"We the People ..." , Revisited ...

So, Senator Arlen Spector declares his constituents basically ungrateful for his representation and switches parties, and the President - the President who said he wanted to break down the barriers between the political parties - responds, "We are happy to have you join us" (paraphrasing here). "We" and "us" must mean the Dems, right? I did not know when he said 'break down barriers' he meant that a man who was put in office based, in part, on his political party affiliation, could alienate the very people who put him in office at a time when political party affiliation is so crucial to determining the course this country will take. It continues to amaze me how little respect and sense of obligation those put in power by WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA feel toward the very people who voted for them. Perhaps it is naivete on my part ... More than that, it is the realization that we continue to allow it to happen despite it being so prevalent, most probably due to our unwillingness and our uncertainty and feelings of powerlessness to do anything about it.

When Angels Sing ...

This video is a tribute to the falacies inherent in humanism, and the belief that those upon whom beauty is bestowed are somehow "better" than the rest of the world. When this woman walks onstage, look at the male judges' faces - dismissive, derisive, mocking. The audience is openly condescending and you, the viewer, ache for her performance - which, no doubt, will be as equally forgettable as her persona -to be done with.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY



It has always fascinated me how, male performers can be as ugly as sin and yet successful as gods. Females, however, must personify goddess perfection in order to be taken seriously. If you did not get goose bumps and imagine the angels in Heaven singing backup chorus while watching the video ... well ...

Field Trip ...

As a sixth-grader - so many, many years ago - I experienced a tremendous disappointment the morning our bus failed to show for our class trip to Safety Town. There we sat, on the curb, in the school parking lot ... hour after hour, before someone thought to call the bus company. Our brown-bag lunches were spoiling in the late-morning sun, our spirits were sagging, and sitting on that tiny curb was beginning to hurt our tiny tushies. When it was finally decided that our trip was officially "off", we returned to the classroom - dejected. Our turn to ride the little cars and learn the rules of the road at Safety Town was never to be, as no one ever bothered to re-schedule the class.

As a home-schooling family, there are no buses to schedule, no weather delays. There is nothing standing in my way to take advantage of a glorious spring day to introduce my children to one of my favorite spots - Bushkill Falls. The weather was perfect, and the children were sincerely awed by the magnificent presentation of Mother Nature. We hope you enjoy the pictures as much as we enjoyed taking them.

Having four children in a span of five years has meant keeping them together for many things. For example, there was a period of years that, following outdoor playtime, I would put all four in the tub together. Sometimes I would fill the bath, and other times I would just hose 'em all down. Now, my 7 yo has been showering herself for quite some time, as have the twins. At times, she has requested help with water temperature or getting soap out of her hair. But that still left me with my little guy. And, as with all his other developmental milestones, I have not exactly been pushing my baby bird out of the nest. I cannot be accused of neglecting to make sure he is maturing, but rather, I have been careful not to unnecessarily hurry him.

Tonight, however, my little man announced he was "weddy to twy to take my own showerr". All he asked was that I adjust the water for him, and provide him with a washcloth for over his face when he rinses - this last request simply being an interim thing until he has "mastered" the whole concept. Soooo, that is it for me. No more little bodies needing my attention to get all the dirt off, no more little heads being scrubbed by Mommy, no more screeches of "Help! The water is in my eyes and I am drowning!"

Tomorrow, one of my little girls will turn 11, and today my little boy took his own shower. What is going on here? And what will become of me, now that my little staircase of babies have all graduated from the communal tub?

In my haste to post the previous information regarding the Parental Rights Amendment, I failed to provide any information, thinking it spoke for itself. I was wrong. So allow me to explain:

The Parental Rights Amendment ( or Amendment-to-be, hopefully, prayerfully) is, in my understanding, a response to the judges, attorney generals, courts, and social workers who are attempting to impose the United Nations legislation concerning the rights of a child on parents in the United States. Now, excuse me if my explanation is not exact, or lacking in preciseness. But, basically, a majority of countries have deemed a child to have more rights than a parent - and that the government has the right to intervene, based on what the prevailing belief system is concerning the raising of a child in that particular governmental system, even removing children from their residence if they so desire, in the name of the best interest of the child. Where are the rights of the parents in all of this? Exactly! That is the goal of the Parental Rights Amendment - to preserve and protect that most fundamental of rights, the raising, rearing, and responsibility of our own children. The United States has not signed the treaty, as of yet. However, the President has compared our not signing to putting us on par with a country such as Somalia, basically stating we are violating human rights by not agreeing to the tenets of the treaty. And the new Deputy Attorney General has already used the tenets of the treaty in his position, as though the US is guided by this international law, despite the fact that we have not signed on. I am not sure what to think when I allow myself to dwell on this issue - why on Earth would we want to take away the fundamental right and obligation of parents to determine what is best for their own children, unless we are indeed headed toward the day when the village will indeed raise the children. While I am sure there are many parents who would love to forgo the daily responsibilities of raising children (makes one wonder why they had children in the first place), there are many more people who have taken responsibility for their children from the time they discovered they were going to be so blessed, and I hope they will not easily allow this right, responsibility, and blessing to be given over to a government that fails to embrace the fundamental unit of civilization - that of the family. That is what Hitler did, in order to control every facet of society. And we have the benefit of history to see where such a goal can lead. So define "family" any way you choose - heterosexual couple, homosexuals, single parents - but keep the family as the unit that has the right to determine the upbringing of their own children. I cannot imagine anyone not supporting such a proposition. Except, of course, some jaded individuals who have been so deeply entrenched in the social services system, and have only seen the ugly failures of parenting. Yes, there are individuals who should not be allowed access to their own children, and there are others who should never be allowed near any one's children. But they are the ones we all need protection from - and we should be able to protect our own children, in our own way, in our own homes. Funny how these same social service workers are the most vocal about the "rights" of criminals to be allowed to determine the fate of their own children. Children can rot in the foster care system for their entire childhoods because the biological parent refuses to agree to termination of their rights, and the judicial system either fails to enforce it, or the social service system lamely agrees that the person has the right to maintain his or her hold on the child. Yet parents who have never done anything wrong now face an international declaration that the government may have a greater say in the upbringing of our children. Scary.

Finally, Something That Makes Sense ...

Introducing H.J. Res. 42

The introduction of the Parental Rights Amendment in the U.S. Congress (H.J. Res. 42) was announced at a press conference yesterday afternoon. Below is the body of parentalrights.org president Michael Farris's powerful speech from that event. If your Congressman or Senator is not already onboard, we urge you to copy and paste that message into an email or letter to send to them, along with your own personal message. (Check the sponsors list; find contact info.) This message clearly articulates the need for the Amendment; it is imperative that we get it into the hands of all of America's lawmakers.
Statement of Michael FarrisPresident of ParentalRights.orgMarch 31, 2009
On behalf of ParentalRights.org and the rapidly growing number of allied organizations, I want to thank Senator Jim DeMint, Congressman Pete Hoekstra, and my own Congressman Frank Wolf for their leadership on this important issue.
There are two basic reasons that the Constitution has been amended throughout our history. Sometimes the need is to preserve our law and traditions from potential threats and erosion of our rights. The Bill of Rights serves as the chief example of amendments designed to preserve the existing rights of the people.
At other times, it is absolutely necessary to change the existing law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were clearly necessary to end the evils of slavery and establish the principle of equal protection for all Americans.
The Parental Rights Amendment follows the pattern of the Bill of Rights—the goal of this Amendment is to preserve our existing law and traditions against judicial erosion and the ever-growing threat of international law.
Sections 1 and 2 of this Amendment do nothing more than restate the time-honored doctrines of the Supreme Court on parental rights. We are simply changing parental rights from an implied right based on judicial opinions to an express right based upon actual constitutional text.
Section 1 faithfully employs the words and phrasing of the Supreme Court’s decision of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), to declare that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.
Section 2 carefully follows the words of the Court in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), to declare that parental rights, while very important, have limits. The government may intervene when the interest is of the highest order and not otherwise served. This section is a correct statement of current law. Today, when the government has proper evidence of child abuse or neglect, it may and should prosecute a parent who is responsible for such behavior.
Section 2 ensures that this principle remains intact. Parental rights are fundamental, but they are not absolute.
Section 3 preserves the current principle that only American laws govern the relationship between parents and children in this country. The use of international law is a rapidly growing trend in our judicial system. One federal district judge in New York has on two separate occasions ruled that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child already binds the United States under the doctrine of customary international law. An Ohio court ruled on an obviously flawed premise that this treaty had already been ratified by the Senate, and therefore ordered parents to stop smoking because it harmed the health of their children.
Section 3 makes it clear that the only law which can be used in American courts regarding American families is the law made in America by our legislatures or the people themselves. The use of international law for domestic purposes is utterly contrary to the idea that this nation is a self-governing Republic.
This section is necessary especially in the context of international law. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, international legal obligations are of superior rank to national law—even if that law is from the national constitution. However, there is an exception. Article 46 of the VCLT says that when the national constitution makes an exception concerning the power to enter treaties, then the national law still triumphs even in the face of an inconsistent treaty obligation.
Section 3 makes it unconstitutional for this nation to enter into a treaty that gives away our sovereignty on the subject of American parents and American children.
This should be a bi-partisan issue. President Obama recently declared, “In the end, there is no program or policy that can substitute for a mother or father.” Every member of Congress who agrees with the President on this principle should be in favor of this Amendment.
Every member of Congress who believes that Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), was correctly decided should be in favor of Section 1.
Every member of Congress who believes that Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), was correctly decided should be in favor of Section 2.
And every member of Congress who believes that only American legislators should make public policy for American families should be in favor of Section 3.
On this last point, a post-election Zogby poll (sponsored by WorldNetDaily) makes it clear that virtually every sector of the American public agrees with this last proposition.When asked if they wanted American judges to use American law alone or to also consider international law in making decisions, by an overwhelming margin, the American public rejected the idea of using international law for these purposes.
The majority of Republican voters reject international law.
So do the majority of Democratic voters.
Those who voted for McCain reject international law.
A majority of those who voted for Obama reject it as well.
Union members reject international law.
NRA members reject international law.
Every region of the nation rejects international law.
Every age group rejects international law.
Every racial group rejects international law.
This is a bipartisan issue in America among voters, and I truly hope and believe that it will become a bipartisan issue on the Hill. The gap between the values of Capitol Hill and the values of the American people has grown too large on too many issues. This is the very best place to show the American public that we all can work together for shared values.Both political parties say they are for family values. And this will demonstrate meaningful support for the family.
This Amendment preserves two essential values: the value that good families, not government, have the right to make decisions for children; and that America, not the UN or any other nation, gets to make our public policy to govern the critical relationship between parents and children.

Unsubscribe
Privacy Policy