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Instead of learning about the intent behind the Bill of Rights, students are told that the Constitution is “outdated” and must be “revised” to better serve the interests of homeland security.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

by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
Analysis New American

“Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity.” — Lord Acton Barack Obama campaigned for president promising to usher in an era of transparency in government. That promise stands next to 3you “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor” in the Barack Obama Presidential Hall of Shame.

One of the most egregious examples of President Obama’s duplicity is the way he and his administration have responded to the roster of revelations that have come from the leaks of documents defining the surveillance activities of the National Security Agency (NSA).

Not only has the president been called out on his support of secrecy at home, but leaders around the globe have turned on him, as well, after learning that American snoops have been monitoring their phone calls for years.

Then there is the bugging of the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other organizations by none other than the NSA. This is germane to the secrecy analysis because the NSA is part of the Executive Branch and the head of that branch is Barack Obama.

Anita Kumar, writing for McClatchy Newspapers, points out the criticism the president has faced after his 180 on openness.

As criticism swelled at home and abroad, Obama said the nation should examine how the government can strike a balance between national security and privacy concerns. He said at an August news conference that Americans will resolve any disagreements about the NSA programs through “vigorous public debate.”

But what started out as a national examination largely turned into a private review with few public meetings, little document disclosure and next to no public debate, say some lawmakers, technology organizations and civil liberties groups. And now, as those behind-the-scenes reviews begin to wind down, Obama is not providing details of the results.

“As part of the overall review of our intelligence-gathering practices, decisions are being made by the president and implemented by the president, but beyond that, I have to ask you to wait until the reviews, the various reviews have been completed and we have more to say,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

A key tenet of the Obama administration’s code of silence seems to require the thickest walls be built around the sectors of government that can take advantage of the cover to do the most damage to liberty. As reported by Tech Dirt:

The administration, which likes to pretend it’s the most transparent in history, is actually one of the most secretive. Its attempts at transparency have almost exclusively been focused on where it can get the most political bang, not for what areas people expect the government to be transparent about — such as how it interprets the laws that allow the government to spy on everyone….

What’s incredible is that it appears that no one high up in the administration seems to recognize how this is a strategy that will almost certainly make things worse, not better. It may be how the administration is used to functioning, but it makes it much more difficult to believe anything that is said about a supposed “vigorous public debate” being held on the surveillance activities. It also means that as more leaks come out revealing more questionable practices, the constant backtracking and excuses will just destroy whatever credibility the administration has left on this issue. If, instead, it were to actually be transparent and simply reveal things like how it interprets the law, and allows for a real public discussion on these matters, that would actually result in some frank discussions that the administration seems terrified of actually having.

Beyond the violations of the Fourth Amendment evident in the NSA’s dragnet surveillance turning citizens into suspects, there are several other significant examples of President Obama’s fierce determination to keep Americans in the dark when it comes to policies and programs that pose the most potent threats to their freedom. One of the most egregious examples is the Trans- Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Every round of negotiations are conducted in secret and even the content of the draft agreement itself would be completely unknown were it not for a WikiLeaks project that resulted in the publication of a chapter on intellectual property. William F. Jasper, writing for The New American, explains how and why President Obama is keeping details of the TPP trade pact under wraps.

If there is one word that is used more often than “reform” by governments, politicians, and international organizations — and abused even more frequently and egregiously — it is “transparency.”

As with the United Nations and the World Trade Organization (WTO), the White House and the U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR) office regularly proclaim their commitment to transparency while doing everything possible to hide their actions from their constituents.

The USTR’s “Fact Sheet: Transparency and the Trans-Pacific Partnership” is intended to give the impression that the Obama administration is forthrightly providing the American people with all the up-todate information they need to accurately evaluate the agreements that are being made in their name, and that would, if accepted by Congress, devastatingly impact their lives, their liberty, and their future.

And, perhaps the most deadly deception perpetrated by the secrecy-loving president is the number of innocent civilians who have been killed by missiles fired from U.S. drones. Until recently, in fact, the Obama administration denied the drone war was even being waged. Now, even though he admits to targeting “militants” using the remote control weapons, the president refuses to comment on how many civilians have been blown up in the process. Then, of course, there is ObamaCare. After the rollout derailed, press reports revealed that the president likely knew there were problems with his hallmark legislation and also knew that Americans would not be able to keep their doctor.

A CBS News report about the weekly GOP address that Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) gave on November 16 on the president’s broken promise noted: “Millions of Americans are coming to realize that those are your tire tracks on their canceled policies,” Johnson said to the president, accusing Mr. Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress of perpetrating “political fraud” to aid their political goals. “Consumer fraud this massive in the private sector could — and should — bear serious legal ramifications,” Johnson said. “For President Obama, however, it helped secure enough votes to pass Obamacare and win re-election.”

As he continues burrowing deeper and deeper into the sands of secrecy, President Obama seems not to realize that that soil shifts and there will always be those committed to digging around until the truth is told.

McClatchy writes: Mark Jaycox, a policy analyst for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said he doesn’t expect the administration to change much even amid the intense criticism. This administration, he said, has always held fast against similar criticism. For example, it resisted for years bipartisan pressure to release more information about its top-secret targeted killing program.

“It’s a pattern of the Obama administration,” he said.

Tech Dirt recognizes the problem for the president: Extreme secrecy may seem like the easier shortterm strategy, but it’s just digging an ever deeper hole that the administration is going to have to try to climb out of in the long-term. Hiding reality from a public that’s going to find out eventually is just making the problem worse.