2005.”

Financial institutions holding large amounts of subprime loans incurred massive losses, and consequently they collapsed overnight.

In 1995, Democrat Bill Clinton was president not George W. Bush. According to Family Security Matters, it was Clinton who mandated bank lending to unqualified buyers. Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999) that deregulated New Deal regulations into law. Democrats who voted for the Act included Harry Reid and Joe Biden. The left has little grounds to blame Bush. In 2003, GW Bush tried to get Congress to amend Fannie Mae and Freddie rule to prevent unqualified borrowers from obtaining mortgages.

Yet, in 2007, a Democrat-led Congress did refuse to bailout the big three automakers while GW Bush insisted on giving the automakers $17 billion claiming to allow the automakers to enter bankruptcy would be too big a blow to the economy. This sent a bad message to other corporations and municipalities, according to Prof. Ragle. The message was “if you get into trouble Congress will bail you out.” Americans have since discovered Congress agrees that banks, automakers, commercial real estate developers, newspapers, states and municipalities alike think they too are entitled to taxpayer dollars.

Sources: The Torch, (Spring/Summer 2009), pp4-8.
                  http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1347/pub_detail.asp

Leave a comment

Posted in Cedarville, economy, news, politics

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s

Posted on June 13, 2009 | Leave a comment

“Render unto Caesar” is a phrase taken from the synoptic gospels. Is has been used as Jesus’ opponents concerning payment of taxes. This phrase has been used as support for blind obedience to government edicts. It has more recently been used to justify laws advocated by gays and their supporters. The latter actually is merely an application of blind obedience or acceptance of government edicts. This particular application is may be classified as special interest law under the rubric of civil rights and equality under law.

Those who used this phrase to justify law including tax laws abuse the text for their personal interests and goals. For Jesus neither supported or opposed taxes or Caesar in this passage. He addressed his opponents in a way that forced them to confront where their allegiance was centered.

The immediate context of this phrase informs us that Jesus’ opponents–Pharisees and Herodians–came looking for some statement that they could use against him. Their goal was to find a legitimate accusation of anti-Roman radicalism in order to bring against his movement Caesar’s wrath. Israel’s leaders had seen–maybe even assisted–Caesar to exterminate would-be freedom movements and their hatred of Rome’s oppressive regime. Fortunately, Jewish delegate didn’t find such an accusation against Jesus.

Instead, Jesus asked his opponents to show him a coin that was used to pay taxes. Once produced, Jesus asked them whose likeness and inscription was on the coin. To which they responded: Caesar. Then, Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are God’s.” (Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, and Luke 20:25)

The point Jesus was making was this: Caesar made the coin. Give him his coins. God made you. Give God what belongs to him. Here, Jesus alludes to the familiar passage in Genesis 1:26-30, which states that God made man in his image and likeness, both male and female, with authority over all living creatures and plant life. They were to care for those lesser souls and consume the fruit of plant and trees. It is here that our natural law freedom and rights begin, according to John Locke’s Treatise on Government.

A lot more could be made of Jesus’ response to the Pharisees and Herodians. For example, because God made the heavens and the earth, the metal used by Caesar to make coins belong to God as well. What right did Caesar have to make them, use for trade instead of barter, and to demand some of them back called taxes? Here is a clue to another statement made by Jesus concerning paying taxes. Matthew includes an earlier encounter of the disciples with Caesarean tax collectors. The tax collectors wanted to know if Jesus paid the temple tax. Peter said, yes. However, when they met up with Jesus, he asked Peter this question:

What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll tax, from their sons or from strangers?

Peter gave the obvious answer, “from strangers.” To this Jesus replied, Then, the son are exempt. Jesus continued by instructing the disciples to go to the sea and take the shekel they would find in the first fish they caught and give it to the tax collectors for both himself and them. If he and they were exempt, then why did he have them pay the tax? “So as not to offend the temple tax collectors.

In essence, Jesus was telling his disciples that he and they were sons of God, the true king. Being members of His kingdom, they owed no one but God.

But wait, the issue was whether Jesus paid the Temple tax, not Caesar’s tax. This fact suggests one of at least three possible meanings: (1) Jesus regarded the Temple tax as illegal, which would coincide with how many viewed the Temple authorities as well as their corruption of the Temple service. 2) Jesus viewed the Temple-tax as an indirect form of taxation of Rome, or (3) possibly both.

However it was actually regarded, the fundamental aspect of Jesus statement was a reaffirmation of God’s original covenanted authority over Israel. That God is the only true king of Israel (and humanity) is evident in the Exodus account and more specifically in God’s statement about the Israelites’ demand for a king. They wanted a king like other neighboring nations. To the prophet Samuel, God said, “Listen to the voice of the people … for they have not rejected you, but they rejected Me from being king over them.” (1 Samuel 8:4-6,7, 8)

This may also be applied to America. With regards to the founding of America, some colonialists considered God as their king. The national seal proposed and explained by Thomas Jefferson and others contained allusions to God as king. Written in the Declaration of Independence is not only a covenant with God along with the social contract but also the implications of God as king being the source, witness and defending judge of America’s national freedom and statehood.

All of which, past and present liberals have rejected and have largely replaced with anti-religious secularism and socialism.

Does it then follow that we who acknowledge God as such are not obligated to pay taxes to government?

No; we are obligated by our voted agreement to pay taxes in exchange for the beneficial services rendered by government created first by our social contract, then by consent to the forms of government and their functions created by our Constitutions, and since then by our consent to taxes for additional services by majority vote.

Today, some relevant questions requiring an honest answers include whether particular taxes and their correlated services were voted in by common majority consent; whether they are beneficial rather than harmful to our rights and forms of government; whether Americans should continue tolerating the negative consequences of the liberal rejection of God’s rightful place in America’s public life; and what exactly is God’s kingship supposed to look like?

Leave a comment

Posted in Bible, politics, religion, taxes

The Friends of Jarrod B. Martin Golf Scramble

Posted on June 12, 2009 | Leave a comment

Are you a friend and supporter of State Representative Jarrod B. Martin? Then you are invited to the Friends of Jarrod B. Martin Golf Scramble.

Don’t ask me why it’s called a scramble instead of a fund raiser. My guess is that players like myself find ourselves doing more scrambling for golf balls in the woods, sand, and water than on the greens. Whatever the reason, its an opportunity to rub shoulders with the who’s who of Greene County and support Rep. Martin’s legislative work.

Location: WGC Golf Course, 944 Country Club Drive, Xenia, Ohio 45385, Visit the                   course online at www.wgcgolfcourse.com

Date & Time: Monday, June 29, 2009: Shotgun Start at 8:30, Registration, coffee &                          Donuts at 7:45

Cost: $100 per golfer includes, golf, cart, food & drinks, and prizes. Space is limited;            register early!

Sponsors: $25 Cart Sponsor: Sign on cart
                    $100 Tee Sponsor; Sign at Tee, recognition in golf fliers
                    $150 Hole Sponsor; Signs at Tee & Green, recognition in golf fliers
                    $500 Food & Beverage Sponsor; Sign at Clubhouse, recognition in                     golf fliers, credit for two golfers
                    $1000 Tournament Sponsor; Signs at Registration Table & Clubhouse,                     recognition in golf fliers, credit for four golfers

Directions: US 35 East into downtown Xenia, Left on US 68 (Detroit), Right on                      Country Club Drive
                     From Columbus: I-70 West to US 68 South to Left on Country Club                      Drive.

Questions: Contact Michael Bir, 937-369-1540 or michaelbirgop@gmail.com

Leave a comment

Posted in events, Greene County, politics

Tagged ,

Judge Sotomayor and Business

Posted on June 10, 2009 | Leave a comment

by Raymond J. Keating

Within the business community, President Obama’s selection of Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor generated the inevitable question: Is she pro-business or anti-business?

The same question was asked of President George W. Bush’s court appointees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

The notion behind the pro-business/anti-business question is whether or not businesses will be able to count on her to come down of their side in cases before the court. They want to take some uncertainty out of the business decision-making process when it comes to the courts.

But this is the wrong question and the wrong assumption.

The question that the business community should be asking is: Can Judge Sotomayor be relied on to responsibly apply the law and the Constitution, or will she be an activist legislating from the bench?

It is judicial activism that creates uncertainty. Businesses should be able to expect that the courts will act in a restrained manner, working to properly interpret and apply the law and Constitution as written and, to the extent possible, as intended by the authors of each. When judges stray from the proper role of the judiciary is when uncertainty mounts for the business community, and everyone else.

If the business community does not like certain laws, then the place to change those laws is in the legislature, not the judiciary.

On the matter of judicial restraint and business, Judge Sotomayor does not generate confidence.

Most worrisome, she joined an order in the 2006 property rights case of Didden v. Village of Port Chester that supported a town seizing private property for use by a developer. The decision lined up with the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 Kelo decision that trampled all over the U.S. Constitution and the private property rights of individuals and small businesses.

This a fundamental issue, and individuals and small business owners should be concerned.

Other decisions should be noted as well.

In the 2007 case of Riverkeeper v. EPA, Sotomayor wrote an opinion barring the EPA from using cost-benefit analysis regarding an issue pertaining to a power plant and the environment. The Supreme Court on a 6-3 vote overturned her. And in the 2008 Ricci v. DeStefano case of white firefighters fighting the city of New Haven’s decision to toss out a promotion test upon which blacks and Hispanics disproportionately scored lower than whites, Sotomayor joined the opinion rejecting the firefighters case. The Supreme Court will decide that case this summer, before she would join the Court, and most analyses point to the justices being skeptical of the city’s case.

The New York Times noted: “In a securities case, Judge Sotomayor interpreted a 1998 federal law intended to limit class action lawsuits in a way that allowed such suits. In 2006, the Supreme Court reversed Judge Sotomayor’s opinion in the case, Merrill Lynch v. Dabit, by a vote of 8 to 0, and archly called the logic allowing the exemption ‘odd, to say the least.'”

The Times analysis of Sotomayor’s business opinions concluded that they are “unpredictable.”

That unpredictability comes from a lack of clarity and consistency regarding the proper roles played by judges versus legislators.

Her views indicate that she believes, as she declared in a 1996 lecture, that the courts and lawyers are “constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions.”

But adapting and overhauling the law, if needed, is not the job of judges, including Supreme Court justices. Instead, it is the job of the lawmakers elected by the people.

If confirmed, Judge Sotomayor and her activist judicial philosophy will add another notch of uncertainty in an ever-growing list of uncertainties for business when it comes to government.

Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council.

Source: Small Business Entrepreneurship Council, March 29, 2009.

Leave a comment

Posted in business, politics

Tagged ,

The FDA, Plan B, and Parental Rights

Posted on June 9, 2009 | Leave a comment

A U.S. District Court Judge in March made news by ordering the FDA to make Plan B, dubbed “the Morning After Pill”, available without a prescription to minors. Citing “political considerations, delays, and implausible justifications for decision-making” on the part of the FDA, the judge ordered that the age at which the drug is available over the counter be lowered from 18 to 17 years. In a decision not to appeal the ruling, the FDA issued the required authorization to Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. of Montvale, NJ, which markets the drug.

Several news stories at the time of the late-March ruling, and again when the FDA announced its authorization in late-April, addressed the debate over whether the pill promotes sexual promiscuity among teens, whether it amounts to early abortion, whether it protects a young woman’s reproductive rights, and so on.

What no one took into account, however, was the issue of parental rights. Prior to the ruling, the drug was available over the counter to women 18 and older, while those under 18 first had to first obtain a prescription. Although the court reversed this ruling based on data that the drug’s physical effects on 17-year-olds was no different than on adults, neither the judge nor the news reports seemed to consider the emotional vulnerability of minors, nor the role of parents in protecting them, when faced with so consequential a decision.

Even the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which we oppose for legal reasons, recognizes that persons under 18 should be accorded additional protections under the law. To make so controversial and significant a product available to minors without requiring medical or parental consent is a tremendous legal step that ought not to be ignored.

The decision over whether or not a minor should access such a drug is one which should include parents. We regret that the dialog regarding the FDA’s decision lacked this important consideration.

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment will uphold current state and federal laws which protect the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children in medical and other health-related areas. The Amendment is not expected to impact this court ruling in any way, but will continue to protect the ability of parents to speak into such major decisions in the lives of their teenaged daughters.

–by ParentalRights.org, March 28, 2009

SOURCES:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/Story?id=7404420
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WireStory?id=7151963
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090423/ap_on_he_me/us_morning_after_pill

Leave a comment

Posted in family, health, news, politics

Tagged , , ,

State Representative Jarrod Martin Co-sonsors Bill to Decrease Legislature’s and Other Statewide Office Holders Saleries

Posted on June 8, 2009 | Leave a comment

On June 4, Representative Jarrod B. Martin (R-Beavercreek) co-sponsored legislation that will cut the salaries of all state level elected officials, with the exception of members of the judiciary, by five percent (5%). The legislation is joint sponsored by Seth Morgan (R-Huber Heights) and Terry Boose (R-Norwalk) and has bi-partisan co-sponsor support of 30 additional representatives (29 Republicans, 1 Democrat).

Martin said, “The state budget is tight and Ohio families are cutting back; the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association representing about 35,000 employees took a cut in pay, we felt that it is only right that we do our part to pitch in.”

Due to the constitutional issues related to changing salaries of elected officials, the bill, if passed, would take effect upon the election or re-election of the affected office holders.

The legislation has a “sunset” provision that would rescind the provisions when the State of Ohio reaches State Domestic Product growth of two and one half percent (2.5%) or more in 2 of 3 consecutive years.

Martin added, “I believe it is very reasonable to have the policy-makers salaries correlated to the success of the state.”

Leave a comment

Posted in economy, Greene County, House of Representatives, news, Ohio, politics

A Challenge to Fatherhood

Posted on June 6, 2009 | Leave a comment

Fathers have the high privilege and solemn duty to raise their children to know and love God. While all parents desire that their grown children embrace their faith freely and enthusiastically, when children are young, it falls to parents to make decisions regarding their children’s religious upbringing, including:

* How often does your family attend your place of worship?
* What congregation have you chosen to attend?
* Can you teach your children that your religious views are absolutely true?
 

However, your freedom to determine the answers to these three questions will be undermined if the United States Senate ratifies the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

For example:

A Washington state court ruled that parents could not require their 13-yearold son to attend church with them on Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night. The judge said that unless the family limited the boy’s church attendance to Sunday morning, he would remove custody. This Washington law (which has since changed) paralleled the UN children’s treaty.

The Scottish government, in an official publication produced to help their youth understand their rights under the UN treaty, says: “You have the right to choose your own religion and beliefs.” The role of parents? They “help you think about this.”

The American Bar Association, a strong supporter of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, acknowledges that religious schools that teach that Jesus is the only way to God “fly in the face” of the treaty. Thus, any who teach children that their religion is the truth are likewise in violation.

Under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, all ratified treaties are superior to state constitutions and laws. Hence, this treaty will override virtually all current American laws on parents and children that conflict with it.

What can we do? Only a U.S. constitutional amendment will stop international law from interfering with parental rights. Over 90 members
of the U.S. House are co-sponsors of the Parental Rights Amendment. You can make a difference! Sign up as a supporter of American parental rights at www. parentalrights.org.

Leave a comment

Posted in family, Father's Day, news, politics

Tagged , , ,

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN CRC)

Posted on June 6, 2009 | Leave a comment

THE STRUCTURE:

1. The CRC is a treaty that creates binding rules of law. It is no mere statement of altruism.

2. This treaty would automatically override almost all family law in America due to Article VI of the United States Constitution.

3. Congress would have the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty. This would constitute the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.

4. American courts would have the power to directly enforce the self-executing provisions of the treaty.

5. A committee of 18 experts from other nations, sitting in Geneva, has the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty which would be entitled to binding weight in American courts and legislatures. This would effectively transfer ultimate authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee.

THE SUBSTANCE:

1. Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

2. Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

3. The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.

4. Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

5. Religious schools that refuse to teach “alternative worldviews” and teach that theirs is the only true religion “fly in the face of article 29” of the treaty, says the American Bar Association.

THE SOLUTION: THE PARENTAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

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.

Sign the petition at ParentalRights.org

Leave a comment

Posted in family, politics