'President' Obama or Clinton - the State and YOUR Children

Submitted by SadInAmerica on Sun, 03/23/2008 - 2:45pm.

Heads up parents!  If you missed this article, you ABSOLUTELY NEED TO READ IT!  Read it twice!  If you planned to vote for Obama or Clinton, you need to know what their plans are for YOUR children!  On their 'watch', the government will have TOTAL control of your children!  You will decide nothing!  'President' Obama or Clinton will make decisions for them and you better be compliant!  ~  SadInAmerica

When the 109th Congress Senate Bill 403 came up for vote, Senator Obama voted against passage. The bill was to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. In other words, the law would have made it illegal to transport minor children across state lines for the purpose of abortion without notifying the child's parents. Here is how Senator Obama explains his vote against the passage of this bill:

Some States have parental consent laws, some don't. In my particular State, it has been voted down because my people feel that if you ask them, "Do they want their kids to come to their parents?", absolutely. But if you ask them, "Should you force them to do so, even in circumstances where there could be trouble that comes from that?", they say no. This bill emanates from a desire that our children come to us when we have family matters, when our children are in trouble, that they not be fearful, that they not be afraid that they disappoint us, that they be open with us and loving toward us, and we toward them. This is what we want to have happen. The question is: Can Big Brother Federal Government force this on our families? That is where we will differ.

As is usually the case, Mr. Obama is a bit vague here but he is arguing that the government should not require notification of parents of major events in the lives of their children; including invasive medical procedures. He argues that when the children are "fearful" or afraid they might "disappoint us", the government is not required to support the child/parent relationship. Mr. Obama argues that the right of parents to be involved in the lives of their minor children is limited by the government's determination whether the children are either fearful or are convinced the notification of an event will disappoint parents. He goes on to argue that parents need only be involved in their children's lives when they can "be open with us and loving toward us, and we toward them." He argues that, since the "Big Brother Federal Government" cannot force openness and lovingness, the familial bond need not be honored at all.

The logical extension of Mr. Obama's argument is that the parent-child relationship is not a natural right, but a privilege granted by the government. Anytime the government deems some aspect of that relationship - no matter how inconsequential - to be unacceptable, it may be severed by the state.

In this, Mr. Obama is grossly mistaken. The right of parents to raise their children and be informed about their activities is not granted by the government. It right is granted by God, nature or providence - take your pick - and is rightfully protected by any legitimate government. It is a natural right that is intertwined in our very humanity and it has been so since the dawn of time. Whether or not the "Big Brother Federal Government" can force openness and fearlessness on families is absolutely irrelevant. The right of parents to raise their children exists in their basic humanity. Raising children to adulthood is a right larger and more important than any government and Mr. Obama has absolutely no legitimate right to limit it. Like all leftists, he holds the basic self-governing ability of free people in contempt.

Mr. Obama is not alone. Hillary Clinton, in a Newsweek interview famously stated, "There is no such thing as other people's children." Hillary, like all big government liberals, strongly believes that parents who do not "adequately" raise children must submit to the state. This should surprise no one. The left has no confidence in the ability of individuals to adequately exercise any of the self-governing duties of citizenship. At the heart of leftism is a contempt for the individual and the family. "It Takes a Village to Raise a Child" is nothing but a sweet, soft translation of "The Federal Government Will Raise Your Child."

Americans should look closely at the real politics of Mr. Obama and carefully read between the lines of the liberal boilerplate he seductively croons. Mr. Obama and other leftists firmly believe that the state has the dominant role in raising your children. That is as close to real authoritarian socialism as Americans have yet seen.

 Post your thoughts.  Email this article to everyone!  This should not be passed off as 'cheap talk' from Obama or Clinton! ~ SadInAmerica

Tag this page!
Submitted by SadInAmerica on Sun, 03/23/2008 - 2:45pm.


Anonymous (not verified) | Thu, 06/12/2008 - 9:58am

You say rightfully that "The right of parents to raise their children and be informed about their activities is not granted by the government" but that it "is granted by God." Why then do you expect government to enforce laws governing the parent-child relationship? Those laws are passed down by God, and so should be governed by God. The logic in your argument is weak, and nonsensical at times. You claim in the first paragraph that on Obama's and Clinton's watch, the government will have total control of our children. You then spend the rest of the post berating the candidates for refusing to use the government to control our children. You make your blind, irrational hatred too clear.

gina (not verified) | Fri, 05/02/2008 - 4:25am

Parents who are good with their children and pay attention to them do not mind extra help. Parents who do not give a crap about their kids are the ones who think they dont need help,,, they dont want help, but they are the reason why the government has to step up and be the parents. The parents that would rather be on drugs are the parents that dont need kids.

Jonathan | Thu, 05/29/2008 - 7:34am

Illegalization of drugs has instilled an IMMENSE marketable value on "illegal" drugs. This essentially equates to: Drug dealers becoming PUSHERS! Meaning: They will do WHATEVER they have to to make the money that the govt. is controlling. So don't blame the parents who are addicts. It is quite possible that they took it the first time not knowing the consequences. It is even more likely that they were given the drug by the dealer as an "incentive" to buy more. Remember... the dealer STILL was forced to push... via demand of money in his/her pocket. A situation which was ENTIRELY created by the govt. Think about it. I want the government to stay as FAR away from my children as possible. ps. Before accusing the people... take a good look at the government.

Anonymous | Sun, 04/13/2008 - 1:17pm

As this article states, if either of these left wing socialists get elected President of 'our' United States, God help everyone of us. I personally cannot believe how many Americans are so uninformed when it comes to who could be our next so-called 'leader' of the free world. If we, as Americans, do not start educating ourselves and our children on what this country was founded on, and read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then we will no longer be the country that the founding fathers were trying to create. Truckin' Stan