There's been a LOT of discussion across the conservative Internet regarding HR 1388 ("Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act" (GIVE Act)), now S 3577 (National Service Reauthorization Act) in the Senate.
I've watched and been reading the email alerts and various blogs, but haven't really had time to fully delve into the details. I still haven't had time to read the entire bill itself, not that I'd grasp it fully if I did given the way they legaleeze the language! Plus, I note there have been a number of amendments.
It seems innocent enough. After all, every President in recent years has had some sort of somewhat similar volunteer service group.
However...
I do not like what I read under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties.” In subsection B6, the legislation states that a commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”
Mandatory service? Ah, are we talking kid draft? What happens if the parents don't WANT their child indoctrinated into service? brain washed into whatever brand of social consciousness that the government deems politically correct?
Where are we headed with this bill?
Even if it's not mandatory now, what kind of pressure will your child experience if he or she doesn't participate? Will they be ostracized? Will you get notes from the school talking about how your child isn't fitting in?
There is the possibility of uniforms included in the language of the bill, too. Not to mention the cost: $6 (six) billion (with a b) over the next five years.
Section 120 of the bill also discusses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program”. It states that “service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency”.
It sounds innocuous doesn't it? It's giving. It's service to help your country. We're taking potentially troubled kids, along with your child, and giving them a cause. We're teaching them to have big hearts and give, give, give.
Tell me, do you like what your children are being taught now in school? I'm not talking about reading, writing and arithmetic. I'm talking about the social aspect of the teaching that happens in schools. You buy supplies for your child and they're put in a communal closet so that other children can use them, too. The less-privileged. Sounds good doesn't it? You're helping the less fortunate. Uh, take from the "rich" (aka, anyone who has more than me) and give to the poor? To each his own needs?
What about the 'everyone is a winner' mantra we hear so often these days? No cheering at school ball games? Not keeping scores? Not handing out awards unless everyone gets one of some sort? Reading books about Sally or Joe having two Moms or two Dads. You can add your own examples to this list, there are many.
It's subtle in some cases, like some of the examples I just mentioned, but add it to all the other seemingly benign teachings and by the time your child is dumped into the "real" world their outlook on life capitalism, free-market, the 'rich' can be totally warped.
We're breeding competition out of our children's lives. We're teaching our children that it's bad to be better than the kid at the desk next to them.
Extremes on EITHER end of the spectrum are not good.
I just took a break to go walk on the treadmill. While walking I popped on Fox and Friends and, in the name of good timing, I saw a bit for the first time they call "The Trouble with Text Books". Once a week they're highlighting three factual errors or problems in the text books used to teach our children.
One of the examples from this morning's batch dovetails perfectly with what I was just writing. In American Passages, a full page is devoted to Cindy Sheehan. That's Cindy Sheehan of protest fame, the one who inserted herself into the anti-war movement. Sheehan is being held up to our children as an example? an icon?
We're on a slippery, slippery slope right now.
In one bill there's a bit about the possibility of forced social service. In another bill they insert a change that affects charitable giving. In another they undermine the right for physicians and medical workers not to perform actions that go against their belief system.
Buried deep in the bowels of multi-page bills in language that even those voting on can't decipher a word is changed, a sentence is inserted, and pretty soon we have a completed a puzzle of an American coffin. It holds the dead body of capitalism, free speech and freedom of religion.
We as concerned Americans have to look at the big picture and watch the details at the same time.
I don't believe this bill is good for the future of our country. It appears to be more social engineering in the name of good works.
Here's some of the language in the Senate bill:
PART III--INNOVATIVE DEMONSTRATION SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS AND RESEARCH
`SEC. 120. INNOVATIVE DEMONSTRATION SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS AND RESEARCH.`
(a) In General- From the amounts appropriated to carry out this part for a fiscal year, the Corporation may make grants and fixed-amount grants (in accordance with section 129
(l)) with eligible entities for activities described in subsection (c).
`(b) Definitions- For purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:`
(1) ELIGIBLE ENTITIES- The term `eligible entity' means a State education agency, a State Commission, a Territory, an Indian tribe, an institution of higher education, or a public or private nonprofit organization (including community-based organizations), a public or private elementary or secondary school, a local educational agency, or a consortia of such entities, where a consortia of two or more such entities may also include a for-profit organization.
`(2) YOUTH ENGAGEMENT ZONE- The term `youth engagement zone' means the area in which a youth engagement zone program is carried out.`
(3) YOUTH ENGAGEMENT ZONE PROGRAM- The term `youth engagement zone program' means a service learning program in which members of an eligible partnership described in paragraph (4) collaborate to provide coordinated school-based or community-based service learning opportunities, to address a specific community challenge, for an increasing percentage of out-of-school youth and secondary school students served by local educational agencies where --
`(A) not less than 90 percent of the students participate in service-learning activities as part of the program; or
`(B) service-learning is a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.
Authorized Activities- Funds under this part may be used to--
`(1) integrate service-learning programs into the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curricula at the elementary, secondary, or post-secondary, and post-baccalaureate levels in coordination with practicing or retired STEM professionals;
`(2) involve students in service-learning programs focusing on energy conservation in their community, including conducting educational outreach on energy conservation and working to improve energy efficiency in low income housing and in public spaces;
`(3) involve students in service-learning projects in emergency and disaster preparedness;
`(4) involve students in service-learning projects aimed at improving access to and obtaining benefits from computers and other emerging technologies, including improving such access to individuals with disabilities, in low income or rural communities, in senior centers and communities, in schools, in libraries, and in other public spaces;
`(5) involve high school age youth in the mentoring of middle school youth while involving all participants in service-learning to seek to meet unmet human, educational, environmental, public safety, or emergency disaster preparedness needs in their community;
`(6) conduct research and evaluations on service-learning, including service-learning in middle schools, and disseminate such research and evaluations widely;
`(7) conduct innovative and creative activities as described in section 111(b);
`(8) establish or implement summer of service programs (giving priority to programs that enroll youth in grades 6 through 9) during the summer months, including the cost of recruitment, training, and placement of service-learning coordinators--
`(A) for youth who will be enrolled in any grade from grade 6 through grade 12 at the end of the summer concerned;
`(B) for community-based service-learning projects that--
`(i) shall--
`(I) meet unmet human, educational, environmental (including energy conservation and stewardship), emergency and disaster preparedness, and public service needs; and
`(II) be intensive, structured, supervised, and designed to produce identifiable improvements to the community; and
`(ii) may include the extension of academic year service-learning programs into the summer months;
Showing posts with label children. Show all posts
Showing posts with label children. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
I just thought the porkulus was the worst I'd hear about today
THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
Expert: Pact would ban spankings, homeschooling if children object
Posted: February 05, 2009
12:00 am Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families' religion is on America's doorstep, a legal expert warns.
Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He told WND that under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child's best interest.
"It's definitely on our doorstep," he said. "The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we're stuck with it even if they lose the next election."
The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there's been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law.
Although signed by Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Feb. 16, 1995, the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives' efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents.
The international treaty creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that "the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." It is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has enforcement powers.
According to the Parental Rights website, the substance of the CRC dictates the following:
- Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
- A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
- Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
- The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.
-A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
- According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.
- Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
- Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
- Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
- Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
"Where the child has a right fulfilled by the government, the responsibilities shift from parents to the government," Farris said. "The implications of all this shifting of responsibilities is that parents no longer have the traditional roles of either being responsible for their children or having the right to direct their children."
Michael Farris
The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children's lives.
"If you think your child shouldn't go to the prom because their grades were low, the U.N. Convention gives that power to the government to review your decision and decide if it thinks that's what's best for your child," he said. "If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child."
He continued, "If you think your child should go to church three times a week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the frequency of church attendance."
He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for implementation of the policies.
Farris said it could be easier for President Obama to push for ratification of the treaty than it was for the Clinton administration because "the political world has changed."
At a Walden University presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action.
"It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land," Obama said. "I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a strong supporter of the CRC, and she now has direct control over the treaty's submission to the Senate for ratification. The process requires a two-thirds vote.
Farris said Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., claimed in a private meeting just before Christmas that the treaty would be ratified within two years.
In November, a group of three dozen senior foreign policy figures urged Obama to strengthen U.S. relations with the U.N. Among other things, they asked the president to push for Senate approval of treaties that have been signed by the U.S. but not ratified.
Partnership for a Secure America Director Matthew Rojansky helped draft the statement. He said the treaty commands strong support and is likely to be acted on quickly, according to an Inter Press Service report.
While he said ratification is certain to come up, Farris said advocates of the treaty will face fierce opposition.
"I think it is going to be the battle of their lifetime," he said. "There's not enough political capital in Washington, D.C., to pass this treaty. We will defeat it."
United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
Expert: Pact would ban spankings, homeschooling if children object
Posted: February 05, 2009
12:00 am Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families' religion is on America's doorstep, a legal expert warns.
Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He told WND that under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child's best interest.
"It's definitely on our doorstep," he said. "The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we're stuck with it even if they lose the next election."
The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there's been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law.
Although signed by Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Feb. 16, 1995, the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives' efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents.
The international treaty creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that "the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." It is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has enforcement powers.
According to the Parental Rights website, the substance of the CRC dictates the following:
- Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
- A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
- Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
- The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.
-A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
- According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.
- Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
- Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
- Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
- Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
"Where the child has a right fulfilled by the government, the responsibilities shift from parents to the government," Farris said. "The implications of all this shifting of responsibilities is that parents no longer have the traditional roles of either being responsible for their children or having the right to direct their children."
Michael Farris
The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children's lives.
"If you think your child shouldn't go to the prom because their grades were low, the U.N. Convention gives that power to the government to review your decision and decide if it thinks that's what's best for your child," he said. "If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child."
He continued, "If you think your child should go to church three times a week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the frequency of church attendance."
He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for implementation of the policies.
Farris said it could be easier for President Obama to push for ratification of the treaty than it was for the Clinton administration because "the political world has changed."
At a Walden University presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action.
"It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land," Obama said. "I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a strong supporter of the CRC, and she now has direct control over the treaty's submission to the Senate for ratification. The process requires a two-thirds vote.
Farris said Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., claimed in a private meeting just before Christmas that the treaty would be ratified within two years.
In November, a group of three dozen senior foreign policy figures urged Obama to strengthen U.S. relations with the U.N. Among other things, they asked the president to push for Senate approval of treaties that have been signed by the U.S. but not ratified.
Partnership for a Secure America Director Matthew Rojansky helped draft the statement. He said the treaty commands strong support and is likely to be acted on quickly, according to an Inter Press Service report.
While he said ratification is certain to come up, Farris said advocates of the treaty will face fierce opposition.
"I think it is going to be the battle of their lifetime," he said. "There's not enough political capital in Washington, D.C., to pass this treaty. We will defeat it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
