Tuesday - Sep 18, 2018

Democrats persecute homeschooling parents


by Kit Daniels
Infowars.com

In a coordinated attack on families, a Democratic state senator in Ohio introduced a bill this month that requires parents to submit to a social services investigation, including background checks, before being “permitted” to homeschool their own children.

Introduced by Sen. Capri Cafarao, Senate Bill 248 effectively requires home-schooling parents to be licensed by the state through an application process which includes an investigation, background checks and in-person interviews between social workers and children which the parents are not allowed to attend.

After the investigation, social services would then decide whether homeschooling would be “in the best interests of the children.”

“This bill is breathtaking in its attempt to impose unreasonable government intrusion on Ohio families,” says the Home School Legal Defense Association, which also called the bill the worst homeschooling law ever proposed.

The association also stated that if a family has any record of a child welfare investigation, regardless of its outcome, social services would immediately reject the parents’ request to educate their own children.

Simply put, parents falsely accused of child abuse would be forced to enroll their children into government-run schools, a process that requires immunizations with various vaccines.

If this bill becomes law, it would effectively end homeschooling in Ohio.

SB 248 was written under the socialist belief that children belong to the state and not their parents and that only government workers know what is best for them.

As reported last April by Kurt Nimmo, MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry suggested that children don’t belong to their families but are rather owned by the community at large.

“We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities,” she said.

The bill was also written with the intent to protect public schools, which are used by the government to indoctrinate children into supporting the state’s own interests.

These schools are immensely successful at conditioning children to believe what they are told and to never question authority while also failing to properly educate them at the same time.

Instead of learning about the intent behind the Bill of Rights, students are told that the Constitution is “outdated” and must be “revised” to better serve the interests of homeland security.

They are given textbooks which inaccurately define the Second Amendment as “the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia.”

The state is ultimately using modern public education to corrupt our youth by instilling collectivist values in them while removed from their parents’ influence.

Whoever controls education controls the future of our culture and that is exactly why politicians are trying to shut down alternatives to government schools.

The following are two e-comments from two different people expressing opposite opinions to the above subject:

Brian: Are bound to be parents that are at least a bit coo-coo on top of being “unconventional” in their beliefs and life-style to the general public that would produce children that can not function in society. No matter how much today’s society can be criticized, a child should have the tools needed to interact with society if they make that choice upon their maturity. Like certifying any public or private school, in theory checking a if a home is fit to be in effect a school isn’t a bad concept. Look at some goofballs in California, or wherever, that had hippie parents and grew up in a commune without any government oversight – do parents have an absolute right to create a person of their choosing any more than the government does? There should be an advocate for the children to help ensure they have the maximum potential of living a full and productive life of their choosing. What organization could do this without a real potential for incompetence or abuse?

Freedomnow: The point is we are not a collectivist nation. We are a nation based on individual freedoms. That is why the founding fathers left other countries and established this once great country and wrote the supreme laws based on INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS. The same problems they had back then is what we have now. We are slaves to the banks and you can thank the government for that. A government has no right to just come into your home and inspect to see if a parent is fit to teach their own kids and also interrogate the kids without parental supervision. Parents have the absolute right to create a person, as you put it, more than a collectivist government. Explain these “unconventional” beliefs you talk about. Just because they are not the beliefs that you have does not mean they are bad. You have just as much of a right to your opinion as others and you have a right to speak it, that is the first amendment. The problem with California is the government, not the so called “hippies” who believed in freedom and preached peace and love. Is that so “coo-coo” as you put it? If there are some bad apples in the bunch that does not mean you throw the whole bunch away. Your whole statement reeks of socialism, and authoritarianism. My guess is you, just as I but I have realized it, attended a public school indoctrinated into government beliefs. My eyes are open to the corrupt, socialist, fascist, authoritarian, eugenicist, collection of scum that is the United States government. You should think about your statement and read the constitution over and over for the sake of you, your family, you kids, if you have them, or your future kids, and the future of humanity.

Kveldulf: the real problem doesn’t lie with whatever sounds like a good idea, but whether it is a right one; a just one. The moral high ground is found, not made. We can deliberate all we want about good ideals, but no one has purview over the family unless there is an overt, just cause. A child’s education is not an inalienable right, rather education is an effect, and naturally comes from the family: a decision the family makes for the child. However, In this case, the community again is attempting to be ‘family’.

Civil law is (should be) self-evident. Authority from the king, or mere government, does not start with the agent (king) but first starts with those who allow him power – first God, then the family, then the community. Even if one were atheistic, it would still fall in the order of family first – before community.

This order exists in a logical, and in an observable sense – empirical. We are raised by our mother and father; a natural biological, psychological design – then after a family structure, children are greeted with higher sociological institutions outside of the family; mirroring a similar familial paradigm of order.

If the state wishes to regulate familial power, it does so from a contradictory purview.

Windham: Your conclusion that blanket government oversight over people is a necessity falsely presumes a backwards power relationship. The government is not some sort of parental figure designed to guide us through life. WE make up the government and WE are the majority who ought remind those who proclaim themselves masters over us that their rightful position is that of SERVANT. I’m frankly shocked that we now exist in a society which apparently has rationalized away our own parental rights and increasingly are delegating the mechanical, uncaring, authoritarian, criminal elements of those who rule us to raise our children.