I just did a search for Obama and Homeschooling and this post came up... good reporting (dreahwrites from AC)

Cool! Thanks for letting me know. :-)

Thanks for your information. Visit the following site www.24x7guru.com it is an online assessment platform that allows students between classes 3 and 10 the opportunity to strengthen their academic foundation by identifying their strengths & weaknesses in subjects such as Mathematics & Science.

Just found your blog while searching Obama & homeschooling. I am a homeschool mommy "tulottes" also(; I am torn between Obama & Ron Paul. Paul is a big supporter of homeschool and its hard not to like a man who has delivered over 4000 babies. But I think our country needs Obama... anyway, glad to find your blog!

"Barack Obama seems to support the choice of home schooling." It isn't what it seems. There is no mention of homeschooling on Obama's page. This is offered as evidence that he supports homeschooling: In Chapter 5 of The Audacity of Hope, Senator Obama writes that we should be guided by “Lincoln’s simple maxim: that we will do collectively, through our government, only those things we cannot do as well or at all individually and privately. In other words, we should be guided by what works.” If you believe he would support homeschooling, you must have a great faith in the man contrary to evidence.

Thank you very much for sharing your opinion. It's appreciated.

I will still hold to my original faith in that he may support homeschooling.

There are so many things he has already done to help others and that he promises to do once he gets in office.

Us homeschoolers have survived through leaders who did not support our decision, as well as those who did. Many of us will still remain strong, no matter what the chosen leader believes.

In fact, even if the elected president does not favor home schooling, any bill or law that would be passed through the system would have to go through more than just the president for approval.

That same system has been good to us so far, so even if the elected president does not support home schooling, I still have faith that homeschooling will still exist. Why? Because a parent has every right to raise their children in the best way they see fit, as long as it is not abusive in any manner and homneschooling is far from it.

In fact, according to recent scores, home schooled children score well above both public and private school. Here is the link to that evidence:
http://www.hslda.org/docs/study/rudner1999/Rudner2.asp

With those type of scores, on top of a parent's constitutional rights, there is no valid reason for homeschooling to end and I have faith that all of our country's lawmakers will not be into passing any laws that would take away any constitutional rights. Their job is to uphold the constitution.

My intent on posting this was simply to make other homeschoolers aware that a front-running presidential candidate could be in favor of schooling children at home and I hope I have done that. It is simply for interest purposes, not as fact. Only Obama knows how he truly feels about home schooling and if I were lucky enough to ever meet him, I would definitely ask that question, but in the end, it would not be my deciding factor in whether he will make a good president.

A good president is there to help all people, not just one group of people, so honestly, because of that and the legal reasons stated above, even if I did find out he did not support home school, he would still have my vote.

America needs change right now and, in my opinion, he is the only one speaking the "change" speech that actually seems to have a good plan for change. Hillary is okay, but Barack seems to offer more in the way of change.

Anyhow, thanks for your honest opinion. It did provoke me to think a bit deeper, which is always good.

Have a happy, positive day and I hope you visit again soon. :-)

~Momie~

Not to throw a monkey wrench into the politics here, but Mike Huckabee was homeschool's best friend in Arkansas. :)

That's alright, hszoo. I welcome all thoughts, suggestions, and opinions. I'm not a fan of the republican side right now, but another reader might be.

I like to keep an open dialogue and let my readers make their own choices. Thanks for that info. I wasn't aware of that. :-)

For those still interested in this ongoing question, here is another quote:

“none of these policies need discourage families from deciding to keep a parent at home…For some families, that may mean doing without certain material comforts. For others it may mean home schooling….Whatever the case may be, such decisions should be honored.”

This quote is stated to be straight from Barack's book, "Audacity of Hope". Click Here for the source of the quote.

Based on that quote, as long as it is from his book, it would seem to me that he is indeed in support of homeschooling.

However, even if this is not something he stated (I haven't had the chance to read his book yet), I am still voting for him and still believe that homeschool should not be the only issue we look for support on when choosing a candidate. I believe that a good candidate is one who will stand for all people, regardless of race, religion, socioeconomic backgrounds, or other beliefs and ideologies. Barack seems to be that person, in my eyes.

I noticed that my link in an above comment did not go through. Click Here for the study regarding home school scores.

As far as my mention above of being under leaders who did or did not favor homeschool, I withdraw that statement to correct that it is my 'assumption' that 'may' be the case. I am actually unaware of the past leaders' opinions on homeschooling. But being that there are a variety of opinions on homeschooling, I am only assuming it is possible we have already been under leadership of someone who is against homeschooling.

As far as parental rights are concerned, I have recently learned that parental rights may be being challenged right now.

Click Here to learn about that.

I still have faith that lawmakers would likely not pass a bill that would take away a parent's right to raise their children how they see fit.

It may or may not be a "blind" faith, but it just doesn't seem very likely to me, especially considering that it's likely many of the lawmakers have children of their own, whom they would also likely wish to raise as they see fit.

Okay, all of this inspired me to think about this even further, causing me to write an article and publish it on AC.

Click Here for the article.

Thankfully, it's much better written and thought out than my sloppy ponderances here. LOL

I also created a new blog post based on that for those who never saw this one. :-)

Before we get too excited about Obama supporting homeschooling, I think you should read what he has to say on the subject of education on his "issues" section of his web site.
I take nothing for granted when it comes to our rights on homeschooling. I want to see it in black and white that he IS a supporter for our children who are homeschooled.
Here's a copy of what he said:

"Prepare Teachers: Obama will require all schools of education to be accredited. He will also create a voluntary national performance assessment so we can be sure that every new educator is trained and ready to walk into the classroom and start teaching effectively. Obama will also create Teacher Residency Programs that will supply 30,000 exceptionally well-prepared recruits to high-need schools."

So, ask yourself is your school accredited?
"Obama will require ALL SCHOOLS of education to be accredited."

Better get it in writing.
(Vote Ron Paul 08)

http://obama.3cdn.net/a8dfc36246b3dcc3cb_iem6bxpgh.pdf

This is a link to the campaign's position paper on educational reforms. While one might argue that these reforms pertain to public education alone, it is difficult to ignore such platforms such as pg. 14, where contracts would be required to assure that "values" to be imparted to the child are those which have been agreed to by the collective...the committee of school, parent and government with the goal being creating the government's idea of a good citizen.
This paper also speaks to governmental intrusion into the parenting of preschool children who "they" deem at risk. It sounds very much to me like socialistic if not communistic approaches to the collective education of the masses. Not exactly something which would be easily meshed with the concept of homeschooling and individualization of education. The individual is sacrificed on the altar of the collective in his mind.

A homeschooling mom x 6 yrs.

IMHO, Obama is for increased governmental influence and power which doesn't really seem to fit with homeschooling. Typically speaking, liberals don't support the notion of homeschooling as it doesn't provide the government the control to manipulate the little minds of its youngest citizens. I've never met a liberal who supported homeschool. They sometimes tolerate it, but generally speaking they don't support it.
Just my take on things.

Considering just about everything else this man stands for, such as murder of innocent babies, higher taxes so he can give out more handouts (Can you say socialism? This is not the independent America I once knew), I could never vote for him in good conscious.

I agree with Ruth. Any man who support a woman's right to kill her unborn child or who supports same sex marriages cannot be trusted to support Christians homeschooling their children to instill and protect moral values.

I found a page with some links where is states that Obama is NOT for homeschooling

If you go to the following address you can then click the links....

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080312075614AAwAXNt


As for who is FOR HOMESCHOOLING

HERE IS ANOTHER LINK TO FOLLOW

http://themaritimesentry.blogspot.com/2008/08/mccain-on-education-vouchers-and.html

You should all do a little more research.
http://obamastatesofamerica.com/2008/08/18/obama-on-homeschooling/

Have you checked his opinion on ratifying the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child?
From what I have found he supports it. Long story short - government control of your children.

His position on abortion aside, what I don't want to see in a canditate is someone who is in favor of letting a baby that was aborted but survived left to die.

I continue to be amazed at how blinded people are by Obama and his slick ways. Having him as our president would be a very scary situation.When candidates run for office they regularly have people who have worked for them and know them personally vouch for their worth and abilities. There is no one like that coming forward for Obama. Whereas, there is person after person who will vouch for the strong character and integrity of John McCain-even his fellow democrats vouch for him.Obama will spend more of our money and we will have less choices as to how it gets spent.Anyone who approves of killing innocent babies during and after abortion is a very scary thought for me.I am still amazed at how our moral values have slid downhill over the years and how immune we have become to behavior that would have horrified our founding fathers!When contacted repeatedly recently, the Obama campaign would not give out a position for Obama on homeschooling.If it is something he cares about, it would be information easily found, not information you have to go searching through a previous book to try to ascertain a stance.

I am amazed that any home school mother would support Obama. The man will say whatever he needs to say to get the Presidency. I also can't believe that some one would be liking Ron Paul (who is my pick) and also Obama. Do you read? They are NOTHING alike! Our country is in serious trouble.

I just happened upon your site as I was looking for any sort of info on Obama's stance on hs'ing. I must admit that I am so disheartened to hear that so many in the homeschool community would support Obama and not give second thought to it. The fact that he staunchly supports the UN Rights of the the Child alone is scarey enough; add to that abortion in all stages of pregnancy, infanticide, legalization of same-sex marriage in all 50 states, favoring International Law (good-bye Constitution, we will all be one world-wide happy family!)... I could go on but won't. Ok, maybe I will- socialized medicine (not to mention a socialistic government-I lived in Germany, no thanks!!), taxing businesses who will only turn around and pass the higher costs on to the consumer, children being robbed of their childhood at an even younger age, and no idea how to manage foreign policy. This is beyond scarey, and even scarier that so many don't know what he stands for. Schools and students across America are singing his praises (literally), saying he's the "Alpha-Omega", and yet he does nothing, says nothing to quell those praises or claims. We think with our pocketbooks way to much, and the news media has become our god. Whatever they say, we believe. Looking at what this man endorses, I have an exceedingly difficult time believing that he would leave homeschooling alone. Normally the president wouldn't be able to "get what he wants all the time", but this man will most likely have a Democratic majority in the Senate- who will vote against him in his own party??? We could be in for some very troubling times for this reason alone. I would just really plead with eveyrone to truly, truly examine what this man believes in and see that there is nothing moral in these beliefs, and his desire to supposedly take care of the poor (with our higher taxes of course) does not minimize, or somehow erase, the injustice of murder and the endorsing of homosexuality. There are some "changes" that bring more harm than good. Please, please truly examine these strong moral issues before God before you cast your vote!
"Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to destruction"-the Bible.

I know that he sounds REALLY nice and VERY persuasive! I know that he seems REALLY believable and seems to have the knack for conveying "hope" and idealism. He tends to bring out the emotional in people, instead of the rational. Next time, everyone, do not listen to ANY candidate speak. At all. No debates, no conventions. Candidates will say anything at any moment. Just go research their votes, their supporters, their views. That way you cannot be swayed by charisma (which is the ability to influence people with charm) but will make a decision based on fact. Charisma will sway people even against their own judgment or priorities!

As for homeschooling, do not try to grasp at one word in one book (because if we are going to start taking passages from his books, then his veracity will be very much called into question!) and think that that gives you insight into his feelings for homeschooling.

Instead, look to who he accepts support from and who supports him (with a LOT of money), for what he believes. The NEA ENTHUSIASTICALLY supports Barack Obama and raises money for him. One article on the NEA site calls us "well meaning amateurs" and "wannabe's". Not only that but the NEA also made a resolution amongst themselves that only certified teachers should be able to homeschool and THEN only with state approved materials.

The NEA also completely ignores the fact that what limited comparison studies of homeschoolers vs public schoolers shows that homeschoolers definitively have the upper hand in terms of both test scores and self esteem.
So, I have to wonder...would the NEA be supporting a man who supported homeschooling? Probably not.
Let's take this a bit farther. It would appear that Obama also supports the UN "Convention on the Rights of the Child". This document serves to take any rights away from the parent to choose the raising of their own child. It gives the government the right to take control of the child at any time. It forbids the parents from preventing the child from reading anything the child chooses (including porn), and from forbidding the child to associate with whomever the child wants to (such as the local street gang, or a local troublemaker).
Does this sound like a man who would support the parent to educate their own child? I think not. And neither do at least one of his major backers.

If you are going to vote for OBama, at least know why. Know where he stands for certain, if you can find that out. Know that homeschooling is not going to be safe with him, because he is financially obligated to the NEA, not to you or me. He considers himself a "global citizen" which means UN, and he supports the ideals of socialism (might want to read http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/why_obamas_socialism_matters_1.html for some information about what socialism REALLY is. For example, Nazi Germany was a socialist dictatorship--it actually came from the LEFT, not the RIGHT! Here is one interesting quote about how citizens in Germany saw Nazi-ism at first "They just thought that, after the utter chaos of the 1920s (especially the economic chaos), the socialists would calm the economy (which they did), and simply remove from people the painful obligation of having to make their way in the world. It was only incrementally that the average German bought into the ever-more-extreme demands of the state - and those who didn't buy in were coerced because of the state's unfettered willingness to use its vast, brute power to subordinate individuals to its demand").

Look at homeschooling difficulties in other countries vs our country, and the difference will probably be the extent of intrusion of government into the private lives of its citizens. It is not just about "health care" or just about "homeschooling". When the government starts taking over the role of the family, of the individual in one area, they will want to do so in other areas. The government that wants to regulate the amount of water in your toilet, or remotely control your heating will be the government that also wants to control you and your child (just look at the states that have the most laws intruding on the public--they also tend to have more laws intruding on homeschooling!).

A socialist government (made of people who all want their level of control over others--human nature) will not honor you as an individual in the ways you want (homeschooling), and then just be a benign benefactor in others.

Be careful. Be thoughtful. Be logical. Be critical. This is too important a vote to be based on emotion or good presence. It must be based on fact and critical thinking skills.

Mr. Obama supports ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a treaty that would have disastrous consequences for the American family. The Committee on the Rights of the Child, the U.N. tribunal authorized to interpret and enforce the Children's Convention, sets forth an exhaustive index of children's rights, many at odds with the rights of parents. It has held, for instance, that Britain violated children's rights in Wales by allowing parents to withdraw their children from public school programs without first considering the children's wishes.

Statement from HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association):

HSLDA co-founder, chancellor of Patrick Henry College, and general counsel of the Home School Legal Defense Association, recently wrote a letter to the editor of the Washington Post dated Friday May 23, 2008 entitled “Why I Fear an Obama Presidency”. In the article, he states, “I have every reason to believe that an Obama presidency would be particularly harmful to the American family and the home-school community.” His main reason for “fearing” Obama is his support of the ratification of the U.N. Convention of the Rights of the Child, which is at odds with parental rights. (This was originally supported by the Clinton White House).

These were all very interesting posts. As I watch the election progress - and Obama leading, I thought I wonder what this will mean for MY children.

My two thoughts are this. Some people homeschool their children because they want more control over their children's education. Some people homeschool because they want more control over their children't education - AND morals/values.

I homeschool because I want my kids to be the vesy best, most educated, GOD FEARING adults that I can help mold them into.

And that is a big difference. Many homeschool families may vote for Obama - but I am not sure many God fearing christian homeschool families would....

I personally prefer a candidate who walks the walk, not just talks the talk. Obama is very articulate and easy to listen too, but McCain WALKS it.

If you think Obama won't effect your rights to raise your children in the privacy of your own home, you haven't read anything about him.

A government who controls healthcare, marriages, finances, and on and on, you don't think they are going to control what you teach your children?

Come on people, wake up. Looks like Obama will prevail, but at what costs.

Yes, you are right, in order for Obama to truly change our rights - he will have to have congress on his side. Did you know that congress is lead by Democrats already? Normally we have one party in office, and the opposing party in congress - a balancing act. Now we are going to have a Democratic President with a congress to back him. The balance is gone.

He will change America - I am just not sure the American people are going to like it.

I know I fall asleep with a clean conscience tonight. Whatever happens with Obama doesn't happen because I choose him.

I don't think all this fear of Obama is warranted. Many of you folks who commented here should take the time to find out the facts instead of just reacting out of fear or listening to lies spread by others or by incorrect web sites. I want to refute just a few things that have come up in these comments.

1. It's true that Obama wants "higher taxes so he can give more handouts." This is a biblical principal. Jesus hung out with the poor, and judged the rich. Many times he spoke of our obligation to help the poor, and even called for the rich to sell what they have and give to the poor.

2. Obama supports "same sex marriage." This is simply untrue. If you watched the presidential debates, you would have heard Obama and McCain agree that they were both against gay marriage.

3. "In favor of letting a baby that was aborted but survive left to die." Obama is not in favor of this. There is already a law in IL against this, so the bill Obama voted against was simply unnecessary.

4.What is wrong with wanting to improve public education? It's not feasible for everyone in this country to homeschool their children. And what will society be like if public education continues to decrease in quality? It's in everyone's best interest for children in the U.S. to be better educated. I'm not sure why improving public education would somehow affect homeschooling adversely. And I'm not sure why Obama, as a member of an oppressed race in America, would be interested in taking away the rights of anyone.

5. And finally, to the person just above my post, how exactly does McCain "walk the talk"? He is known for his bad temper and rash judgments, and this is the man who left his wife in order to marry a woman he had an affair with. I'm not trying to judge him, here. I certainly make mistakes, as do we all. But I don't see how McCain's character is somehow better than Obama's.

Are you crazy? Obama is for brain-washing education and is for taking all your rights away-very slowly.
Did you know he wants to pass a law that makes schools teach sex education at age 5?
Obviously he needs to spend more time with kids, including his own.

That's not quite it -- he doesn't want a law to teach sex education at age 5. What would be taught at that age would be avoiding sexual predators. A stranger-danger type thing. Websites like Factcheck.org are a good places to check about rumors like that.

Why would Obama want to take away our rights? Is their some concrete evidence of that? It's not logical that an African-American would be interested in taking away anyone's rights.

Marci's right about the sex-ed thing. There are many rumors going around about Obama and homeschool that aren't fact-based. As stated in the AC article I wrote on the matter, he mentions homeschool in a favorable manner in his book. While I originally stated that I found those quotes supposedly from his book on a blog, I was able to fact check them later. They are indeed quotes from his book.

I read his entire education plan and I see no reason that it would hinder homeschooling. It may not necessarily benefit homeschool (I still am studying it closely), but it does not seem to hinder it. True, he focuses mainly on improving public education. That does not mean he wants to take away private education and homeschooling. It simply means he wants to make improvements where they are needed most. If you check studies at the HSLDA, it is clear that public school scores are lower than both private and home school scores.

I am working on a new AC article, with more in-depth analysis of his plan and what effect, if any, it will have on homeschooling that some of you may care to watch for

I will be fair in my analysis and if I come across anything that I feel would affect homeschool, I will mention it. After all, I also am a homeschooling mom who is curious about this.

In the meantime, anyone who wants to check the facts of Obama's education plan can visit BarackObama.com/education. It is made very clear and a more detailed version can be downloaded in pdf form.

Barack Obama is a worry to me. Not just because of his lack of clear statements on homeschooling, but because of the fact that the UN supports him. They know that he will follow with other countries in trying to ratify The Rights of the Child. If this does pass I believe that homeschooling will be heavily regulated if not completely outlawed. He now is the President-elect so all we can do is pray for him to use Godly discernment and not give in to the UN. I pray that my husband and I are both wrong in this.

gentlebenswife

Yes, Obama wants to take over the world! Don't you think we're getting a little too paranoid. Not many candidates place a lot of importance on homeschooling unfortunately. All I can say is continue to write your local representatives and move up the chain to have your voice heard. All of the accusations about him stripping all of our rights away is completely unfounded. The guy isn't even President yet. Give him a chance.

I accidentally said the wrong link in my comment above.

It's barackobama.com/issues/education

His education plan can be found there.

Also, on his new website, change.gov, he is taking suggestions from everyone. Just go into the agenda section, choose the issue (in this case education) and there is a submission template on the page of each issue for people to submit their ideas and suggestions.

yes and sorta, you did not read all the fine print in President Obama's home schooling support plan, YES you can get credit for your textbooks etc, BUT if you do recieve any funds from the government to help with homeschooling, your child is required to participate in certain volunteerism activities to "pay back" the community, which is good but the draw back is, to keep church and state seperate, during this period they cannot participate in ANY Religious Programs, to do so results in a FINE and Jail sentence. so yes he supposrts homeschool but not Christian homeschooing.

In reference to "Mommy2Lots,"

Is the mere legality of homeschooling acceptable to you? Do you possess any
concern as to your personal freedoms and choice within the education of your children?

Such consideration is more than relevant; at this very time, homeschoolers are internationally
suffering from governmental imposition and regulation.
As of now, Britain's civil services have full right under the CRC's authorization; private households have become open canals in which child advocates and others deemed acceptable by legislation are required to monitor curricula according to civil standards.

If you adhere to the biblical and American view of "unalienable rights,"---if you enjoy the blessings birthed by the Second Amendment---you should be greatly saddened that
you abide under the Obama
Administration---for they, along with the UN, are looking at any possible time to pass such a charter to us (The UN Convention on the Righs of the Child).

http://www.prolifeunity.com/index.php/site/search/parents_or_politicians/

THE UN Convention on the Rights of the Child doesn't merely violate the area of free choice in homeschooling, but impinges upon our fundamental rights as human beings---our rights to speech and to parenthood. I find it difficult
to believe that anyone would be satisfied with any document opposing such values.

In my previous post, I meant to refer to the First Amendment's liberty of speech and religious expression.

This Amendment will not be protected by the UNCRC because we will not maintain the right to direct our children as we see fit, and could be charged for abuse simply by desiring that our children attend church with his family against his will.

"The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is, after a seemingly silent period, emerging into public notice once again. Established two decades ago as an ambitious charter with the stated purpose of ensuring children’s rights around the globe, nearly every government throughout the world has embraced its terms---that is, with the exceptions of Somalia and the United States. Certain Americans, however, feel compelled to voice their acceptance of the charter. Prominent figures such as Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Hillary Clinton comprise perhaps two of its most unabashed and motivated supporters. The document is attractive because of its claim to preserve the domestic and public safety of children; what is often overlooked by casual readers, however, is the convention’s imbalanced perspective regarding governmental authority and familial rights.

Should the United States submit to the convention’s terms, children ages eighteen and younger would possess, upon the authority of States Parties, “a standard of living adequate for the child’ s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development (Article 2,1), ” the right to mandatory education involving primary levels (Article 28, 1(a)), the right to moral and religious liberation as indicated by law (Article 14, 3), and protection against imposition in consideration of privacy (Article 16, Section 1). Within this frame of order, the child’s welfare would ultimately originate and progress from the consciences of politicians. According to these assertions, parents are not to interfere with their children’s moral convictions or privacy---a factor which could encourage minors’ access to abortions independent from parental knowledge, access to pornography, and state-regulated education. Parental direction in morality would be limited by governmental insistence of privacy rights. Social workers---and others deemed worthy by the convention---would inherit the business of supplementing parental authority according to their discernment, becoming familial spectators and wedging imposition whenever parents are considered insufficient providers.

The major defect with this convention is not a question as to whether or not the child is entitled to certain rights. As a Christian, I firmly believe that all children are inborn image-bearers of the only true God, and are entitled to every God-given privilege to humankind. No, the matter within dispute rests in a proper analysis of whether or not the government should be given access to: our families, familial rights, and parental authority. In short,why should States Parties perceive themselves more capable of parenting than the parents themselves?..."

"...The two purposes of government were intended primarily to reflect justice in punishment, and to preserve what our forefathers regarded as certain unalienable rights. These rights were viewed not as legalities discharged by any earthly rulers, but characterized liberties imparted by the Creator. These liberties equate what are simply known as natural rights---rights which are instilled from conception, and cannot be denied. Our forefathers derived their understanding of natural rights from the principle underlying Genesis 1:26---that men are created reflections of God. Within this principle, God simultaneously instituted marriage and parenthood, demanding the sexes to procreate. Parenthood is a natural right---a right not to be impinged upon by man, but a covenantal responsibility to God. Any transcendence of such a right signifies a deified and misrepresented comprehension of government. It may surprise some people to know that Scripture always connects training and educational duties with the children’s parents. The writings of King David and Solomon repeatedly endorsed parental guidance in order that future generations might know God (Proverbs 1:8). How is this freedom of child rearing to continue when parents are no longer sole executors in guiding their children?

When examined, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child suggests a socialistic undertone. A socialist government asserts the desire that everyone be treated in corporate measure, and that government assumes the position as sole Benefactor and Sovereign over men. Note Sir Thomas More’s infamous work, Utopia; its pages envision a society in which everyone is endowed equally. Every person is directed in both personal and religious life by their governing factors. This ideology may strike the reader as an advantageous concept---especially when the less fortunate are considered. Think again, however, about the ultimate result of such living: the government would own all, distribute all, and decide all. This is nothing short of communism in which all free and individual thought is suppressed and discouraged.

The prohibition of this charter depends upon the action and voice of the people. In order for parents to maintain familial rights, the senate must be notified. If you also respect the foundation of the family unit, contact your state senators, requesting that they oppose the statements posed by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child."

http://www.prolifeunity.com/index.php/site/search/parents_or_politicians/