Y'all need to know about this. Comment if you can. If there is any way, I'm driving up to Dallas and attending this event.

Mike Farris is a lawyer and has been gunnin' for Constitutional rights (and keeping it intact and with original intent)longer than I've known him (since 1985). He's been a Washington watchdog for home education for years and ran for Lt. Gov of Virginia once or twice. He founded Patrick Henry College in Fairfield, VA several years ago to raise up godly men and women to serve in government leadership positions and take our country back according to the intent of the original founding fathers. He led the battle (among a few others)in home education in Texas when we didn't have a pig's chance in Hades of making it legal to home school here. If you want to know one of the voices that drives the Christian Right, it's this guy. Now he's speaking up for a Constitutional amendment to protect parental rights.

BTW, I'm doing fantastic! Back to school tomorrow so very busy... -Donna

"O taste and see that the Lord is good:
blessed is the man that trusteth in Him."
Psalm 34:8

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Parental Rights: The Fight of Our Lifetime

Suppose, one day, parents will NOT be allowed to tell their children:

· that they cannot do drugs or be sexually involved as an unmarried teenager?

· that they must attend church with you?

· that they are restricted from certain internet cites and DVD's for their protection?

· that you want to know where your child is, who his friends are, and what he is doing?



Suppose, one day, parents will not be allowed to raise their children with their values but instead will be restricted by the State?

That day is here.

You are invited to attend an informational rally to hear:

Michael P. Farris, J.D.

Founder of ParentalRights.org

Chancellor of PatrickHenryCollege in VA

Founder of Homeschool Legal Defense

March 1, 2008 (Saturday)

7:00-9:30 pm

FellowshipBibleChurchDallas at 9330 N. Central Exwy.

(Hwy. 75 / Park Lane; NE corner behind Bed, Bath, Beyond)

Dallas, TX75231



In the early 1980s, a landmark parental rights case reached the WashingtonState Supreme Court. The case involved 13-year-old Sheila Marie Sumey, whose parents were alarmed when they found evidence of their daughter's participation in illegal drug activity and escalating sexual involvement. Their response was to act immediately to cut off the negative influences in their daughter's life by grounding her.

But when Sheila went to her school counselors complaining about her parent's actions, she was advised that she could be liberated from her parents because there was "conflict between parent and child." Listening to the advice she had received, Sheila notified Child Protective Services (CPS) about her situation. She was subsequently removed from her home and placed in foster care.

Her parents, desperate to get their daughter back, challenged the actions of the social workers in court. They lost. Even though the judge found that Sheila's parents had enforced reasonable rules in a proper manner, the state law nevertheless gave CPS the authority to split apart the Sumey family and take Sheila away.


A thirteen-year-old boy in WashingtonState was removed from his parents after he complained to school counselors that his parents took him to church too often. His school counselors had encouraged him to call Child Protective Services with his complaint, which led to his subsequent removal and placement in foster care. It was only after the parents agreed to a judge's requirement of less-frequent church attendance that they were able to recover their son.


· The Wisconsin legislature is debating this question, "Should public libraries keep a child's check-out history secret from his parents or should parents know what books, CDs, and video tapes their children under the age of 16 checked out of public libraries?"



· In New Zealand a 16 year-old girl ran away from home and the parents are trying to find her. The police know where she is but they can't tell the parents because of "privacy rights of children."

THE ISSUE
Our role, as parents, is critical to the health and development of our children. Researchers and scientists have found that children who have parental support are likely to have better health as adults, tend to earn higher grades, have better social skills, and are more likely to graduate and go on to post-secondary education. Teens with involved parents are one-quarter as likely as teens with "hands-off" parents to smoke, drink, and use drugs.

For years, the Supreme Court has recognized that parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit, but that support is being steadily undermined. Across the country, many judges are beginning to deny the vital role of parents in the lives of their children. Instead, they are inserting the government into a "parental" role in a child's life as the instances cited above demonstrate.

TWO THREATS
First, many U.S. judges are denying parents their rights to raise their children, either because these rights are not explicitly protected in the U.S. Constitution or because the judges believe that parental rights should be subservient to the power of the state.



Not all judges hold a low view of parental rights. Some, like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, believe that parental rights are among the "inalienable rights" of Americans enumerated in the Declaration of Independence but they are finding it increasingly difficult to rule in favor of parental rights when it is not explicitly included in the language of the Constitution.

In Troxel v. Granville, the last major parental rights case heard by the Supreme Court, Scalia himself voted to deny parental rights the status of an enforceable constitutional right. And other federal court judges are following in his footsteps, citing a mounting belief that no right can be protected by the federal courts unless explicitly stated in the Constitution.

Second, parental rights face the threat of international law, which assumes that the rights of children must be asserted against the rights of their parents. Under our Constitution, international treaties - such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) - become part of the "supreme law of the land," allowing the government, not the parent, to determine what is best for the child and intervene on their behalf.

SOLUTION
If Scalia, who favors parental rights, yet cannot protect parental rights unless it is explicit language in the Constitution - THEN the surest way to protect children and their parents from both the threat of judges and the danger of international law is to pass a U.S. Constitutional amendment that explicitly places parental rights in the Constitution in black-and-white. And it can be done. The Constitution has 27 Amendments, the last one being passed in 1992. Only then can we ensure the next generation of American parents will enjoy the liberties we now enjoy.

ACTION

Go to
http://www.ParentalRights.org
and sign the petition.
Attend informational rally to hear:
Michael P. Farris, J.D.

Founder of ParentalRights.org

Chancellor of PatrickHenryCollege in VA

Founder of Homeschool Legal Defense

March 1, 2008 (Saturday)

7:00-9:30 pm

FellowshipBibleChurchDallas at 9330 N. Central Exwy.

(Hwy. 75 / Park Lane; NE corner behind Bed, Bath, Beyond)

Dallas, TX75231

214-739-3881

Contact Texas Organizers for ParentalRights.org to help:
Wade / Jessica Hulcy wade@konos.com or queen@airmail.net ; 972-924-2541

Gavino / Ruth Perez gavinoperez@sbcglobal.net



Speaker: Michael P. Farris, J.D.




Parental rights are under attack in our nation, with the first threat originating from within the federal court system. As this story illustrates, a growing disregard for parental rights has been spreading within the courts of our nation.

Across the country, many judges are beginning to deny the vital role of parents in the lives of their children, instead inserting the government into a "parental" role in a child's life. This dangerous assertion is leading to the severance of the child-parent relationship in numerous instances across the nation-removals that cause unnecessary pain to both children and their parents.

A thirteen-year-old boy in WashingtonState was removed from his parents after he complained to school counselors that his parents took him to church too often. His school counselors had encouraged him to call Child Protective Services with his complaint, which led to his subsequent removal and placement in foster care. It was only after the parents agreed to a judge's requirement of less-frequent church attendance that they were able to recover their son.

HANGING BY A THREAD

Not all judges hold a low view of parental rights. Some, like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, believe that parental rights are among the "inalienable rights" of Americans enumerated in the Declaration of Independence but they are finding it increasingly difficult to rule in favor of parental rights when it is not explicitly included in the language of the Constitution.

In Troxel v. Granville, the last major parental rights case heard by the Supreme Court, Scalia himself voted to deny parental rights the status of an enforceable constitutional right. And other federal court judges are following in his footsteps, citing a mounting belief that no right can be protected by the federal courts unless explicitly stated in the Constitution.

The dwindling support for parental rights found on the federal level has opened the door to a growing, blatant disregard of parental rights within the lower courts of our nation. Parental rights violations are on the increase across the country, as courts exchange parental involvement for government control in the lives of America's children.

The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is hanging by a thread.

A West Virginia mother was shocked when a local circuit judge and a family court judge ordered her to share custody of her four-year-old daughter with two of the girl's babysitters. Referring to the sitters as "psychological co-parents," the justices first awarded full custody to them, only permitting the mother to visit her daughter four times a week at McDonalds. Eventually she was granted primary custody, but forced to continue to share her daughter with the sitters.

When her case finally reached the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in October 2007, the beleaguered mother was relieved to finally be granted full custody of her daughter.

In their October 25 opinion Supreme Court justices wrote that they were "deeply troubled by the utter disregard" for the mother's rights. One justice referred to the mother's right as the "paramount right in the world."

Chief Justice Robin Davis summed up the case in one simple question."Why does a natural parent have to prove fitness when she has never been found unfit?" he asked.

THE THREAT FROM INTERNATIONAL LAW

The precarious state of parental rights within our nation is reason enough for serious concern. With cases like these filling the courts, every parent should be concerned about the protection and preservation of their rights.

But another storm is rapidly forming on the horizon.

International law that seeks to empower the government to intrude upon the child-parent relationship is becoming an increasing threat. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), a seemingly harmless treaty with dangerous implications for American families, is approaching possible ratification by the United States.

If this treaty is made binding upon our country, the government would have the power to intervene in any child's life to advance its definition of "the best interests of the child." The scenarios that could occur-and are occurring-as a result of this dangerous notion are both manifold and frightening.

Under the UNCRC, instead of following due process, government agencies would have the power to override your parental choices at their whim because they determine what is in "the best interest of the child."

In essence, the UNCRC applies the legal status of abusive parents to all parents. This means that the burden of proof falls on the parent to prove to the State that they are good parents-when it should fall upon the State to prove that their investigation is not without cause.

A SHELTER IN THE STORM

There is only one solution to this approaching storm: a constitutional amendment that places current Supreme Court doctrine protecting parental rights into the explicit language of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment will shelter the child-parent relationship from the coming storm, ensuring that parents have the right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

No government, regardless of how well-intentioned it might be, can replace the love and nurture of a parent in the life of a child. Parents care, not because their children are "wards" for whom they are responsible. Parents are willing to brave danger and sacrifice, hardship and heartache to ensure the best for their kids.

Learn more about protecting parental rights through a constitutional amendment, and join the campaign now. We must not wait until it's too late. Take this opportunity to sign the petition to protect parental rights

today



There were early warning signs that homosexual "marriage" should be taken seriously. On May 27, 1993, the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to three same-sex couples. A voter initiative eventually trumped this decision, but at least by this date the battle was fully engaged.

Yet, the responses of the pro-family community, judged with the aid of 20/20 hindsight, have to be regarded as too little, too late. Homosexual marriages are now being performed in this nation. And while there have been a number of successful efforts to place traditional marriage language into state constitutions, efforts to bring in a federal constitutional amendment are essentially stalled. Even more troubling is the fact that the momentum in the legal system is moving rapidly in the direction of declaring homosexual marriage a federal constitutional right. If this happens, all state constitutional efforts will be for naught.

A friend in Congress recently told me that if the issue had been brought to the floor of the House 15-20 years ago, there is no doubt that a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage would have passed. There is substantial doubt that such an amendment will ever pass at this point.

The pro-family movement waited until Congress believed there was a real problem before attempting a constitutional solution, even though legal experts have been united for nearly a decade in saying that the only way to stop the courts' march toward homosexual marriage is with a federal constitutional amendment. By now, our opponents have gained so much strength in both law and culture that the prospects for the right solution are daunting at best.

This article is about the need to save parental rights. I use the story of the battle to save marriage solely as a cautionary tale. The threats to parental rights are real and growing. And we must face the fact that the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is not explicitly written in the text of the Constitution. If we wish to preserve this right, it is my contention that now is the time to put parents' rights into black and white-that is, to adopt an explicit constitutional amendment.

See you in Dallas on March 1, 2008.