Written by
I started my day in the normal fashion: I heard the alarm from my Blackberry, turned it off, rolled over for another hour, got up, ate breakfast, went on Facebook to play Mafia Wars, and then went to check out what my friends were saying on Facebook. That is when I saw the post that reveals how our world headed down the toilet (just imagine how much tax revenue the U.S. Government will get now under the Water Protection and Reinvestment Act of 2009 if it is signed into law. See my previous post "Taxing our Butts Off").
A friend who is running for the state legislature here in Texas posted an article "Do Parents Have the Right to Educate," by Heather Duncan of Knoxnews.com. A simple question right? "Yes," I said to myself. Not so fast. Not with the National Socialist government in power in the United States now. Not with multinationalist lawyers (Harold Koh is top dog), in the State Department who believe International Law trumps the U.S. Constitution. Not when our President, Barack Obama, feels we need to be more like Europe.
Well, "No," is the answer given by the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. That's right "No." How can this be, all the money paid by the world (most by U.S. taxpayers) and they come up with something this stupid. Let's think about this the U.N. says it wants to protect the rights of a child, yet will not condemn the mass slaughter of innocent children by abortionists. Now this doesn't mean I'm one of those extreme pro-life people. I am not. I do believe abortion is wrong, I condemn it, except in cases of rape or incest. I do believe since sexual intercourse is an act between two consenting adults, the act of aborting the child conceived by that act should be made by two consenting adults (a tie goes to the innocent life within the womb). The government should be left out period.
This convention believes in a form of "freedom of information act" for children who, "philosophically disagree with a parents educational goals." I have no problem with this philosophy once the child reaches the age of 18, or whenever they leave the house, or are not financially dependent upon the parents.
This coincides with our federal government's view on many issues. If a big corporation takes "bailout money," the federal government can dictate how that business is run. If a bank receives TARP money, the government can dictate who gets loans. If you receive federal welfare assistance, government dictates you have to have a low paying job, or none at all. If we give money to a foreign nation, we dictate that they must promote human rights. Well, following this logic, the child that lives under the parents roof, who eats food provided by the parents' hard work and sacrifices, is subject to have their "educational goals dictated" to them by their parents.
To sum up, our current U.N. Ambassador, Susan Rice, says our government will consider ratifying the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This Convention does not consider protecting the child's right to life. It takes away the Natural Right of parents to raise their child. I don't know about anyone out there, but their were plenty of times in my younger years that I "philosophically disagreed with my parents educational goals," but lucky for me there was nothing I could do about it. When I reached college is when I combined what my parents taught me (through their experience and wisdom) and what I learned in the school they chose for me, with what I wanted to learn. That is how I became an educated, informed, and generally good person. For that I owe them many "thank yous."
Germany has outlawed home schooling, England has just adopted it to force about 80,000 to register in state schools. Giving inexperienced, ignorant children rights of parents will only lead to dependence on STATISTS. We fought a war in the late 1700's to break away from Europe, lets keep it that way!! We entrust our government to protect our liberty, not give it to the United Nations!!!