Tax and spend Liberals are living up to their name. On Bloomberg.com, there is a story, “Financial Rescue Nears GDP as Pledges Top $12.8 trillion”, that shows that Congress and Obama has spent $12.8 trillion this year. THIS YEAR!
I, as mentioned in Obama is Worried about Deficits NOW? , the obligated debt is going to be $65 trillion. This exceeds the WORLD’s GDP. The $12.8 trillion they have spent this year is just shy for our total GDP or $14.2 trillion for last year.
One problem. Obama has not finalized his budget. The Congress Budget Office (CBO) said the Obama budget will generate deficits that are “unsustainable.” In that budget, he wants universal healthcare, cap and trade, and other spending programs. At this rate, they will surpass our total GDP for next year. That is like you walking into Wal-Mart and spending more than your yearly pay in one visit, thinking it will help help you get out of debt.
What does this mean? Well, this spending destroys our economy. It destroys the value of the dollar. It destroys our interest rates. It destroys the fabric our financial system. These outrageous deficits will, not may, WILL generate massive inflation and destroy our country.
This spending is not just irresponsible and dangerous, but Un-American.
This is all intentional. The inflation is not that is just the unintentional consequence that Liberals cannot and will not see. The reason for this spending is to create programs and massive debt, so that the government will never be able to cut taxes or lesson its size and therefore its power.
After the People become intoxicated from all these entitlements and the nanny state, the government will be able to do as it wishes, since the People will only want to end their handouts from the State.
Unknowingly, the People in order to have their entitlements, they must give up freedoms, liberties, and property for them. As Benjamin Franklin said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
We must stop this intoxication with educating these lemmings that do not understand the ramifications of handing over so much power to the State. The power given to the State is almost impossible to take back, so we cannot give it to them in the first place.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Geithner May Fire more CEOs
On CBSNews, there is a story, “Geithner On Ousting CEOs, Reviving Economy,” says that other CEOs firing could be coming.
Now, I am reading my Constitution and I cannot find anything in Article I, which sets up the Executive branch, that says that the they can fire CEOs of companies or corporations.
Geithner has asked for more power from the Congress, which would require legislation, and they are even wary of this power.
If they allow him the power to fire CEOs of banks and car companies, then who is next? Where does this march toward Marxism end?
Now, I am reading my Constitution and I cannot find anything in Article I, which sets up the Executive branch, that says that the they can fire CEOs of companies or corporations.
Geithner has asked for more power from the Congress, which would require legislation, and they are even wary of this power.
If they allow him the power to fire CEOs of banks and car companies, then who is next? Where does this march toward Marxism end?
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
China Develops Missile to Destroy Aircraft Carriers
On the U.S Naval Institute site, there is a story, “Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers,”that reminds us how dangerous our world is and that our enemies are adapting and improving their military.
While the Democrats cut military spending and programs, China, our largest adversary, enlarges their military and creates systems that can destroy their enemies, our allies and us. China assaults our computers with cyber-attacks. They, also, perform clandestine espionage that steals are most protected secrets.
Instead of admonishing this enemy for these actions, we beg them to buy our debt and continue to trade heavily with them. We ignore their civil rights violations and their atrocities for economic reasons.
Outrageous!
While the Democrats cut military spending and programs, China, our largest adversary, enlarges their military and creates systems that can destroy their enemies, our allies and us. China assaults our computers with cyber-attacks. They, also, perform clandestine espionage that steals are most protected secrets.
Instead of admonishing this enemy for these actions, we beg them to buy our debt and continue to trade heavily with them. We ignore their civil rights violations and their atrocities for economic reasons.
Outrageous!
Congress is Derelict in Duty on the Border
From Breitbart.com, there is a story, “Guard needs more money to send troops to border,” that discuss that National Guard needs funds and troops to patrol the border.
After Congress spent trillions on banks, car companies, paying off their special interest groups, and entitlement programs, the National Guard does not have enough resources to protect our nation. Apparently, the Congress has its priorities backwards.
Congress has enumerated powers stated in the Constitution:
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress” --Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1, 12, 15, 16
Congress has directly stated responsibilities to protect the nation from invasions. Mexican drug cartels and military crossing into our country and kidnapping and/or killing Americans are invasion. Congress is in dereliction of their duty to protect the citizens.
Instead, they sit in Washington debating about AIG, GM, and Freddie and Fannie. They spend our taxes dollars on wasteful projects and entitlements that not their top priorities.
Jefferson said:
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817
So, Congress needs to get their priorities straight and protect our nation and the citizens. They need to fund and provide National Guard troops for the border and stop wasting our money and resources on stimulus bills, banks, car companies, unions, ACORN, and all their other Liberal programs.
After Congress spent trillions on banks, car companies, paying off their special interest groups, and entitlement programs, the National Guard does not have enough resources to protect our nation. Apparently, the Congress has its priorities backwards.
Congress has enumerated powers stated in the Constitution:
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress” --Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1, 12, 15, 16
Congress has directly stated responsibilities to protect the nation from invasions. Mexican drug cartels and military crossing into our country and kidnapping and/or killing Americans are invasion. Congress is in dereliction of their duty to protect the citizens.
Instead, they sit in Washington debating about AIG, GM, and Freddie and Fannie. They spend our taxes dollars on wasteful projects and entitlements that not their top priorities.
Jefferson said:
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817
So, Congress needs to get their priorities straight and protect our nation and the citizens. They need to fund and provide National Guard troops for the border and stop wasting our money and resources on stimulus bills, banks, car companies, unions, ACORN, and all their other Liberal programs.
Taliban Threatens to Attack Washington
Obama changed the name of “terrorists.” Obama changed the name of the “War on Terror.” Obama changed the name of “terrorist attack.” The enemy not only did not get the memo, but they directly threatened the U.S.
However, this time it was neither Iran nor Al-Qaeda. It was the Taliban.
The same Taliban that Obama want to negotiate with and discuss concessions. Obama wanted to talk with the “moderate” Taliban. One problem. The naïve, inexperienced Obama did not know that there aren’t any “moderate” Taliban. In order to part of the Taliban, one must be a radical Muslim, like the ones that murdered innocent Afghans and support Al-Quaeda.
So, the leader of the Taliban said, "Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world."
Now, that sounds like moderate Muslim that can be talked with.
This threat is nothing new from these radicals. It is new for Obama, and, hopefully, the Administration handles these threats effectively for our sake.
This does show that no matter what you call it our enemies are still at war with us. This, also, shows you cannot talk to them or use any sort of diplomacy. These enemies must be destroyed. Hopefully, Obama starts to take this war seriously and stop playing the name game and take the fight to them before we lose a city to a “TERRORIST ATTACK.”
Here is a story from Fox News:
The United States has put a $5 million bounty on his head, and he says militants under his control are planning a terrorist attack in Washington that "will amaze everyone in the world."
And he isn't Usama bin Laden.
Baitullah Mehsud, commander of the Taliban in Pakistan, told The Associated Press in an interview Tuesday that his group was responsible for Monday's attack on a police academy in his country that killed seven police officers and injured more than 90 others.
He also said, chillingly:
"Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world."
In an interview with local Dewa Radio, which was obtained by The Associated Press, Mehsud identified the White House as one of the targets.
FBI spokesman Richard Kolko told FOXNews.com that the bureau is not aware of a specific or imminent threat to the United States. He added, without elaborating, that Mehsud has made similar threats to the U.S.
But terrorism experts call Mehsud a "rising young star" who is linked both to the December 2007 assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and the bombing last September that killed 54 people in the Marriott hotel in Islamabad -- and they say his threat to carry out an attack in Washington should not be discounted.
"It should be taken seriously because [Mehsud] has ordered the deaths of many Pakistanis and Afghans and has a close alliance with Al Qaeda," said James Phillips, a terrorism expert and senior research fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Heritage Foundation.
"It's not too much of a stretch to think he might be involved in an attack on the U.S. if he's able to get his followers inside the United States. He's a militant extremist whose threats cannot be ignored."
Mehsud, 35, is the senior leader of Tehrik-e-Taliban, or the Taliban Movement of Pakistan, and is a key Al Qaeda facilitator in the tribal areas of South Waziristan in Pakistan, according to the U.S. State Department. A $5 million reward for information leading to his arrest and conviction was announced just last week.
"He has conducted cross-border attacks against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and poses a clear threat to American persons and interests in the region," the State Department wrote in a March 25 release.
Phillips said Mehsud is less of a direct threat to the U.S. than bin Laden in an ideological sense, but his influence in Pakistan could allow him to tap into existing networks within Al Qaeda or among Afghan Taliban militants to achieve his goals.
"The U.S. government and other allied governments cannot afford to ignore this threat because [Mehsud] has acted on targets in the past," Phillips said. "Because he has a relatively secure base of operations in South Waziristan, he has been able to extend his influence throughout the border region and even into Pakistani cities."
Steve Emerson, executive director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, said that of the many terrorists who have issued "blustery threats" in recent years, Meshud is considered a "rising young star" among militants.
"He's a dangerous guy," Emerson told FOXNews.com. "It just reaffirms the fact that Washington is a major target.
"He seems to be a pretty bloody, bold guy who is not afraid to have a marker on himself and knows how to exact publicity ... The real issue is what U.S. intelligence knows."
Malou Innocent, a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute, said Mehsud's attacks have "significantly altered" the political dynamics in Pakistan and provide a major test for President Asif Ali Zardari. But any direct threat Mehsud poses to the United States will be through his link with Al Qaeda, she said.
"If he did have the reach, it would be because of Al Qaeda," she said. "This is more posturing on his behalf."
Mehsud, who denies involvement in Bhutto's assassination and the Marriott Hotel bombing, is a diabetic who was reportedly called a "good Taliban" in 2007, when the Pakistani army struck a peace agreement with him that was later aborted.
Mehsud has said he's not concerned with the bounty on his head, telling The Associated Press, "I wish to die and embrace martyrdom."
"That shows that he is adamantly committed to his extremist goals and is unlikely to be brought to justice by law enforcement actions," Phillips said. 'It will take a war to defeat him in South Waziristan, and I think that shows that the term War on Terrorism remains applicable there."
A State Department spokeswoman, Megan Mattson, declined to comment on Mehsud's threat.
However, this time it was neither Iran nor Al-Qaeda. It was the Taliban.
The same Taliban that Obama want to negotiate with and discuss concessions. Obama wanted to talk with the “moderate” Taliban. One problem. The naïve, inexperienced Obama did not know that there aren’t any “moderate” Taliban. In order to part of the Taliban, one must be a radical Muslim, like the ones that murdered innocent Afghans and support Al-Quaeda.
So, the leader of the Taliban said, "Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world."
Now, that sounds like moderate Muslim that can be talked with.
This threat is nothing new from these radicals. It is new for Obama, and, hopefully, the Administration handles these threats effectively for our sake.
This does show that no matter what you call it our enemies are still at war with us. This, also, shows you cannot talk to them or use any sort of diplomacy. These enemies must be destroyed. Hopefully, Obama starts to take this war seriously and stop playing the name game and take the fight to them before we lose a city to a “TERRORIST ATTACK.”
Here is a story from Fox News:
The United States has put a $5 million bounty on his head, and he says militants under his control are planning a terrorist attack in Washington that "will amaze everyone in the world."
And he isn't Usama bin Laden.
Baitullah Mehsud, commander of the Taliban in Pakistan, told The Associated Press in an interview Tuesday that his group was responsible for Monday's attack on a police academy in his country that killed seven police officers and injured more than 90 others.
He also said, chillingly:
"Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world."
In an interview with local Dewa Radio, which was obtained by The Associated Press, Mehsud identified the White House as one of the targets.
FBI spokesman Richard Kolko told FOXNews.com that the bureau is not aware of a specific or imminent threat to the United States. He added, without elaborating, that Mehsud has made similar threats to the U.S.
But terrorism experts call Mehsud a "rising young star" who is linked both to the December 2007 assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and the bombing last September that killed 54 people in the Marriott hotel in Islamabad -- and they say his threat to carry out an attack in Washington should not be discounted.
"It should be taken seriously because [Mehsud] has ordered the deaths of many Pakistanis and Afghans and has a close alliance with Al Qaeda," said James Phillips, a terrorism expert and senior research fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Heritage Foundation.
"It's not too much of a stretch to think he might be involved in an attack on the U.S. if he's able to get his followers inside the United States. He's a militant extremist whose threats cannot be ignored."
Mehsud, 35, is the senior leader of Tehrik-e-Taliban, or the Taliban Movement of Pakistan, and is a key Al Qaeda facilitator in the tribal areas of South Waziristan in Pakistan, according to the U.S. State Department. A $5 million reward for information leading to his arrest and conviction was announced just last week.
"He has conducted cross-border attacks against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and poses a clear threat to American persons and interests in the region," the State Department wrote in a March 25 release.
Phillips said Mehsud is less of a direct threat to the U.S. than bin Laden in an ideological sense, but his influence in Pakistan could allow him to tap into existing networks within Al Qaeda or among Afghan Taliban militants to achieve his goals.
"The U.S. government and other allied governments cannot afford to ignore this threat because [Mehsud] has acted on targets in the past," Phillips said. "Because he has a relatively secure base of operations in South Waziristan, he has been able to extend his influence throughout the border region and even into Pakistani cities."
Steve Emerson, executive director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, said that of the many terrorists who have issued "blustery threats" in recent years, Meshud is considered a "rising young star" among militants.
"He's a dangerous guy," Emerson told FOXNews.com. "It just reaffirms the fact that Washington is a major target.
"He seems to be a pretty bloody, bold guy who is not afraid to have a marker on himself and knows how to exact publicity ... The real issue is what U.S. intelligence knows."
Malou Innocent, a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute, said Mehsud's attacks have "significantly altered" the political dynamics in Pakistan and provide a major test for President Asif Ali Zardari. But any direct threat Mehsud poses to the United States will be through his link with Al Qaeda, she said.
"If he did have the reach, it would be because of Al Qaeda," she said. "This is more posturing on his behalf."
Mehsud, who denies involvement in Bhutto's assassination and the Marriott Hotel bombing, is a diabetic who was reportedly called a "good Taliban" in 2007, when the Pakistani army struck a peace agreement with him that was later aborted.
Mehsud has said he's not concerned with the bounty on his head, telling The Associated Press, "I wish to die and embrace martyrdom."
"That shows that he is adamantly committed to his extremist goals and is unlikely to be brought to justice by law enforcement actions," Phillips said. 'It will take a war to defeat him in South Waziristan, and I think that shows that the term War on Terrorism remains applicable there."
A State Department spokeswoman, Megan Mattson, declined to comment on Mehsud's threat.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Gitmo Detainess Could Be Jailed in Virginia
It is apparent that Obama is making preparations to close Gitmo. It was discussed that some of the detainees will be released into the U.S. Now, it is being planned that 460 inmates will be moved to a maximum security jail in Virginia.
This is a huge problem. Gitmo was created to keep the enemy combatants away from American soil and the civilian court system. At the time, U.S. Supreme Court precedent was that if the prisons were not in the U.S. then the civilan courts did not have jurisidication.
The Court changed that but it is still a debate if they can bring their cases in civilan courts. If these terrorists are housed in our prisions, then the debate is mute and they can began filing cases in our court system.
Why is this a problem?
They were captured in war. They have been questioned under the rules of war. These are different that criminal cases. Most of the evidence used in a war tribunal would not admissible in our criminal courts. In other words, we could not present a case to detain or jail them. They could possibly go free and then go back to the battlefield or worse stay here.
Here is a story from Fox News:
A Virginia jail could be the next home for Guantanamo Bay inmates.
The maximum security jail in Alexandria, Va. -- home to approximately 460 inmates -- is under contract to take federal inmates who are tried at the courthouse just a few blocks away.
Among them could be former Al Qaeda operatives detained in Guantanamo Bay like Abu Zubaydah, Al Qaeda's operations chief, or Abd Al-Nashiri, the alleged planner of the U.S.S. Cole attack, Alexandria sheriff Dana Lawhorne told FOX News.
"We are a maximum security jail, so the answer is yes," Lawhorne said when asked about the possibility that Gitmo detainees could be transferred to the jail.
Lawhorne said that although most inmates are booked at city jail on local charges, Al Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui was detained there in a separate unit on the third floor for five years.
Lawhorne said he and his team were given specific instructions for Moussaoui's imprisonment, which included no contact with television, radio, or other inmates.
"He had to be isolated. He could not be within earshot -- of television, radios, and other people. It takes a lot of space to accomplish that," Lawhorne said.
The jail, built in 1987, is surrounded by condominiums, government offices, and a luxury hotel just a few hundred feet from the courthouse door.
In a letter sent to Attorney General Eric Holder two weeks ago, Virginia Rep. Frank Wolf, a Republican, inquired about the housing and handling of detainees at Alexandria's jail because he said all signs indicate that Gitmo detainees will be transferred there.
Holder's office has not yet responded, according to Wolf.
This is a huge problem. Gitmo was created to keep the enemy combatants away from American soil and the civilian court system. At the time, U.S. Supreme Court precedent was that if the prisons were not in the U.S. then the civilan courts did not have jurisidication.
The Court changed that but it is still a debate if they can bring their cases in civilan courts. If these terrorists are housed in our prisions, then the debate is mute and they can began filing cases in our court system.
Why is this a problem?
They were captured in war. They have been questioned under the rules of war. These are different that criminal cases. Most of the evidence used in a war tribunal would not admissible in our criminal courts. In other words, we could not present a case to detain or jail them. They could possibly go free and then go back to the battlefield or worse stay here.
Here is a story from Fox News:
A Virginia jail could be the next home for Guantanamo Bay inmates.
The maximum security jail in Alexandria, Va. -- home to approximately 460 inmates -- is under contract to take federal inmates who are tried at the courthouse just a few blocks away.
Among them could be former Al Qaeda operatives detained in Guantanamo Bay like Abu Zubaydah, Al Qaeda's operations chief, or Abd Al-Nashiri, the alleged planner of the U.S.S. Cole attack, Alexandria sheriff Dana Lawhorne told FOX News.
"We are a maximum security jail, so the answer is yes," Lawhorne said when asked about the possibility that Gitmo detainees could be transferred to the jail.
Lawhorne said that although most inmates are booked at city jail on local charges, Al Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui was detained there in a separate unit on the third floor for five years.
Lawhorne said he and his team were given specific instructions for Moussaoui's imprisonment, which included no contact with television, radio, or other inmates.
"He had to be isolated. He could not be within earshot -- of television, radios, and other people. It takes a lot of space to accomplish that," Lawhorne said.
The jail, built in 1987, is surrounded by condominiums, government offices, and a luxury hotel just a few hundred feet from the courthouse door.
In a letter sent to Attorney General Eric Holder two weeks ago, Virginia Rep. Frank Wolf, a Republican, inquired about the housing and handling of detainees at Alexandria's jail because he said all signs indicate that Gitmo detainees will be transferred there.
Holder's office has not yet responded, according to Wolf.
Conservative Congressmen Push for Parental Rights Amendment
It is sad that in the United States our Congress must waste their time, trying to pass an amendment protecting parental righst, but it is true. With Senate Democrats pushing the UN treaty for Children’s Right, Republicans have no choice but to take this route.
The UN treaty would do the following:
“[T]he treaty, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and outlaws the "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy," intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference.”
Between the Democrats and the UN, our liberties, freedoms, society, and economy is under attack. Now they are attacking our families.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C).and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich) are attempting to protect parental rights with a Constitutional Amendment. Good Luck to them!
Here is a story for WorldNet Daily:
Though efforts to pass a constitutional amendment protecting parental rights have failed in the past, two U.S. legislators are preparing to reintroduce the idea this week; and this time, they say, the effort is backed by more than 60 congressional members.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., who introduced a parental rights amendment by himself last year, told the Agence France-Presse that he will be joined by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., on Tuesday as they renew the fight.
According to a statement released to AFP by Hoekstra's office, the amendment "would clearly outline in the U.S. Constitution that parents, not government or any other organization, have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit."
"At a time when government at every level seems to encroach upon the ability of parents to choose the best for their children," Hoekstra writes on his website, "it is important to preserve parental rights into the Constitution."
Discover the mindset behind the establishment of today's system of mass education, and where has it led us as a society with "The Little Book of Big Reasons to Homeschool."
Last summer Hoekstra introduced H.J.R. 97, proposing a constitutional amendment stating that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed upon by federal, state, or international treaty law without demonstrating government interest "of the highest order." Hoekstra asserts that legitimate cases of abuse and neglect fall under the "demonstrated government interest" clause.
Without any co-sponsors, however, H.J.R 97 died in committee.
According to ParentalRights.org, an organization dedicated to seeing the amendment passed, this year's effort, in addition to senatorial support from DeMint, has recruited 65 U.S. representatives who have committed to joining Hoekstra in co-sponsoring a parental rights amendment.
As WND reported, the president of the world's premier homeschool advocacy organization made a case for the amendment in a Washington Times commentary published last year:
"Few dispute the vital role of parents in raising the next generation, but, regrettably, few recognize that the fundamental role of parents is under direct attack," wrote J. Michael Smith, president of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association.
Smith pointed to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, an internation treaty approved by the Clinton administration but stalled by opposition in the Senate, as one example of governmental attempts to infringe on parental rights.
"It's possible that in the near future, the United States may significantly weaken the rights of parents to raise their children," Smith wrote. "Crucial decisions that parents are accustomed to making, such as what our children read, who they associate with, what kind of discipline is used, whether we take them to church, or whether we homeschool, all become decisions for the state if the United States ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child."
He continued, "By allowing the government to define and determine what is in the 'best interests of the child,' outside the context of abuse and neglect cases, the UNCRC in effect diminishes the parental role, replacing it with government supervision."
As WND reported, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., last month urged a hurry-up timetable for adoption of the UNCRC.
"Children deserve basic human rights ... and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected," Boxer said, according to Fox News.
Critics like Smith, however, argue the document, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" usurps the role of parents in directing their children's upbringing.
Opponents of the amendment, such as those that opposed a Colorado state version proposed in the 1990's, argue that the measure would protect child abusers, make public schools a battleground for parents' ideological issues and prevent teenage students from receiving sex education and family planning services through their schools.
Rob Boston, assistant director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State argued against the amendment in a blog post last month, making many of the same arguments lodged against the Colorado initiative.
Boston also argued that the amendment is a back door approach to mixing public education dollars and religion, claiming through the amendment "states would be forced to give parents tuition vouchers for private and religious schooling since the right to direct a child's education would be enshrined in the Constitution."
Sen. DeMint, who will join Hoekstra in offering the amendment, has been involved in similar legislation in the past. DeMint was a co-sponsor of the Parents' Rights Empowerment and Protection Act of 2007, which required schools to obtain written parental permission before teaching children about sex or sexuality.
DeMint's bill, like Hoekstra's in 2008, never made it out of committee.
To succeed, the amendment Hoekstra and DeMint plan to introduce Tuesday will need to pass in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate by two-thirds majorities each, then win ratification by three-fourths of the states.
The UN treaty would do the following:
“[T]he treaty, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and outlaws the "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy," intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference.”
Between the Democrats and the UN, our liberties, freedoms, society, and economy is under attack. Now they are attacking our families.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C).and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich) are attempting to protect parental rights with a Constitutional Amendment. Good Luck to them!
Here is a story for WorldNet Daily:
Though efforts to pass a constitutional amendment protecting parental rights have failed in the past, two U.S. legislators are preparing to reintroduce the idea this week; and this time, they say, the effort is backed by more than 60 congressional members.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., who introduced a parental rights amendment by himself last year, told the Agence France-Presse that he will be joined by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., on Tuesday as they renew the fight.
According to a statement released to AFP by Hoekstra's office, the amendment "would clearly outline in the U.S. Constitution that parents, not government or any other organization, have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit."
"At a time when government at every level seems to encroach upon the ability of parents to choose the best for their children," Hoekstra writes on his website, "it is important to preserve parental rights into the Constitution."
Discover the mindset behind the establishment of today's system of mass education, and where has it led us as a society with "The Little Book of Big Reasons to Homeschool."
Last summer Hoekstra introduced H.J.R. 97, proposing a constitutional amendment stating that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed upon by federal, state, or international treaty law without demonstrating government interest "of the highest order." Hoekstra asserts that legitimate cases of abuse and neglect fall under the "demonstrated government interest" clause.
Without any co-sponsors, however, H.J.R 97 died in committee.
According to ParentalRights.org, an organization dedicated to seeing the amendment passed, this year's effort, in addition to senatorial support from DeMint, has recruited 65 U.S. representatives who have committed to joining Hoekstra in co-sponsoring a parental rights amendment.
As WND reported, the president of the world's premier homeschool advocacy organization made a case for the amendment in a Washington Times commentary published last year:
"Few dispute the vital role of parents in raising the next generation, but, regrettably, few recognize that the fundamental role of parents is under direct attack," wrote J. Michael Smith, president of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association.
Smith pointed to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, an internation treaty approved by the Clinton administration but stalled by opposition in the Senate, as one example of governmental attempts to infringe on parental rights.
"It's possible that in the near future, the United States may significantly weaken the rights of parents to raise their children," Smith wrote. "Crucial decisions that parents are accustomed to making, such as what our children read, who they associate with, what kind of discipline is used, whether we take them to church, or whether we homeschool, all become decisions for the state if the United States ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child."
He continued, "By allowing the government to define and determine what is in the 'best interests of the child,' outside the context of abuse and neglect cases, the UNCRC in effect diminishes the parental role, replacing it with government supervision."
As WND reported, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., last month urged a hurry-up timetable for adoption of the UNCRC.
"Children deserve basic human rights ... and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected," Boxer said, according to Fox News.
Critics like Smith, however, argue the document, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" usurps the role of parents in directing their children's upbringing.
Opponents of the amendment, such as those that opposed a Colorado state version proposed in the 1990's, argue that the measure would protect child abusers, make public schools a battleground for parents' ideological issues and prevent teenage students from receiving sex education and family planning services through their schools.
Rob Boston, assistant director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State argued against the amendment in a blog post last month, making many of the same arguments lodged against the Colorado initiative.
Boston also argued that the amendment is a back door approach to mixing public education dollars and religion, claiming through the amendment "states would be forced to give parents tuition vouchers for private and religious schooling since the right to direct a child's education would be enshrined in the Constitution."
Sen. DeMint, who will join Hoekstra in offering the amendment, has been involved in similar legislation in the past. DeMint was a co-sponsor of the Parents' Rights Empowerment and Protection Act of 2007, which required schools to obtain written parental permission before teaching children about sex or sexuality.
DeMint's bill, like Hoekstra's in 2008, never made it out of committee.
To succeed, the amendment Hoekstra and DeMint plan to introduce Tuesday will need to pass in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate by two-thirds majorities each, then win ratification by three-fourths of the states.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)