The left tends to define Conservatives by what they are against, rather that what they favor or support. While this is a little piece of propaganda, i.e., “the party of no,” I think it’s always useful to define what we are supporting. So, I thought I might review a few issues that most Conservatives and Libertarians would be able to support, and are, frankly, important to me. As such, these are my opinions, not necessarily the opinions of the other contributors at the CH 2.0. They are open for debate, as debate is good.
As for the series, I will cover what I think Conservative politicians should pursue. I know repealing ObamaCare will be attempted (or there will be more “angry mobs”). I also know that there will be other things that will need removing. But rather than say what we’re against, and it’s pretty obvious what those things are, I will discuss things that we are for.
My top priority has most always been to free our children from the government and it’s influences. I have posted several times before regarding the openly stated goal of achieving socialism by infiltrating the major institutions of our society and using them to manipulate the people towards a pre-determined goal. That goal of course, is socialism (or fascism, or progressivism-all closely related). The weapon of choice is Cultural Marxism, and the targets are children. Here are some quotes from public education supporters to justify this point of view.
John Dewey, called “the father of modern education,” was an avowed socialist, the co-author of the ‘Humanist Manifesto’ and cited as belonging to fifteen Marxist-front organizations by the Committee on Un-American Activities. Do the words (the father of modern education) now take on new meaning? Remember, Dewey taught the professors who would train America’s teachers. He was obsessed with “the group.” In his own words, “You can’t make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”
Paul Haubner, specialist for the NEA, tells us, “The schools cannot allow parents to influence the kind of values-education their children receive in school. That is what is wrong with those who say there is a universal system of values. Our goals are incompatible with theirs. We must change their values.”
Professor Chester M. Pierce, M.D., Professor of Education and Psychiatry at Harvard, has this to say, “Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our Founding Fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well — by creating the international child of the future.”
In the Humanist Review magazine it was observed that, “Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school’s meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?”
P. Blanchard, in ‘The Humanist” 1983, continues: “I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny how to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends toward the elimination of religious superstition. The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history.”
So, for many decades now, there has been a concerted effort to take over our education system. They have succeeded. The system itself is now set up as a progressive manipulation machine. Why try for universal daycare? To separate kids from the parents! Why belittle and attempt to limit home schooling, especially when home schooled kids, as a group, out perform the public schools by a large margin? It’s all about control! Get the kids away from the parents, and their beliefs, and indoctrinate them into the collective/progressive drones of the future.
I wrote this a few months ago…
People that believe in freedom are already the new pariahs for the left. One only needs to look at the media coverage of the Tea Parties to confirm this. The drumbeat will only grow. As it does, the left will continue to indoctrinate more and more children. We might yet defeat the socialized medicine, and we might prevent passage of Cap and Trade. Obama may lose his congressional majorities in 2010. He might even be defeated in 2012. But if we continue to give our kids to the government every day, those victories will be temporary, delaying the socialists for a few years to be sure, but in the end, futile.
So, what is the solution? The Parental Rights Amendment has been discussed since the 90’s. It’s gaining more and more traction as our government becomes increasingly intrusive. Its text is simple. The following is from the site that supports the Amendment, with an explanation of each of the three sections.
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.
In the 1925 decision of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a compulsory attendance act that required all parents to send their students to public schools, instead of private or religious schools. The court concluded that the act was unconstitutional because it “unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.”
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.
Because fundamental rights are so important to our freedom as Americans, the government must meet a heightened burden of proof in order to restrict those rights. In legal terms, the government’s case begins with a positive demonstration – they must prove that there is a government interest in restricting the right, and that the government has a specific interest in restricting the right of the particular parents whose actions are being challenged. In early 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court used this very language when talking about violations of religious liberty. According to the Court, the government must “demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law ‘to the person’–the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.” Gonzales v. O Centro Espirito Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, 548 U.S. 418, 430-431 (2006). The text of this proposed parental rights amendment merely takes this well-established principle of law, and applies it explicitly to the fundamental right of parents.
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.
According to Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, international law is comprised of international treaties, international customs which have been accepted as law by general practice, the general principles of law recognized in civilized nations, and the judicial decisions and teachings of legal authors and scholars. All four channels of international law currently pose a significant threat to parental rights.
The Parental Rights Amendment would prohibit the use of all four sources of international law in determining what rights of parents should be protected. Treaties that were ratified by the United States would need to be interpreted in light of what the Amendment guarantees to citizens, instead of using the treaty to interpret the meaning and extent of constitutional liberties. Furthermore, federal courts would not be able to impose harmful principles of customary international law on parents, because the rights granted in the text of the Constitution override and overwhelm conflicting principles of customary international law.
So, this would protect the rights of parents to raise them in accordance with their wishes and conscience. It would provide safeguards against child abuse, and would, at the same time, make children immune from such things as UN treaties that undermine families.
Will this prevent the schools from being indoctrination centers? No. Will it make all the Marxist professors or “progressive” educational programs go way? Also no. What it will do is “etch in stone” the rights of parents to guide the upbringing of children. It prevents the government from moving on desired usurpations of rights, and it gives parents recourse to defend their children against the indoctrination machine.
So, why make this first? For me, it protects our children from indoctrination. It frees home-schooled families from the fear of one day being forced to subject their children to something they may not want. But also, it is achievable; the left will have to ties itself into knots to not appear to be anti-family. It could also give a new Conservative administration or Congress a quick win.
Now, some will say that I’m being political and playing the game. Perhaps that is true. But I know the left will have a significant reaction to this. Untold billions of dollars are tied up in the public indoctrination machine. The unions, the special interests, and the politicians that want a complaint army of useful idiots, all have a stake in indoctrinating youth. They won’t let this pass lying down. So, we structure the fight so they have to show their true colors. Let them come with false claims. We’ll show where the money goes. Let them deride the supporters of the Amendment. We’ll point out that they are anti-family. We don’t have to lie, or invent any evidence. They do. Let them fall on their swords for it. It’ll take the wind out of their sails for other efforts.
Consider this an open thread.