UN Convention on the Rights of Children with Disabilities

I am writing to urge you to work hardily against the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. There are many reasons why the acceptance of this treaty is not only wrong, but dangerous to the wellbeing of America and the rights of all families, parents, and children in the country.

            Specifically, there is a clause in the UNCRPD that states, “In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”[1] This statement rings true to those interested in helping disabled children but it is dangerous because the right to decide the best interest of the child would lie in the hands of government bureaucrats, stolen from the parents or guardians of the children.

            Any infringement on parental and child rights will affect homeschoolers as well. I won’t go into the ins and outs for those who are not homeschooled, but feel free to read about it here.

            We can sympathize with people such as Jim Patterson in his article who hopes for the disabled children he knows to get help. But in America we have the best system of taking care of disabled people, and it is one that does not involve governmental control and decision making. Patterson only talks about ratifying the CRPD to help children in OTHER countries. “While working abroad I witnessed cruel cases of discrimination against disabled children in many countries… Life could be different for these children if the Senate ratifies the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).” Nowhere does it mention our needing to adopt this treaty to help our own children. How will this help those foreign children for us to allow our parental and individual rights to be oversighted with UN ideas of what should be? The short answer is that it will not.

            Thomas Paine said, “Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.” We cannot allow our government a single iota of power more than is necessary for its function and purpose. The purpose of good government does not involve taking the responsibility to care for disabled children out of parents’ hands. Such a practice was common in Communist U.S.S.R. and China as a means of subjugating the free people by breaking up the families. The despotic governments of those countries took the children at an early age to brainwash them away from their parents under the guise of better education and care. This is where we are headed with this treaty.

             Please protect the interests and freedoms of the families in America to oversee the wellbeing of their own children. This treaty claims to help the disabled children, but does no such thing, and in facts hurts the children, their parents and families, and the country at large.

            Sign a petition to vote down the UN CRPD here!

---

[1] http://goo.gl/u26d1Q

Common Core

Samuel Adams said, "If Virtue & Knowledge are diffused among the People, they will never be enslav'd. This will be their great Security." Since education is the means by which citizens of our country can protect themselves and others from tyranny, we must protect it at all costs.

            The Common Core standards for schools across the country threaten our basic freedoms. They say that the new standards just make it easy for students to excel all around the world and all around the country because the standards are the same everywhere. But Common Core has its roots in the former Soviet Union which influenced UN proposed standards and inspired American Progressivism and President Woodrow Wilson. On education, Wilson said, “We want one class of persons to have a liberal education and another, very much larger class of persons of necessity in every society, to forgo the privilege of a general education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.”  Common Core’s stated intent, which you can see here, is unrealistic enough as listed, but it hides an even darker motive.

            Common Core is the worker-level education that Wilson was talking about. It lowers our standards of education so far that those educated with it will not be able to rise any higher. To see a great example of a teacher using common core to teach math, see here. This directly contradicts the founding fathers who saw the necessity for all citizens to be well educated to avoid easily falling under an oppressive elite class of rulers.

            Even more than just being meant to subjugate the people, Common Core’s most ardent supporters have an eye for the monetary profit. Glenn Beck talks about how Bill Gates is so strongly in support of Common Core because he owns the exclusive contract with the Government to provide the software (and probably hardware) that Common Core requires.[1]

            Without the education we need to uphold it, our freedom will be replaced with a dictatorship controlled by the elite few who the government deems worthy of education. We must get rid of Common Core to save our freedom. Don’t take my word for it, though. Educate yourself on it, and then let’s band together and expel it for good.

---

[1] http://goo.gl/DTaK9T

Ferguson

There has been no end of coverage of the recent unrest in Ferguson, MO after a black teenager, Mike Brown, was killed by a white police officer. From the very first bit of media coverage the officer was vilified far and wide as being a racist, who searched out the black teenager and killed him simply because he was black[1]. In the community of Ferguson where the population is mostly black, this notion ignited major race riots for days on end, involving forceful and dangerous demonstrations causing there to be a greater police presence in Ferguson that used forceful measures to keep the riots in hand. But why did this happen?

                The officer’s story was that Mike Brown and his friend were walking in the middle of the street when the officer drove past and he told them to get on the sidewalk because they were blocking traffic. Let us assume that the officer told them to get out of the way just because they were black and he didn’t like them. Is it an unreasonable request even assuming that motive? No. Police officers have the ability and responsibility to direct traffic, and as most will agree, walking in the street is not safe for any pedestrian or driver.

                We can only guess, and not prove his motives. However, we can judge the actions.

                The event escalated as Officer Wilson heard on the dispatch that a local store had been robbed by two juveniles matching Mike Brown and his friend. So he got out to arrest them on probable cause, and Brown assaulted the officer in his police car, going to take Wilson’s gun from him. Mike Brown was 6’ 4” and weighed 292 pounds, so to the much smaller officer, he posed a significant threat. Eventually the gun went off in the car, not injuring either of them, but Mike Brown started running away. Duty bound, the officer, though beaten with various injuries including a broken eye socket,[2] got out to bring Brown under arrest again. Brown stopped running away and decided to rush the officer, causing him to shoot him six times to bring him down.

                If that storyline is true, then the officer’s actions were not only justified, but required. It does not matter what the officer felt about black people, because whatever the motivation, he did the right thing every step of the way. If we decide to start judging people as criminal or not based on the motivations they possess, I know that I would be guilty of enormous crimes, myself.

                I don’t think the officer was a racist at all. But for the purpose of judging his actions as legal or not, it doesn’t matter. He was right to do what he did, however awful it is that he had to do it.

---

[1] Exemplified in this article- http://goo.gl/kczD7f

[2]Taken from article- http://goo.gl/9cBgBo

ISIS

The answer to foreign involvement for our government does not lie in extremes, one encouraging constant involvement and the other none at all. There is a balance that we have to find between the two. We must take into account the suffering of others, and also the potential danger that we are in. When both these criteria are high, action must be taken.

            Most agree that in wars like the World War 1 and 2 we were justified and right to get involved. Both criteria mentioned above came into play. Soldiers were dying in the war and in the Holocaust, and when we were bombed at Pearl Harbor it was a wakeup call that we had to play our part. We waited too long, hoping that the genocide in the Holocaust would go away without the expenditure of our own country’s lives, and we paid the consequence dearly in the loss of those lives lost in Pear Harbor, as well as those Jews murdered in the time we failed to act. We can’t let that happen again.

            The situation in Iraq and Syria is that kind of situation. In Iraq, the radical Sunnis are ruthlessly slaughtering all those who disagree with them. And, once again the problem is twofold.

            One article by Zev Farber, a Jewish man makes the point when he says, “I also strongly object to the bandying about of the term ‘genocide’ when it isn’t warranted. There are many terrible things in this world that deserve to be excoriated, but genocide is a specific terrible thing and should only be used accurately. Erroneous use of this term offends human decency and is an affront to the millions of dead who suffered from Hitler’s genocidal war.

For these reasons, when I hear about actual cases of genocide occurring in the world, my blood freezes. There is one happening right now.

As most readers know, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is in the midst of one of the most brutal and bloody “infidel” purges the world has seen.” The article can be found here: http://goo.gl/cbHCNO

            This slaughter of the Christians in Mozul and the less extreme “Yazidis” is akin to the Holocaust, attested to by a man who is an expert in the Holocaust. This alone should cause the US to go in and destroy ISIS, as we learned from Pearl Harbor.

            But the other half of the issue is this: ISIS specifically threatens the US on a regular basis, going out of its way to even behead American citizens on video while saying the same will follow every US citizen, as ISIS will work “Allah’s” judgment on us as a nation. See http://goo.gl/rccxW3 to read and watch one of the videos.

            We can underestimate the threat to ourselves and ignore the hurting of others for now, but it will catch up with us. We must take action before it does.