Sunday, December 9, 2012

Notes and Sources on the Speech Mike Lee Gave to Justify Voting Against the CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (TREATY DOC. 112–7)

Anything (e.g., a document or legislation) that is effective immediately without the need of intervening court action, ancillary legislation, or other type of implementing action.
A constitutional provision is self-executing when it can be given effect without the aid of legislation, and there is nothing to indicate that legislation is intended to make it operative. For example, a constitutional provision that any municipality by vote of four-sevenths of its qualified electors may issue and sell revenue bonds in order to pay for the cost of purchasing a municipally owned public utility is self-executing and effective without a legislative enactment.
Constitutional provisions are not self-executing if they merely set forth a line of policy or principles without supplying the means by which they are to be effectuated, or if the language of the constitution is directed to the legislature. As a result, a constitutional provision that the legislature shall direct by law in what manner and in what court suits may be brought against the state is not self-executing.
Just as with constitutional provisions, statutes and court judgments can be self-executing.”
------------------- """""""“( I instead found language like this:

"...the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State, and that persons with disabilities and their family members should receive the necessary protection and assistance to enable families to contribute towards the full and equal enjoyment of the rights of persons with disabilities,"”""""""" Labor Laws 
“Here's what Lee, a constitutional lawyer, had to say in a recent lecture about his view that the nation's founding political text had been fundamentally breached (transcript via ThinkProgress):
Congress decided it wanted to prohibit [child labor], so it passed a law--no more child labor. The Supreme Court heard a challenge to that and the Supreme Court decided a case in 1918 called Hammer v. Dagenhardt. In that case, the Supreme Court acknowledged something very interesting -- that, as reprehensible as child labor is, and as much as it ought to be abandoned -- that's something that has to be done by state legislators, not by Members of Congress. [...]
This may sound harsh, but it was designed to be that way. It was designed to be a little bit harsh. Not because we like harshness for the sake of harshness, but because we like a clean division of power, so that everybody understands whose job it is to regulate what.
Now, we got rid of child labor, notwithstanding this case. So the entire world did not implode as a result of that ruling.
As ThinkProgress notes, Lee appears to ignore some other constitutional precedents on the matter:
The Constitution gives Congress the power "[t]o regulate commerce...among the several states," and to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" this power to regulate commerce. Even ultraconservative Justice Antonin Scalia agrees that these powers give Congress broad authority to regulate "economic activity" such as hiring and firing. Which explains why the Supreme Court unanimously overruled Hammer v. Daggenhardt in a 1941 decision called United States v. Darby.”

Lee is a darling of the tea party movement, a loose grouping of candidates partly led and financially supported by former House leader Dick Armey (R-Texas). He is one of the Tea Partiers most likely to win a seat in Congress; other prominent 2010 tea party candidates were Ken Buck (R) in Colorado, Marco Rubio (R) in Florida, Joe Miller (R) in Alaska, and Rand Paul (R) in Kentucky.
One of the country's most conservative senators and a major financier of the tea party movement, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), has endorsed Lee and helped collect more than $200,000 to his senatorial campaign. This is more than the entire amount Lee's Democratic opponent, Sam Granato, has raised.
10.                        Text of Joint Resolution,
11.                        "Issues," Mike Lee for U.S. Senate website.
12.                        The Washington Post. "Election 2010: Live Results: Senate." 2010. Santorum 
“CRPD—whatever its intentions—has many troubling aspects.
There is not a clear definition of “disability” in the treaty, which means some committee at the U.N. will decide after ratification who is covered—an example of what is at the heart of the problem. CRPD gives too much power to the U.N., and the unelected, unaccountable committee tasked with overseeing its implementation, while taking power and responsibility away from our elected representatives and, more important, from parents and caregivers of disabled persons.
Another example of this U.N. overreach is the treaty’s “best interests of the child” standard, which states in full: “In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” This provision is lifted from the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was also not ratified by the United States Senate. This would put the state, under the direction of the U.N., in the position of determining what is in the best interest of a disabled child, replacing the parents who have that power under current U.S. law.”  Americans With Disability Act +{6C14FAE4-47E9-47BB-A414-7072D541E387} = farris message
What Do I Say?
Here are a few talking points you might share when you visit:
•Under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, the CRPD will become the “supreme law of the land,” overriding anything to the contrary in local, state, or federal law.
•Parents of disabled children know better than anyone what it is like to have bureaucrats and officials second-guessing their every decision. Article 7 of the CRPD will take away their right to be the ultimate decision makers for their child.
•The Understandings adopted by the Senate are poorly worded and do not have the legal effect proponents claim they will. The so-called “private action” understanding, for instance, does not uphold “current” U.S. law. Omission of the word “current” means the U.S. will be obligated to make changes in our law in order to fulfill our commitment under the treaty.
•Ratifying the CRPD would be the first time we have obligated our nation to recognize social, economic, and cultural entitlements and privileges as “rights” under domestic law.

“So let’s examine the facts.
We can start by permanently retiring the myth that this Treaty somehow infringes on our sovereignty or the principles of federalism.
True, this Treaty creates a committee that can issue non-binding recommendations. Is that a sufficient reason to vote against it? Absolutely not. The fact is, this committee can review reports submitted by nations on the steps they’ve taken to implement the Convention, and it can make non-binding recommendations. It can make suggestions. That's it. Nothing else. It doesn’t have the power to change laws or take any action in the United States, and its recommendations have no legal effect in our state or federal courts.
I know some have concerns about other treaties and their compliance bodies going beyond their mandate. That argument has been used before—and it’s irrelevant here. What the compliance committees for other treaties do will have no bearing on the Disabilities Convention.
What about federalism? Does this Treaty violate the delicate balance between the state and federal government with respect to children with disabilities? Would it “trump state laws” and serve as precedent in state and federal courts?
Wrong again — on both counts. The Treaty doesn’t affect the balance of power between the federal government and the states on these issues in any way. Nor does it require any changes to existing state or federal law. But don’t take my word for it. The Justice Department and former Republican Attorney General Dick Thornburgh testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that any assertion to the contrary was simply incorrect.
But we’ve also heard the myth that U.S. ratification of this Treaty will somehow affirm the establishment of rights that are not recognized under U.S. law. Treaty opponents can point to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and cry wolf all they want, but facts are stubborn things.
So let’s be clear: the Disabilities Convention is a non-discrimination treaty. It won’t create any new rights that do not otherwise exist in our domestic law. What are the U.S. obligations under this Treaty? Simple: prevent discrimination on the basis of disability only with respect to rights that are already recognized and implemented under U.S. law.  In other words -- keep doing what we already have done for the 22 years since we proudly passed the Americans with Disabilities Act.
As for the notion that this treaty supports an expansive “social” rather than a “medical” definition of the term “disability,” shifting the focus from physical to attitudinal barriers for persons with disabilities, don’t let the critics fool you.
It’s true that some countries were advocating for an unacceptable definition of “disability” during treaty negotiations. But those efforts failed. They lost. We won. The counterarguments of the United States—and Dick Thornburgh—were successful and the flawed definition was not included in the treaty. Bottom line: the Treaty leaves it up to each country to apply the term “disability” consistent with its domestic laws.
When all else fails, treaty opponents go for their ace in the hole: a lame-duck session is an inappropriate time for outgoing Senators to consider treaties.
I’ll be blunt:  that’s not how the Founders intended the Senate to work—and that's not how our country can afford the Senate to work. The Senate’s power to advise and consent isn’t some arcane procedural matter. It’s a constitutional responsibility. Since the 1970s alone, the Senate has approved treaties during lame-duck sessions a total of nineteen times! It may come as a surprise to some, but voters elect their Senators to serve a full term—and that includes the lame-duck session. Why should this one be any different? We've been working to study and approve this Treaty now for a long time. Senators, including many who won't be here after January, took the time to study it. Why would we throw away their efforts and start the clock new in another Senate with so many new Senators?

In the end, none of the objections that have been put forward against this Treaty stand up to scrutiny. They may sound good, and if any of them were true I couldn't support the Treaty and the Treaty wouldn't have passed out of our Committee in a big bi-partisan 13-6 vote.
No, the concerns are criticisms aren't based on facts. They’re not true—and we should know it by now.
One of the lessons that I've learned over nearly 30 years in the United States Senate is that America is stronger not only when we proclaim truth but when we listen to it.
So let’s throw away the scripts and the tired phrases and put what’s best for the country ahead of what’s best for party or ideology.
What's best for our country?

What's really at stake here? The outcome here will not, despite the fear and politics that have been invoked--will not decide one election here in the Senate. It won't decide one of the fabled Tea Party primaries that are distorting our politics and hurting the ability of the Senate to function. But it will decide whether some people live or die in another country where there is no accountability and only United States values and standards are the difference to the prospects of someone with disability. In some countries children are disposed of--killed--because they have a disability. Our Treaty can help prevent that.
In some countries, disabled children do not get to go to school and certainly have no prospect of a future, simply because they are born with a disability.  This Treaty can help offer hope where there is none. The United States could actually sit at the table and make the difference for people with disabilities because we are willing to push our values and hold other nations accountable to meet our standards-- the Gold standard of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I have heard some of my Republican colleagues talk many times about making the rest of the world more like America -- I'd hate to think that now they'll retreat from that core conviction to oppose a Treaty modeled on the United States' example which has no recourse to the courts and no effect on American law.
This Treaty isn't about American behavior except to the degree it influences other countries to behave more like us.
This Treaty is about the behavior of other countries and their willingness to raise their treatment of people with disabilities to our level. It's that simple.
This isn't a Treaty about changing America. It's a treaty to change the world to be more like America.”

John Kerry +  
“In five simple words, this treaty says to other countries that don’t respect the rights of the disabled, be more like us. That’s what we are asking people to do. It doesn’t require any changes to American law, zero. This has no tying of the hands of America. There isn’t one law in the United States that will be negatively affected, but it will push, it will leverage, it will require the countries by their commitment to be held accountable to the standard we have set and take our gold standard and extend it to the rest of the world. So there are three reasons that I've heard that we can't do this. When I hear them, I’m reminded what I learned when I was a prosecutor quite a few years ago now. I learned that, you know if – if the facts are against you, then argue the law. If the law is against you, then argue the facts and if both of them are against you, just make it up.
Well, that's exactly what's happening here, Mr. President. Neither the law nor the facts support any argument that has been made on the other side of this treaty. So accordingly we're facing an entirely fictitious set of arguments on abortion, on home schooling, on lame-duck sessions. All of their arguments have been contradicted by the facts and the law, let me document that. This treaty is based on the Americans with Disabilities Act. We passed that 20 years ago. In all those 20 years, the father of the act is sitting here, the senator from Iowa. Has any child been straight separated from a parent because of the A.D.A? No. Has home school been hurt? No. in fact, it's grown and flourishing across the nation.
How is it possible that a treaty that according to our Supreme Court offers no recourse, no change in American law, no access to American courts, how is it possible that such a treaty could threaten anybody in our country? The answer is simple, it doesn't, and it can't, but let's go through the arguments one by one. First they say it would undermine our sovereignty. I've heard several people suggest that. You know, the laws governing the disabled. Well, that's wrong and Senator Lee just admitted it doesn't affect any law in the United States. All it does is create a committee on the rights of persons with disabilities.

What can this committee do? All it can do is review reports and make a suggestion. Are we scared in the United States of America of someone making a suggestion to us about how we might do something? Has no recourse in the court, no legal standing. The Foreign Relations Committee even included language in the resolution of advice and consent to make it crystal clear. So what are we afraid of? That the committee would give us this advice?

The second misconception is that this will allow the federal government acting under U.N. instructions to determine what is best for children with disabilities. Again, Mr. President, that is just flat wrong. The treaty does not give the federal government or any state government any new powers with respect to children with disabilities. It doesn't change the balance of power between federal and state government. It doesn't require any change to existing state or federal law. The Justice Department, former Republican Attorney General Dick Thornburgh testified before the Foreign Relations Committee that any assertion to the contrary is incorrect and our committee even included language in the resolution of advice and consent to absolutely crystallize those limitations.
And finally there are those who argue that a lame-duck session is the inappropriate time for senators to consider this treaty. Well my colleagues, please! Since the 1970's alone the United States Senate has approved treaties during lame-duck sessions a total of 19 times. There's nothing special or different about a lame duck, it's a session of the United States Congress. And just as we are going to consider important fiscal matters, we should consider other important matters. Our constituents expect us to do our jobs, and there's no difference between a lame duck or a dead duck or a regular duck, we ought to be here doing our jobs.
More than any of the straw men, though, we've had to deal with in this debate there is, in fact, something much bigger at stake here, Mr. President. This treaty and this vote will say a great deal about how we are in the United States Senate and who we are as a country. In the nearly 30 years that I've been here, I think this is the first time I've seen a former majority leader of the United States Senate come to the Senate floor for a vote, and it's certainly the first time that I've seen it happen when he had every right to be at home at age 89 taking care of his health. But that's not Bob Dole. Almost 70 years ago, when he came home to Kansas from the battlefields of Italy in a full body cast, people said that Bob never had to work another day in his life. That's what they said. He was a hero. He'd made his contribution. But Bob Dole worked every single day to stand and to walk and to use his arms again. He made himself get out of that bed and he made himself a public servant and a United States Senator and the Republican nominee for President in 1996.
But his greatest pride was passing the Americans with Disabilities act. Bob Dole, why is he here? He's not here because he's here to advocate for the United Nations. And certainly this man who served his country is not here because he doesn't want to defend the sovereignty of the United States of America. He is here because he wants to know that other countries will come to treat the disabled the way we do. He's here because he wants to know that what -- when a disabled American veteran, our wounded warriors, travel overseas, that they're treated with the same dignity and respect that they receive here at home. That's why an 89-year-old veteran, one week removed from Bethesda Naval Hospital, comes back to the Senate on an early December day. Because it matters, because what we do here in the United States Senate matters, not just to us, but to people all across the globe. And maybe some people here need to be reminded of that.”

“We are disappointed that the overwhelming majority of Senate Republicans today blocked the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which would enshrine American standards that have been developed through decades of bipartisan cooperation.  Ratification would require no changes to U.S. law, as the United States already leads the world in promoting and protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. However, it would position the United States to support extending across the globe the rights that Americans already enjoy at home. This in turn would improve the lives of Americans with disabilities -- including our wounded service members -- who wish to live, work, and travel abroad.  It would also allow our businesses to operate on a more level playing field and reaffirm American leadership on disability rights.  For these reasons, and others, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and across the country -- as well as disability advocacy groups, wounded warriors, veterans groups and business groups -- have supported this treaty. We commend former Senator Dole and the bipartisan coalition of Senators who worked to secure the treaty resolution’s passage, including Senators Reid, Kerry, Lugar and McCain.  We hope the Senate will reconsider this treaty soon in the next Congress. As President Obama declared in a written statement read in tribute to Senator Dole just before the vote, “disability rights should not stop at our nation's shores.””

J. Michael Smith
HSLDA President
J. Michael Smith is president of HSLDA. He has been an advocate for homeschooling for more than 30 years. Read more >>
Due to your calls, emails, and office visits, the Senate minority stood strong and ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) was rejected by the U.S. Senate today.
The CRPD, which would take away American sovereignty and threaten parental rights, needed two-thirds of the Senate in order to pass. Although it gained a majority of votes, it failed on a vote of 61–38. This is a great victory for parental rights, homeschool freedom, and children with special needs.
The U.S. Senate rejected a treaty which would have allowed UN bureaucrats to decide what is in the “best interests” of children with disabilities, instead leaving those decisions with parents and caregivers, which is what existing U.S. law already requires.
Visit our CRPD issues page to find out why HSLDA opposed this treaty.
We encourage you to visit the U.S. Senate website to find out how your senators voted, and please send them an email of thanks.
Yet despite this victory, the battle is not over. Shortly after receiving word of defeat, proponents of the convention vowed to bring it up in the next legislative session. Their strategy is to work with newly elected senators and try harder to persuade some of the current senators who voted against the CRPD to change their vote.
Other dangerous UN treaties could be brought up for ratification as well. These include the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child.
We must stay informed and be ready at any moment to take action again. Without a Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which would supersede these treaties, we are susceptible to these constant attacks against our rights as Americans and the right the raise our children how we see fit.”

So that is what this is about--- PRA/ the “best interests” of children BS-- and the language they worry about came from
UN’s Convention on the Rights of

the Child cares for the world’s children. NORQUIST
“They” Say… Grover Norquist Says…
The UN’s Convention on the Rights of
the Child cares for the world’s children.
The UNCRC replaces loving parents with
government bureaucrats.
Ratifying the CRC is a harmless way to
show solidarity with other nations.
A ratified CRC would greatly increase
spending to provide more bureaucrats to
implement and enforce its provisions.
Ratifying the Convention doesn’t mean
we would have to increase spending. We
could pick and choose to save money.
The UN Committee has stated that
“resource constraints cannot provide a
justification for a State party’s failure” to
fully implement the Convention.
Opponents to the CRC just want to save
money at the expense of children. We
should spend more on children.
Fit parents – not government
bureaucrats - are in the best position to
represent and defend the rights and
interests of children, and do so at little
or no cost to the government.
The CRC would have no impact on our
federal system of government or our
The CRC would transfer family law from
state to federal jurisdiction. Under
federal control it will cost more.
A constitutional amendment will give
more power to the federal government,
meaning more bureaucrats and higher
As written, this Amendment gives clear
direction, not a transfer of authority. It
protects Tenth Amendment states’ rights
and prevents added bureaucracy.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------{4771B53E-D345-4753-BEF4-68C1CA71CE13}&DE= Parental Rights Amendment


The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.


Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.


This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.


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.
States Rights!
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”””” Reagan on States Rights
“When a politician says the term 'States Rights' to an all white crowd in the deep south it is thinly veiled code word for racism. It basically says 'hey all you racists out there, I'm a racist too, and if you elect me, I'll be sure to do what I can to perpetuate the institution of racist policies as long I as I can.'
That's exactly what Ronald Reagan did when he kicked off his presidential campaign in 1980. Reagan even kicked it up a notch, by holding his presidential campaign kick-off in Philadelphia, Mississippi (which was Trent Lott's idea btw, if that tells you anything). What, you may ask, is the significance of that city? It was where the famous murders of three civil rights workers occurred in 1964. Did Regan denounce those murders or mention them in any way in that speech? Absolutely not. He instead told a nearly all white crowd that he believes in 'states' rights'. It was a chilling message to send to black Americans everywhere (indeed to all non-racist Americans who may have been paying attention). It was an incredibly racist move on his part, but it was also political genius. It was a way to woo the southern democratic vote (dixie-crats) over to the Republican party. That transformation was what allowed the Republican party to grow into what it is today from its virtual irrelevancy at that time. It's not so easy to come right out and call Reagan a racist, but his policy speaks for itself. He voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and he refused to denounce the racist apartheid policies of South Africa when virually the entire rest of the world did. And the choice of location for his presidential kick-off speech, Wow. That takes the cake. Not since the fifties could you come right out and publicly state your racism while running for political office; you had to switch to using phrases like 'states' rights' to say it. Ronald Reagan may not have stated it overtly; that would have been political suicide in 1980, but he did state it nonetheless.
You may say that the words 'states rights', 'interposition' and 'nullification' are the words of our founding fathers, and that it's not fair to lump them together and to tie them so simply to racism. Well, first of all the founding fathers did own slaves, did they not? Also, the only time where the term 'states rights' gained a widespread popularity was in the civil rights days, when Jim Crow laws were challenged at the federal level. When the **********s recite these same phrases today, it's safe to say that every racist in the crowd (and most people with a memory of the recent past) instantly recognize what the sentiment of that statement means. If that association is not what is intended, then so be it, but they are ignorant to think that nobody will call them out on the association of that phrase to its recent racist roots. After all, that was only a few decades ago, hardly 'ancient history' and not nearly as irrelevant as the racist Republican apologists will argue.
You will hear right wingers argue that the term 'states' rights' is just a way to tell the federal government to get off their backs and to not oppress them with unsound fiscal policies. That sounds fine, and I will join their call to end the privatized Federal Reserve Banking system which has us taxpayers on a debt treadmill (too bad Republicans once again are completely contradicting their own arguments on this as well) but when that sentiment comes from representatives from Republican 'Red' states, it is laughable. At the same time they cry 'Socialism', they are ignoring the facts about what socialism is. Basically it means you receive more than you contribute. The funny thing about that, is that of the states that receive more from the federal government than they contribute, 84% of those states are Republican 'Red' states. “ Bloody Shirt Return of States Rights
“Aside from the dubious constitutional grounds for the states’ rights argument, the position is weighted down by some ugly historical baggage.
The most infamous expression of states’ rights is found in the Confederate States Constitution (1861), which begins: “We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character . . .” In the twentieth century, states’ rights routinely served as a code word for the right to discriminate against African Americans, segregate them from the white population, and deny them and other nonwhites voting rights, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act. Two of the most influential right-wing populist leaders and civil rights opponents of the 1960s—Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Governor George Wallace of Alabama—were avid proponents of states’ rights.”----------“ founded on confidence that free markets, personal responsibility, charity, and civic virtue will resolve most economic and social problems “-------“a wholesale downsizing of national government that, by unleashing private enterprise and free markets, would “save America” 
Pet peeve

“ALEC’s mission is to promote free markets, limited government, federalism and individual freedom, according to its website. “All of our policies are in line with those principles,” said Weber.”
“Libertarian/Austrian Economics
Libertarianism is a philosophical and political position that takes as its first priority the freedom of every human individual. Individual freedom is and should be the basis of all social relations. The core of Libertarianism is what is called the non-aggression axiom (NAA):
NAA: no one may initiate or threaten to initiate the use of coercive physical violence against the person or property of another.
Libertarianism rests on the initially startling claim that we own ourselves and, as the rightful owners of ourselves, only we can decide what is to be done by and to our bodies and our minds.”
 --coercive physical violence in this sense means TAXATION

What is the "STATE?"

"The State" is something of a technical term. Political and Ecclesiastical "experts" may also use the term to justify their control over others. When most people think of the "State" they are thinking of "the government," e.g., Washington, D.C. We hear the phrase "the separation of Church and State." It refers not to a particular "State," but rather to all who call themselves the "State." What is a "State," and what gives a person or group the right to so call themselves?
Ludwig von Mises, the most influential political economist of the "Austrian" school of economics, gives us this definition of a "State":
The state is essentially an apparatus of compulsion and coercion. The characteristic feature of its activities is to compel people through the application or the threat of force to behave otherwise than they would like to behave.

Government Equals Force by James Bovard

Suppose I come up to you and say, "If you murder anyone I'll kill you." I am compelling you through the application or threat of force to behave otherwise than you might like to behave; am I a "State?" Not necessarily; Mises continues his definition:

But not every apparatus of compulsion and coercion is called a state. Only one which is powerful enough to maintain its existence, for some time at least, by its own force is commonly called a state. A gang of robbers, which because of the comparative weakness of its forces has no prospect of successfully resisting for any length of time the forces of another organization, is not entitled to be called a state. The state will either smash or tolerate a gang. In the first case the gang is not a state because its independence lasts for a short time only; in the second case it is not a state because it does not stand on its own might.
The pogrom gangs in Imperial Russia were not a state because they could kill and plunder only thanks to the connivance of the government.

The deficit was the difference between two more important numbers—how much the federal government took from the American people by force in taxes and how much the federal government spent each year. By the 1980s liberals discovered they could use concern over the deficit to oppose tax cuts and to push for tax hikes.
Now that the federal budget is in balance—indeed in substantial surplus—it is the right time for the conservative movement to establish a new goal. We said we wanted to balance the federal budget—we did. Now what? What is the measure of our success or failure in the years and decades to come?
I recommend that we set the goal of reducing the cost and size of government by half over the next twenty-five years—one generation. Why half? Because it is a large enough challenge to be worth the candle. Because it is eminently doable. Why a twenty-five year time horizon? Because it will take time to turn the nation around. Because we have to expect to have setbacks, lost opportunities, bad election years, wars and recessions. Certainly, we would welcome achieving our goal of "In Half" in a shorter time frame.
There are four measures of the size and scope of government. We should look to cut each in half over the next twenty-five years.
#1 – Total government spending as a percentage of the economy.
#2 – The cost of all government regulations as a percentage of the economy.
#3 – Total government employment: How many Americans work for the government at all levels.
#4 – Total assets controlled by government.

Christian Homeschoolers: Children Don’t Have Rights

December 7, 2012 By Libby Anne 84 Comments
There has been a lot of confusion about why the U.S. Senate failed to ratify the UN Disabilities Treaty. Fred Clark of the Slactivist is absolutely right that evangelicals’ fear that the UN is the vehicle of the coming antichrist, along with conservatives’ fear that the UN is a plot to form a one world government and erode the United States’ national sovereignty, played a role in the rejection of the treaty. But there’s something else there too.
I was homeschooled from kindergarten through high school. I grew up hearing that treaties like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (which only the U.S. and Somolia, a country with no functioning government, have not signed) must be opposed at all costs because it would erode parents’ rights. This wasn’t some minimal thing. Michael Farris, the most well known homeschool leader in the country and the founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, has been advocating for a parents’ rights amendment and fear mongering about UN treaties for decades now.
You see, the Christian homeschool movement holds that parents have rights, but children do not.
Growing up homeschooled, I was told that the idea that children have rights was a liberal plot to undermine the family by removing parents’ rights and handing children over to the government. The byline displayed on Farris’s ParentalRights.Org is “protecting children by empowering parents.” Not “protecting children by defending their rights,” no. Never. Children don’t have rights. Parents should have full and total control over their children. Parents always know what’s best for their children.
What does this have to do with the UN Disabilities Treaty? Plenty. Here is how Rick Santorum explained it in an article titled UN Disabilities Treaty Would’ve Had Bureaucrats Unseat Parents:
Who should make the critical health-care decisions for a child with a disability? A well-meaning, but faceless and distant United Nations bureaucrat, or a parent who has known, loved, and cared for the child since before birth?

Another example of this U.N. overreach is the treaty’s “best interests of the child” standard, which states in full: “In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” This provision is lifted from the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was also not ratified by the United States Senate. This would put the state, under the direction of the U.N., in the position of determining what is in the best interest of a disabled child, replacing the parents who have that power under current U.S. law.
In other words, the UN Disabilities Treaty was not simply defeated because of fear of UN control or because of concerns about limitations on U.S. sovereignty but also because it states that disabled children have certain rights. And men like Rick Santorum don’t believe children have rights. Santorum argues that parents always know what is right for their children, and should have full control to make decisions about their children’s well-being. He scoffs at the idea that there might ever be a case where parents might not know what is in their child’s best interests, or might want to do things that are not in their children’s best interests.
Someone needs to tell that to Lydia Schatz. Someone needs to tell that to Hana Williams. Someone needs to tell that to Joshua DeShaney. Someone needs to tell that to Austin Sprout. Someone needs to tell that to Lisa Steinberg. Someone needs to tell that to Zachary Swezey. R.J. Arrington. David Hickman. Rayna Gagne. Madeline Kara. I could go on. These are all children who died at the hands of their parents.
And yet, according homeschoolers like to Michael Farris and Rick Santorum, any attempt to state that children have rights is an attempt to take rights away from parents, and must be opposed. They argue that parents always know what is best for their children, and that the family should be upheld as sacred and not interfered with. They honestly don’t believe that children have rights. Instead, they believe that children are wholly under their parents’ authority and control until the day they turn 18. Children are, in some sense, simply the property of their parents.
I was recently at a workshop on children’s rights and homeschooling during which a scholar from Germany expressed confusion that we in America would see the state as a threat to the family and parents. He said that in Germany people don’t see questions of children’s well-being as a contest between parents’ rights and the state power. People there understand state only steps in to protect children’s rights, which, like any other right, must be protected. If the state must protect rights like freedom of speech or freedom of the press, must it not also protect children’s rights?
This is where, I suppose, I believe that Michael Farris and Rick Santorum are wrong. You see, I believe children do have rights.
Family as property, standing against this and other treaties and all NONGOD power as ultimately illegitimate
 What can you expect from people who really believe and legislators who really believe and count on a base who believes Acorn? Stole the 2012 election? Really?

god-authority man authority sphere "Family vs. The State

In the Marxist scheme, the transfer of authority from the family to the State makes any talk of the family as an institution ridiculous. The family is to all practical intent abolished whenever the State determines the education, vocation, religion, and the discipline of the child. The only function remaining then to the parents is procreation, and, by means of birth control regulations, this too is subject now to a diminishing role. The family in such a society is simply a relic of the old order, maintaining itself only surreptitiously and illegally, and subject at all times to the intervening authority of the State. In all modern societies, the transfer of authority from the family to the State has been accomplished in varying degrees.

In scripture, the authority of the family is basic to society, and it is a God-centered authority. The authority of the woman as help-meet (Genesis 2:18) is no less real than that of a prime minister to a king; the prime minister is not a slave because he is not king, nor is the woman a slave because she is not a man. The description of a virtuous woman, or a godly wife, in Proverbs 31:10-31 is not of a helpless slave nor of a pretty parasite, but rather of a very competent wife, manager, business-woman, and mother – a woman of real authority.

In modern education, the State is the educator, and the State is held to be the responsible agency rather than man. Such a perspective works to destroy the pupil, whose basic lesson becomes a dependence on the State. The State, rather than the family, is looked to for moral decision and action, and the moral role of the individual is to assent to and bow down before the State. State education is at the very least implacably anti-scriptural, even when and if it gives the bible a place in the curriculum.

Basic to the calling of every child is to be a member of a family. Virtually all children will some day become husbands and wives, and fathers or mothers. The State school is destructive of this calling. It attempts to meet the need are essentially external and mechanical, i.e., home economics courses, sex education, and the like. But the essential training for family life is family life! It means scriptural education, discipline, and training in godly responsibility.

The State school, moreover, basically trains women to be men; it is not surprising that so many women are unhappy at being women. Nor are men any the happier, in that dominion in modern education is transferred from man to the State, and man is progressively emasculated. The major casualty of modern education is the male student. Since dominion is by God's creative purpose a basic aspect of man, any education which diminishes man's calling to exercise dominion also diminishes man to the same degree."""""""""" “Some examples of non-Christian views of authority are:
1) Social Darwinism: just as Darwin put forth the theory of survival of the fittest, sociologically speaking, this implies a "might makes right" theory of authority. This is the essence of power religion – whoever has the power (brute force) makes the rules. Social Darwinism is the philosophical basis of all the frightening tyrannies of our era: communism, Nazism, fascism, etc. Since collective man as expressed in the State is the most powerful earthly entity, social Darwinism obviously sacrifices the individual to the group.
2) Majoritarian Utilitarianism: this is the idea that "whatever makes the most people the happiest is the correct thing." Such an idea would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that this theory is so pervasive (and so destructive) in our society. In spite of our foundings, this is the basis of the United State’s government today. It forms the philosophical underpinnings of every democracy and most benevolent socialist societies. By its very nature majoritarian utilitarianism favors the will of the group over the will of the individual.
3) Anarchistic Libertarianism: this is the idea that "every individual is free to do as he pleases so long as it does not harm someone else." This is the idea put forth by most proponents of humanistic freedom philosophy and classical liberalism (think of classical liberalism as synonymous with libertarianism). This theory might sound initially appealing. But we have to remember that this theory condones any consensual sex act, bestiality, suicide, abortion, self mutilation, public nudity, etc, etc. Trying to come to some rational consensus as to what constitutes "harm" is impossible. Does public nudity really "harm" anyone? How about blasphemy? In the matter of abortion, it’s painfully obvious that our society can’t even determine what constitutes a "person." To my knowledge, no society has existed in such a state of affairs for more than a few months. The human desire for order is strong; it will not long tolerate chaos. Obviously, anarchistic libertarianism sacrifices the group to the individual.
Regardless of who non-Christians choose as their source of authority, it ultimately resides with man (whether many distinct individuals or one collective group).
Christians, on the other hand, have a Trinitarian view of the one and the many. This view places as much importance on the individual as it does the group with no subordination or tension between them. The Trinitarian philosophy of the one and the many rightly holds the Eternal One and Many as the only legitimate source of authority. Since God created all that is, He alone holds ultimate authority over all creation. From this, it is obvious that all earthly authority is derived authority (that is, no authority exists which is not derived from God’s ultimate authority). He is the creator of all humans (individuals), human groups (sociological units: families, countries, etc.), and human institutions (churches, civil governments, etc.). It is He who decides the scope and form of authority for all human groups and institutions. This is very similar to the Christian theory of property. God created everything so He alone owns everything. However, He has decided to put His property under our stewardship (with specific people as stewards of specific portions of His property).
Plainly stated, in Christian philosophy it is God who determines what functions an individual, family, church, business unit, civil government, and so-forth is to serve. God sets the boundaries on their activities – He determines what they can do, what they can’t do, and what they must do. These boundaries are revealed completely and perfectly to humanity through God’s Law contained in the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible. Rushdoony spent a considerable portion of his life’s work explaining that the source of a society’s law is the god of that society. A distinctly Christian society must necessarily have a distinctly Christian law code (that is, God’s Law) that binds the actions of it’s individuals, groups, and institutions.
A few practical examples of this idea follows:
1) Sphere of Individual Government
seat of authority: the individual himself
This sphere has the authority to do everything that is not forbidden by God’s Law. This sphere is required to worship the Lord and serve Him by exercising Biblical dominion in his area of knowledge and influence.
2) Sphere of Family Government
seat of authority: husband/father
This sphere is the fundamental sociological group of society. A primary function of this sphere is to group a man and woman together for companionship and to work together for Biblical dominion. Another fundamental function is to raise God’s children according to Biblical principles so that they may grow to become godly adults.
3) Sphere of Business Government
seat of authority: owner of the business and appointed managers
The goal of this sphere is the accomplishment of work, a fundamental purpose of man’s existence. A man’s vocation is his ministry.
4) Sphere of Church Government
seat of authority: group of elders
This sphere proclaims God’s message to the unbelieving world, builds Christians in the knowledge of God’s Word, provides a means of fellowship for the edification of God’s people, is a forum for the visible worship of God, and is the primary agency of mercy to the world.
5) Sphere of Civil Government
seat of authority: regional judges
This sphere is God’s agent of wrath and justice on the earth. Any lack of conformity to God’s Law is sin. Crime is that subset of sin that God has told us in the Bible to punish carnally. The punishment of crime (with restitution to the victims by the criminal) is the fundamental purpose of civil government. In this manner, the civil government is also empowered to provide for national defense (to keep other nations from committing crimes against it’s citizens).

A fundamental idea of spheres of government is the inability to transfer power between spheres. However, within a sphere, delegation of powers may occur if done so within a Biblical fashion. For example, a father cannot rightly give his disciplinary authority over his children to his church (transfer between spheres). However, he may delegate that authority to his wife in his absence (delegation within a sphere). As another example, civil government may not transfer it’s power of judgement to the business community (transfer between spheres). However, different judges as agents of the civil government rightly make judgements in its name (delegation within a sphere).

Perhaps a good way to visualize this is: God in the Person of Jesus at the top of all the spheres. These spheres would be horizontally placed adjacent to one another below Him. Delegation of Jesus’ authority comes directly from Him to each individual sphere to the extent of the earthly authority portioned to each. No power transfers occur between the sphere’s of any sort as this would be a usurpation of Jesus’ rightful position.”

And I believe it is this or a passion similar that prevents a yes vote on  treaty
26bid., p. 65. While talking of equality, the U.N. is the most elitist of organizations. The General Assembly has no power but can only recommend action. The Security Council is vested with the actual power, while the Court executes its legal will. The Security Council can order against any country such measures as it deems including war, or total blockade, or "complete or partial interruption o£ economic relations, and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio and other means of communication" Charter, chapt. VII, articles 41, 42.
by Rousas J. Rushdoony

Any discussion of the United Nations is inevitably a religious discussion, for the principles which that organization embodies are not merely political and economic but inescapably religious. As a result, an historical study, however valuable in its own sphere, is inappropriate to our concern. The failures of the U.N. are real and they are many, but it can perhaps be legitimately argued that, as a young institution, it needs time to mature and that its errors are the accidents of youth rather than the diseases of old age. The more basic question is this: Is it established on a solid foundation, or is it built on sand? Is it a boon to humanity, or a menace? It is thus a matter of principles more than of specific incidents and histories.

The religious connotation of the U.N. is apparent in most discussions thereof. Its opponents attack it as anti-Christian and anti-American, and, with no small heat, the proponents of the U.N. defend it as man's great hope for peace and true social order and see its critics as wicked, hate-filled heretics whom they denounce with conspicuous heat and hate.1 It would be the course of wisdom for both sides to recognize that there is no lack of intelligence on both sides, and to concede the earnest faith of both parties, by recognizing that what divides them is not a matter of stupidity and "mental illness" but sharply contrasted articles of faith.
The U.N. thus must be seen in the context of its religious presuppositions. It is, historically, an outgrowth of Enlightenment concepts and of the religion of humanity.2
First of all, the U.N. holds as its basic premise a thesis which has a long history in both religion and in politics, the doctrine of salvation by law. It believes that world peace can be attained through world law.3 In Article I, Section 2 of Chapter I, "Purposes and Principles" of the Charter of the United Nations, it is declared that the purpose is
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.4
The Charter makes clear that this purpose, while central, is not the only one. It has, however, received central attention from many proponents. Thus, Eichelberger held in 1955 that "The purpose of the United Nations is the maintenance of peace."5 The problem of the U.N., he held, is political. i.e., methodological, for "The nations can agree upon a foolproof system of disarmament if a political agreement or series of political agreements clears the way."6 "Universal enforceable disarmament with collective security is the final answer to the threat of atomic destruction."7 In other words, remove by force an aspect of man's environment, atomic weapons, and peace will follow. The U.N. needs to be strengthened to this end, he held. "The United Nations is in the shadowy area between an organization of states and a world government."8 In 1960, Eichelberger reaffirmed his stand: "The purpose of the United Nations is to prevent war."9 Its purpose, moreover, is to establish an international society for this purpose:
The fundamental question could be stated in another way: is the United Nations the foundation of international policy or an instrument which nations can use or reject as short-sighted self-interest dictates?
An examination of the Charter's Preamble, purposes and principles leads to the inescapable conclusion that the framers of the United Nations contemplated a dynamic international society. The world was at war. The peoples of many nations were serving together and making terrible sacrifices to win the war. They believed that with peace would come an international society strong enough to prevent war and build a just international order. The Atlantic Charter expressed this belief.10
The responsibilities of this international society must be "Planet Earth as a whole. And Planet Earth must be a moral and legal entity."11
This first premise, salvation by law, is a venerable one, with extensive religious support. It is, clearly, the basic doctrine of Judaism, and it is extensively present in traditional Christianity as in Thomism and Arminianism. It is the dominant doctrine of modernistic, social gospel Protestantism. Two aspects of this premise have already become manifest: First, that the hope and salvation of man and of society is through world law, and, second, that the essence or at least the primary factor in peace is environmental rather than personal. The environment must be altered by the removal of atomic weapons and by the addition of enforceable world law. This is a faith which many hold who are politically and economically conservative, as witness Senator Barry M. Goldwater, who holds that the U.N. needs re-direction, not abolition. The same is true of Felix Morley.12 This position, however, cannot be consistently held by one who is a conservative or orthodox Christian because of its radical conflict with basic biblical doctrine. For the orthodox Christian, the law cannot save; it can only condemn. The law cannot create true peace and order; it cannot save man and society from the consequences of their sins. Christ alone is the prince and principle of peace and of order, man's only savior and mediator. Neither introduction of law nor the removal of a part of man's environment are basic to the problem of peace, but rather regeneration through the saving work of Christ, His vicarious sacrifice, and sanctification in and through Him.”
 “The earth is indeed the Lord's, as is all dominion, but God has chosen to give dominion over the earth to man, subject to His law-word, and property is a central aspect of that dominion. The absolute and transcendental title to property is the Lord's; the present and historical title to property is man's. The ownership of property does not leave this world when it is denied to man; it is simply transferred to the state. If the contention of the liberals that the earth is the Lord's, not man's, is to be applied as they require it, then it must be applied equally to the state; the state then must be denied all right to own or control property. The Scripture, however, places property in the hands of the family, not the state. It gives property to man as an aspect of his dominion, as a part of his godly subduing of the earth.
If the doctrine of dominion in and under God is weakened, then all the law is weakened also.
God grants dominion to man under His law, but He does not grant His sovereignty. God alone is absolute Lord and Sovereign. To deny God's sovereignty is to transfer sovereignty from God to man, or to man's state. Thus, Thomas Paine, in the Rights of Man, affirmed as a fundamental principle the sovereignty of the nation-state, declaring, "The nation is essentially the source of all sovereignty; nor can any INDIVIDUAL, or ANY BODY OF MEN, be entitled to any authority winch is not expresslv derived from it."3 Paine and the French Revolution clearly affirmed their totalitarianism by this statement. The state as god became the source of authority, morality, and dominion. Quite logically, the Revolution became a boot, grinding down the face of man, but, by the grace of God, not forever.
God's purpose is not the dominion of sin but the dominion of redeemed man over the earth under God.   According to St. Paul, the very creation around us groans and travails, waiting for the godly dominion of the children of God (Rom. 8:19-23). Because of the fall, creation is now under the dominion of sinful man and is being laid waste by his perverted use of power. Even as the plant turns to the light, so creation turns with longing to the restored dominion of godly man. Even as dust and stones move in terms of gravity, so they move also in terms of God's purposed dominion of man over them. The people of God must therefore be schooled into the nature and requirements of godly dominion. Anything short of this is a contempt of the supreme authority of God, who declares in His word that He will make a covenant with the very beasts of the field to ensure man's prosperity in the day of his obedience:
And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely (Hosea 2:18).”

“At times in the past, the conflict between church and state has been an institutional conflict, sometimes for power, and often for very principled reasons of jurisdiction. It is more than a jurisdictional dispute now: it is religious conflict, and a war unto death. The modern humanistic state is history’s most jealous god, and it will tolerate no rivals. Hence, its war against Christianity. In this struggle, however, the state has taken on a power far greater than itself. As the humanistic world powers take “counsel together against the LORD, and against His anointed,” planning to overthrow His law and government, “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision” (Ps. 2:4). He shall break His enemies with a rod of iron.”

Relevant?  Blake Page. Glen Doherty

Glen was one of the first MRFF Advisory Board members and was a passionate core contributor to the fight to prevent a fundamentalist Christian coup within the United States Armed Forces.” Mikey Weinstein. “What Weinstein and MRFF are fighting against is nothing less than an evangelical"

fundamentalist coup within the United States Armed Forces. This Christian extremist fifth
column has its roots in a Cold War-era alliance between the U.S. Department of Defense and
militant outfits such as the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade and the Church of the Christian
Crusade. However, successive generations of military leadership have preserved this alliance far
beyond its original Cold War/anti-communist shelf life. The result has been a U.S. military that
is steeped in a highly caustic brew of sectarianism, domineering religious bigotry, and an
arrogant, dehumanizing attitude towards the civilian populations of the regions where the U.S.
finds itself militarily engaged.”  
“”””“Weaponized theology””””””””””””

 the UN is apparently an affront to god, so, vote NO. Oh for fucks sake.

No comments:

Post a Comment