Well, it would seem that every since the design business has taken off, I have less time to blog. Less time to do anything, to be honest. So to the two of you that still read my blog, I apologize (mom and mil).
I sit at my desk (outside of homeschooling) no less than 12-14 hours a day. Last night I went to bed at 3:30.
I haven’t even had time to update my design blog with all the new designs.
To break up all the monotony, I tend to watch really silly you tube video clips of some of my favorite comedians…it also feeds my creative tendencies.
Enjoy the following from Tim Hawkins:
Remember just two days ago I said that some of you might think I was a conspiracy theorist because I stated that I really feel like the government is trying to take away our rights as parents?
I received this in my inbox this morning – from our HSLDA President regarding a UN Treaty that Hillary Clinton supports and will most likely introduce. Please read it and be informed.
Personally, I find this frightening. Here is the article in full, from Michael Smith:
Washington Times Op-ed—U.N. Treaty Might Weaken Families
by J. Michael Smith
One of the issues American families could face this year is the ramifications from a treaty called the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
You may ask, “How could a treaty directly affect internal decision-making by American families?” We generally think of treaties as agreements affecting international relations between countries. The U.N., however, has initiated treaties that not only affect international relations, but also the domestic relations of member nations as well. These treaties, sometimes called “conventions,” require member nations that ratify the treaty to implement the requirements as binding law or rules.
On Nov. 20, 1989, the U.N. adopted the CRC and submitted it for ratification to the member nations. It has been ratified by 193 nations—the United States is one of the few countries that has not ratified it.
The ratification process requires a two-thirds vote by the U.S. Senate. On Feb. 16, 1995, Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., signed the CRC on behalf of the United States. The CRC, however, has never been sent to the Senate for ratification because there is insufficient support to pass it.
Due to the recent election, however, there are rumblings from Capitol Hill that there will be an effort to seek ratification of the CRC during the next congressional cycle. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a strong supporter of the treaty, and as secretary of state, would have direct control over the submission of treaties to the Senate.
Why should passage of the CRC be of concern? It likely would have a negative impact on domestic law and practice in the United States. Article VI of our Constitution makes treaties—and remember, conventions are viewed as treaties—“the supreme law of the land.” The CRC would be treated as superior to laws in every state regarding the parent-child relationship. This would include issues regarding education, health care, family discipline, the child’s role in family decision-making, and a host of other subjects.
Article 43 of the CRC establishes an international committee on the rights of the child to examine compliance by member nations. This committee, which sits in Geneva, has final authority concerning interpretation of the language contained in the CRC.
Two central principles of the CRC clearly are contrary to current U.S. laws related to parent-child relationships. The CRC provides that in all matters relating to children, whether private or public, or in courts, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. Additionally, nations should ensure that children are capable of expressing their views freely in all matters affecting them, giving due weight to the age and maturity of the child.
This is contrary to traditional American law, which provides that absent proof of harm, courts and social workers simply do not have the authority to intervene in parent-child relationships and decision-making. The importance of this tradition and practice is that the government may not substitute its judgment for that of the parent until there is proof of harm to the child sufficient to justify governmental intervention. It is clear that in two very important areas of the parent-child relationship, religion and education, there will be potential for tremendous conflict.
The international committee in Geneva, in reviewing the laws of practice of countries that have ratified the CRC, has expressed its concern that parents could homeschool without the view of the child being considered; that parents could remove their children from sex-education classes without the view of the child being considered; that parents were legally permitted to use corporal punishment; and that children didn’t have access to reproductive health information without parental knowledge.
The bottom line is the CRC would drastically weaken the United States’ sovereignty over family life, which would have a substantial impact on every American family. For more information on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, visit http://www.parentalrights.org/learn.
Michael Smith is the president of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He may be contacted at (540)338-5600; or send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
From time to time, I get up on a soapbox proclaiming with zest over something I am passionate about. I usually make every attempt to thoroughly research before doing so. That said, on the subject of the CPSIA, there is so much MISinformation circulating the internet, that I am afraid I might have gotten caught up in the moment.
My dear sweet friend, Jeanette sent me a link from Snopes regarding the CSPIA post I published yesterday.
In effect, it says that it will not affect used children’s clothing, etc, etc, etc…
I now return you back to your regularly scheduled blog reading, albeit with a redder face. 😉
When I started seeing the “Save the Handmade” signs pop up on the internet, I thought, “how cute” – let’s all save handmade. I had no idea that there was an actual law that had passed placing a ban on items created for children under the age of twelve. I am not sure exactly when I became aware of the law, but I do wish that I had known sooner.
If you stuck me in a court of law, I don’t think enough evidence could be found to ever convict me of being any kind of activist – not because I don’t care, but I’m usually silent on controversial matters. However, I feel so passionately about this because the law is so far reaching and affect so many different aspects of how we will be allowed to raise our children.
As I’ve researched this new law out, I have grown increasingly concerned about a number of things. Shannon from Rocks in My Dryer has posted an informative interview with Heather from Blessed Nest as to how the laws will affect the cottage industry – head over and read that.
Dana, from Principled Discovery has discussed how it will affect homeschoolers as well.
I also discovered a blog written by an environmental attorney, called The Smart Mama and she has been deluged with questions regarding the CPSIA. She interprets the laws in a clear, precise way , and she’s keeping an eye on the everyday happenings – so be sure to bookmark her and check back with her.
Does anyone else besides me view this as a direct attack on our children and family unit?
Let me explain, lest you think I’ve gone off the deep end. For instance, we purchase almost all of our homeschool supplies and clothing second hand. If this law passes, it means that we will be forced to either purchase brand new curriculum every year for each child to the tune of about $1000, or send them to public school. We will also be required to purchase every piece of their clothing from retail stores, instead of buying from ebay, goodwill, or children’s thrift shops. Our friends couldn’t pass down their children’s clothing to my children to wear anymore. Even the ability to sew our kids clothes will be hindered as fabric retailers will be struggling to comply with the new laws – yes, even fabric the retailers purchase after the new law is passed is included, not existing inventory. (Guess I should go buy up some fabric, huh?)
I don’t know about you, but we have been frugally minded for so long that I wouldn’t even know how to shop retail exclusively. It’s not as much fun, honestly. But even more so, it’s not really cost-effective when you have three kids that are constantly growing and changing tastes in clothes.
While some of you might consider me a conspiracy theorist, I really see this as a good law intended to protect our children gone bad in the hands of people who want more control.
Please help get the word out – let’s bring some attention to this law – post about it – tweet it using the hashtag #CSPIA every time you talk about it – link to others who are writing about it. Call your local representatives.
1. Luke 12:20, nlt—“You fool! You will die this very night. Then who will get it all?”
2. Lamentations 4:8—“Their skin has shriveled on their bones; it has become as dry as a stick.”
3. Leviticus 3:10, nlt—“both kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the covering of the liver, which he will remove with the kidneys.”
4. Judges 16:13—“Until now, you have been making a fool of me and lying to me.”
5. Proverbs 23:8, kjv—“The morsel which thou hast eaten shalt thou vomit up, and lose thy sweet words.”
6. Luke 18:4, nlt—“I fear neither God nor man.”
7. Job 2:9, nlt—“Curse God and die.”
1 2 Next