President Obama's Plans

This site is geared towards Titus 2 teaching and thus, I generally do not post political themes. However, there are three specific items facing American citizens that I have a great burden for. I do not expect all of my readers to agree with me but, I do expect my readers to respectfully consider my point of view.

It is no secret that President Obama is considered to be one of the most liberal presidents ever elected to office. That is very worrisome for many (most) ultra-conservatives. However, I suggest that there are those who are much more worrisome than President Obama - CONGRESS. As of late, it seems that most Americans have forgotten the lessons learned in their high school government/civics class. (Why would they remember? If their school district was anything like mine, they only had one semester of it and I believe this sends an unspoken message that government/civics is unimportant. Math, on the other hand, is VERY important, it was taught BOTH semesters for 12 years!) Our presidents do have a tremendous amount of responsibility and they are generally viewed as the most powerful men in the world. But the average American citizen seems to have forgotten that our president DOES NOT make laws - has limited powers to sign executive orders? Yes. Make laws? No! Congress drafts, negotiates and presents legislation for internal voting. If the majority agrees, the legislation then goes before the president for an approval signature or veto. If the president decides to veto, the legislation will either go back through additional negotiations that congress hopes the president will approve or it will die. This is why so much legislature that goes across a president's desk will contain hundreds of pages of items that have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the "core" piece of legislature contained in a bill. Congress has been trained by former presidents and constituents that by padding the legislation with "pet projects", it is more likely to get passed.

This is why I urge you to consider contacting YOUR representative on a regular basis. He/she is in Washington to represent YOU. It is his/her job to vote according to the majority opinion for his/her district. (Matt Chancey has some good tips for doing this on his blog, click here: http://www.mattchancey.com/blog/?p=284). We MUST keep in mind that going to the voting booth in November was only the beginning of our political responsibilities. Remember, through their votes Congress has the power to STOP a president's agenda. Our representatives vote according to what they hear from their constituents, if they don't, they don't get re-elected. Through the same channels, we have the power to PASS a president's agenda.

Keeping this in mind, I'd like us all to consider President Obama's economic stimulus plan. When one reviews history, we see that his ideas are similar, too similar, to Presidents Hoover (republican), Roosevelt (democrat), Ford (democrat) and Bush - 43 (republican). His ideas have been tried in the past and in the past these same ideas FAILED. I recently viewed a short video from The Center for Freedom and Prosperity. It does a good job of explaining why, in layman's terms, President Obama's economic stimulus plan is NOT a good idea now or for the future - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mKE16Exh9k. It is imperative that we contact our representatives TODAY and let them know our opinion regarding this legislature.

Being a conservative Christian, I can not, in good conscience, fail to mention the Freedom of Choice Act. The Freedom of Choice Act will remove ALL legislature prohibiting any abortion.

~ Teen aged girls will no longer be required to obtain permission OR notify parents of their decision to proceed with an abortion. However, if medical complications arise from said abortion or attempted abortion, parents will be held fully responsible, legally and financially.

~ The national ban on partial birth abortion will be lifted. This means that fully viable, born alive infants will be terminated prior to complete extraction from the birth canal. These are infants whose heads have exited the birth canal and are then euthanized prior to the deliverance of the rest of their body. The birth of these children are NOT a threat to a woman's health as these women have already carried the infants to full-term AND withstood labor AND partial delivery.

~ The Born Alive Act will be nullified. This law states that when an infant is born alive during an abortion attempt, the medical staff MUST obtain emergency medical treatment for these infants. If personnel refuses to obtain medical treatment for infants who have survived an attempted abortion, the personnel can be held responsible for the murder of the infant. (On a personal note, I find it hard to accept that our legal system will prosecute a woman for dumping an infant in a dumpster, resulting in that infant's death OR medical complications while at the same time legalizing the medical murder of living, breathing human beings. I find it hard to accept that our legal system will prosecute a drunk driver, burglar, rapist, etc. for murder if the crime is committed against a pregnant woman and the infant dies while in the uterus as a result of said crime. If a mother paid a person of ill repute to kill her 3 month old infant, she would be prosecuted for murder. Why is it legally acceptable to pay a medical physician to do the same?) The Freedom of Choice Act does not reinstate a legal right to obtain an abortion. Medically supervised abortions have been legal in the United States since 1973 and continue to be legal today. The Freedom of Choice Act does not protect teen aged girl's health. It removes the right of a parent to make medical decisions regarding their daughter's health. The Freedom of Choice Act legalizes that which would in any other situation, be considered murder. I urge you to contact your representative today and ask him/her to vote NO on the Freedom of Choice Act.

The third concern I'd like to discuss today is The United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child, also known as CRC. As Americans we must realize the foundation of the CRC is rooted in protecting children who grow up in nations whose corrupt government, economy and living conditions are worse than any American can imagine, unless they've seen them first hand. These conditions often bring out the most de-base of human character and consequently the children of these nations are the victims of the societies they live in. These children are forced to fight in wars, live without clothing, nutrition, an education or medical care. The CRC was designed to bring human rights to children of these de-base societies. The CRC was designed to manipulate these corrupt governments into extending a helping hand to the parents of these children. These parents can not give clothing, nutrition, education or medical care if they do not have any means of obtaining it.

Over the years, stable industrialized governments have "jumped on the bandwagon" in adopting the CRC which was originally designed to help parents and children in unstable countries. Consequently, good parents who've always demonstrated that they had the best interest of their child in mind, have lost their parental rights. They've lost the right to decide where and what sort of education their child receives. They've lost the right to train up their children in the faith they choose. They've lost the right to discipline and guide their child when said child acts out, becomes involved in dangerous activities, or exhibits rebellion. Parents around the world have discovered that when their nation adopted the CRC treaty, an international governing power became the governing authority of their children. We must realize that one shoe does not fill all. A governing authority cannot possibly decide the BEST welfare for every child in a nation or the world.

With regard to the educational aspect of the CRC, what if Johnny has attention deficit disorder? What if Johnny's parents quickly figure out that Johnny learns much quicker when he is given one on one instruction away from distractions? Thus, Johnny's parents decide to home school him because the evidence shows that, in Johnny's situation, the one on one instruction and limited distractions available through homeschooling will benefit him much more than any public or private classroom filled with 20-30 other students (distractions) and a setting that completely prohibits one on one instruction (it is absolutely not possible for a teacher to sit with each and every student for each and every subject each and every day). However, under the CRC parents may not have the right to educate Johnny at home where he can receive what he needs to be educated. The CRC can force Johnny's parents to send him to public school even if Johnny never learns to read while there.

How about the family whose child doesn't have the educational needs Johnny has but they are gravely concerned about social and environmental influences and her safety? Let's say that Sally's family lives in a poverty stricken area where crime and drug use is rampant. Sally's single parent can't afford private school nor can Sally be home schooled because her single parent works two full-time jobs just to pay the rent and buy groceries. However, other students have harassed and threatened Sally at knife point. At her current school, drugs and drug use is rampant on her campus, and just last year Sally's best friend was raped by another student in a janitorial closet. At the urging of local law enforcement, Sally's single parent decides to work out a transportation plan with another family so Sally can attend another school on the other side of the district. A school that doesn't have the excessive drug and violence problems the one in her neighborhood has - a school where the police say Sally will be safer. However, under the CRC Sally's mother may be prevented from taking local law enforcement's advice about moving Sally to safer school. Remember, CRC over-rides all local, state and federal governing powers. Under CRC, Sally's mother also faces the possibility of being prosecuted for failure to protect her daughter while left in this dangerous school environment.

Many American parents today do not see anything wrong with allowing a child to decide his/her own religion. However, nearly every religion in the world directs parents to train up their children in said religion. The Bible instructs parents to train their children in Christianity, the Koran instructs parents to train their children in Islam, Buddhist teaching instructs parents to educate their children in the philosophy of Buddha, etc. According to the CRC, the CHILD has the legal power to dictate to his/her parent what religion, if any, he or she is to be trained in. This places parents of deep faith in a very sticky situation. These parents are in essence forced to break the law because their religion teaches eternal consequences for failing to train their children in said religion. Many atheist or agnostics may not see anything wrong with this and some may even think, "good those religious zealots will get what they deserve". However, the CRC is expected to be enforced through local programs, such as child protective services, and what is promoted or restricted to a "religious group" is also promoted or restricted to everyone else. Let's say that Jane and Bobby's parents are atheists. Now, Jane and Bobby are two very active 7 & 9 year olds. Their mom left them out in the back yard while she went inside to make lunch and while mom was inside, Jane decided to climb the pecan tree. She gets up there and then gets scared and is too frightened to try and climb down. Well, Bobby knows they will get in trouble for climbing the tree if mom finds out, so he decides to "help" his sister. Long story short, Bobby falls out of the tree and breaks his arm. Mom and Jane rush to the emergency room. While there, a child protective representative is phoned - the doctor suspects neglect/abuse because this is the 2nd broken bone Bobby has had in 18 months. During the course of his investigation, the child protective representative discovers that Bobby and Jane's parents are atheists. This does not set well with the child protective representative when Jane mentions that her parents refuse to let her attend church services with little Rhonda, the girl next door. Jane's parents refuse her request because they have a strong conviction that religion is not an emotional or mentally healthy choice for their children. However, under the CRC, the refusal to allow Jane access to any religion of her choice is illegal. Under the CRC, the parents can be court ordered to not only allow their daughter to attend these church services but they also may be forced to attend themselves. How else are they going to be able to instruct Jane in the religion of her choice if they don't have any knowledge of it? What is a parent of 3 or 4 going to do if each child decides to practice a different faith - are we supposed to attend Catholic Mass, Buddhist meetings, Islamic ceremonies and Jewish festivals weekly, monthly, etc.? This is a ludicrous and unreasonable aspect of the CRC.

When it comes to the discipline of our children, whether one agrees or disagrees with spanking on a child's bottom 2-3 swats is irrelevant because under the CRC it will be illegal. But we also need to remember that removing a child's bedroom door, grounding him/her from television, restricting Internet content and access, setting a curfew that is earlier than local law enforcement, etc. will also be illegal. You see, under the CRC children are legally granted rights similar to adults, thus, removing his/her door as a form of discipline could be seen as infringing upon your child's legal rights because you are removing his/her right to privacy. Also, if your daughter decides that she no longer wants to share a bedroom with her sister, you may be forced to sell your existing home and move to a larger home where you can provide your daughter with her own bedroom. If you can't afford a larger home, then you and your spouse may need to consider a sleeper sofa for the living room so your daughter can move into your bedroom thus protecting her legal right to privacy. Failure to provide her with her desired privacy could be considered illegal.

Grounding your child from television. I know many parents who use this form of discipline regularly. Again, under the CRC by restricting television and Internet access or content, parents are removing a child's right to public information. When he is grounded from television, he can not view the local or national news, the History Channel, Discovery Channel, etc. Restricting access to or content of the Internet can also be viewed as restricting a child's right to public information. Pornography is very easily accessible via the Internet, once something is on the Internet it becomes public information (not to be confused with copyright laws/regulations). Where will the governing powers draw the line with what is "a right to public information" for a child?

Yes, the wording of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child sound good on the surface. I also realize that the above senerios may sound extreme to most folks, however, there are parents all over the world today who have had or are trying to navigate through either similar or just as ridiculous situations. When we begin to comprehend the legal ramifications resulting from the implementation of the CRC, it becomes a source of great concern for responsible, loving parents. Therefore, I also urge you to contact your representative (numerous times, if necessary) and ask him/her to steadfastly OPPOSE any and all legislation that arises from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child. When compared to the whole, there are only a small number of parents who neglect and abuse their children. Here in America, we already have laws in place to not only protect children from abuse/neglect but also to protect parents from government intrusion into their family life. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child will bring a non-American governing entity right into our everyday lives. We don't need the CRC, we need to effectively enforce the laws we already have. (for more information regarding the CRC and what you can do visit www.parentalrights.org).

Thank you for bearing with me, thank you for considering my position with regard to these matters. Most importantly, please don't let your November vote be the last thing you did for our nation. Please contact your representative today, and let your voice be heard. (note: I apologize for the formatting issues in this post - for some reason blogger is not cooperating today.)