Why I Fear an Obama Presidency – washingtonpost.com
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.
In other words, the United Nations has determined that the government will decide what is best for our children. This is the ultimate dream of elitists: They get to decide for all of us what is best for our own children.
Home schooling is already essentially illegal in Germany.
October 31st, 2008 11:33 am
Umm… so does John McCain.
Heh.
October 31st, 2008 11:41 am
Dave, you didn’t read/watch your own link very carefully. In it, John McCain says he supports the general goals of the Treaty on the Rights of the Child, but acknowledges that there are problems with it in regard to the sovereignty of the USA [he doesn’t mention home schooling specifically, but the international move against home schooling is implicit in the Treaty], and says that some renegotiation will have to be done to remove those problems, while still retaining the overall objectives of improving the state of children in the world.
In other words: your link makes MY point, not yours.
October 31st, 2008 12:07 pm
Hmm… he doesn’t mention anything related to home schooling at all. And the issues of American sovereignty are not really related to the issues of home schooling.
Of course… McCain’s language is arguably more supportive of the treaty than Obama’s (“I will review this treaty”).
October 31st, 2008 12:35 pm
Dave, you said:
Research this a bit. I think you’ll find that issues of schooling are definitely part of the treaty. And it has already been used in Britain to restrict some parents’ rights to control their children’s educations, it would seem.
Having said all this, I still believe that there is no chance that Obama will veto an anti-homeschool law nationally. I think there is every chance he will appoint judges sympathetic to restricting home schooling.
He is, by the way, NOT for voucher programs that most of the black community wants… and the reason he is not, it seems, is because he’ll have the support of the black community even with this disagreement, but the teacher’s unions hate a voucher approach (threatens their monopoly), and he needs those unions.
Obama has never fought entrenched interests in his party on anything significant. Even if he “believes in home schooling rights”, he doesn’t believe in them enough to buck his party, and his party is squarely against home schooling, for the most part. We have lots of experience on this in CA, with attempts to restrict it coming up in every legislative session in a Democrat legislature, and with Democrat appointed judges ruling against it from time to time (thankfully overturned by higher courts, so far, but that can change, can’t it?).
October 31st, 2008 1:26 pm
That is not what I said.
Well, being that he has expressed support for home school in the past, and that I believe there is little chance of an anti-homeschool law being passed anytime soon, I am not sure where you are coming from on this.
I am well aware of that. And agree with him (though that is a different issue for a different post).
Well… again, he has come out strong for merit pay and charter schools – both major issues that the teachers’ unions are opposed to, and he still get their endorsements.
And I find it interesting that you have an completely inability to show how and where Obama has been opposed to home schooling, and how he will ban home schooling, even though you say it is the “facts.”
October 31st, 2008 1:49 pm
Dave, you quibble on specific wording, but I note that you do not deny that he’ll sign any legislation coming to him that bans home schooling, and you do not deny that he’ll appoint judges that are likely to legislate from the bench, given the opportunity, to ban it.
(You don’t know what a Dem congress is likely to do on the matter. Depends on the size of their majority. All they really have to do is withhold federal funds from any state that allows it, and that will pretty much end it.)
Those are the only two things on which a president has a significant impact, and he will do the wrong thing on both counts.
BTW… you’re gullible if you think he’s for “merit pay” as commonly understood. He is for “merit pay” that meets the approval of the teacher’s union in terms of standards. He has said as much, in Obama-speak. Watch the Saddleback videos. Weasel wording.
Charter schools are just other public schools. No issue there for anyone to be against.
So, Dave, you have no allegiance to the USA, but you’re not in favor of voucher programs… so I guess your allegiance is to the public schools? Interesting….
October 31st, 2008 2:07 pm
Yup… you got me again. Or you just like to manipulate things.
I have no “allegiance” to public schools. I am just opposed to a system that subsidizes wealthy students and still doesn’t allow poor students to be at expensive private schools.
June 22nd, 2009 8:03 am
[…] pernicious is President Obama’s support of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. (See harmonicminers earlier blog on this subject) While not yet adopted by the US, the potential for elimination of parent choice in education is […]