Obama & Tolerance in America - Is it Better to be a Homeschool Family or Gay

In the light of the recent national coming out of NBA veteran Jason Collins as a man who prefers sex with other men, its interesting to take note of the priorities of the President Obama and his administration.

President Obama was only too glad to make a personal call to Jason Collins to show official and personal support for his prominent revelations. And this call was made in the midst of national fanfare celebrating the announcement, American tolerance towards it and its substance.

The Romeike Family - Persecuted by the German Government for Homeschooling

On the other hand, the Obama administration has been responsible for the denial and argument against political asylum of the Romeike Family from Germany who came to the United State to seek political protection from the German Government's repeated intruding into and interrupting the raising and teaching of their children at home while not always conforming to the German society's view on social issues. The children have repeatedly been forcibly separated from their parents, housed with other families and the parents have been ordered to pay heavy fines for not conforming to government mandates. While initially being granted asylum, the Obama administration rescinded that status and has argued for their deportation to Germany saying that none of the Romeike's rights are being violated.

If you are unfamiliar with this Family and their plight, please read this information. More is available through an online search.

In the light of the Appeals Court denial of asylum, this article was written wondering if the Romeike's would have fared better if they had confessed to being a Gay couple.

So, it's more tolerable for a man to have sex with another man than it is for parents to be able to raise and train their children properly without undo government interference! Welcome to the Third Reich.

Curfews & The Role of American Parents

The issue of curfews for children occasionally resurfaces in various locations in the United States. This time the State is California. As reported on One News Now, The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors will review a proposed daytime curfew for children under the age of 18.

These laws, when proposed, usually create a firestorm of negative response from parents and parental organizations, especially among those homeschooling their children. The reason is rather obvious from a parental viewpoint. A daytime curfew would "restrict the constitutional rights of minors and instead encourage officers to selectively detain the youngsters."

Surprisingly, Finn Larsen of Christian Educators Association International says that parents are partly to blame for the problem. ""It is unfortunate that many parents, for whatever reason, are not providing good oversight and care for their children," he laments. "So what this does is it allows the state, if you will -- the police, the government -- to have a little bit more exercise of authority in a problem that, again, is growing.""

For those who may possess a little more curiosity than the normal resident, it may be interesting to know how the State views its citizens. Does it strike you as hypocritical that any State of the Union would attempt to impose itself within the family sphere in order to alleviate a problem, especially when that problem stems from a lack of parental oversight?

The answer is very simple. It is also written into law. The fact is that the State claims ownership of its citizens through the legal doctrine known as Parens Patriae, the State is the Parent of the Nation. So, when the property of the State, in this case the parents, aren't performing their civic duty, the State has the right, nay, the duty, to step in and correct the problem. The state is simply taking care of what is legally theirs. And, ultimately, the State's property will not and cannot determine what the State will do.

If you think that this is un-American and Unconstitutional, save your breath. This concept is as old as civilization and was present in the American Revolution. Benjamin Rush, a Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Founding Father extraordinaire, had this to say about children. "We must teach our pupils that they do not belong to themselves, but are public property."

Do you remember hearing that in history class? I didn't think so! Think about it.

Who is "Our" King, Judge & Lawmaker?

In this commentary by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley, He uses a rather telling pronoun when referring to lawmakers who have recently tried to make it mandatory for 6th grade girls to receive the vaccine for the human papillomavirus. The choice of pronoun, in this case, represents an identification and personalization which might tend to make some of us uncomfortable. It is also something which fails to have Biblical or apostolic support.

Earley uses the pronoun "our" to refer to lawmakers in different states, in this case, Virginia and Texas. The remainder of the commentary allows us to see that this pronoun is also applied to the various political activities associated and governed by these same lawmakers. Earley also laments one of the results of this type of legislation, regardless of the process used to implement these directives. He says it usurps parental authority.

I don't want to be misunderstood when I say this, so read carefully. Since when are lawmakers "our" lawmakers as Christians? Since when do we identify anyone other than YHWH as our Lawmaker? The historic position of God's People in relation to Secular authority has always been one of Separation in the midst of honor and submission. The Old Testament plainly tells us that " YHWH is our judge, YHWH is our lawgiver, YHWH is our King; he will save us." In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul tells us that, "our politics is in Heaven, from whence we look for the Lord." This is after Peter speaks for himself and the apostles who had been beaten for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ when he says, "we ought to obey God rather than men."

Are we to presume that the past servants of the Most High God have been mistaken in the proper placements of their allegiance? Were they ignorant of the current state of affairs when it came to Whom they were to render service to? Did they, to any degree, identify with Caesar and the Roman Empire? Did they give the least hint that they were serving the interests of the Roman Empire? Did they refer to the Roman lawmakers as "our lawmakers?" Obviously, they didn't.There has always been a distinct dichotomy between the people of God and Secular rulers of every stripe.

In no way does this negate the fact of earthly citizenship. We are all men and must, by our birth, be citizens of some earthly Nation or State. However, this earthly citizenship and its political obligations and responsibilities are always viewed through our primary spiritual allegiance. This primacy dictates our relationship to the Secular. In other words, we are primarily a Secular, or unholy citizen, or we are primarily a Heavenly, or holy citizen.

If you are a Secular citizen, then you primarily identify with Secular officials with such descriptive terms as "our and mine." If you are a Heavenly citizen, then you primarily refer to Secular officials with terms such as "their and your."

Which brings us back to the charge, by Earley, of usurping parental authority by making this vaccine mandatory. Case law is very consistent within the body of American Jurisprudence showing that, Government activities are strictly controlled by Governemnt law and policy. This is a Constitutional and legally consistent practice from the beginning of the United States. Coupled with the Founding idea espoused by Benjamin Rush that the student is public property, it should not be an extremely difficult propsition to understand that the children in public schools do not belong to the parents. In fact the "parents" are not the primary parent of the children in their care. The "parents" are simply the guardians, exercising delegated authority from the State.

This little known Legal Doctrine is Parens Patraei. It means that the State is the Parent of the Nation and, therefore becomes the primary parent of all who have been entrusted to their care. The State, then becomes responsible to provide the needed care and provision neccessary for their children. This is where most parents find themselves today, taking care of the State's children while thinking of those same children as belonging to them, not the State.

Sound preposterous? Tell that to the many parents who are experiencing this legal reality around the country and possess not a clue to what is taking place. They are fighting, but they are legally destined to lose because they are proceeding in ignorance. Presumed by the Courts to know the Law, they lack sufficient knowledge and understanding to protect their interests, in this case, what they presumed to be their children.

So, how do parents entrust their children to the care of the State? That's an easy one. By sending them to a State institution, an institution where the State's interests are primary. This is after all, the State's institution. Shouldn't the State have the primary right to conduct the affairs of their own creation? In spite of what anyone outside the Schools think, the Courts have consisitently agreed with that proposition.

If you don't personally agree with that proposition, the remedy is simple. Don't send your child to an Institution governed by State Law, "your law."

American Persecution of Christians??????????

All across America, atrocities are being perpetrated on the most innocent of all people groups in the known World. Maybe the saddest aspect of this inhumane treatment is that it is the official policy of the American Government. Yes, American Lawmakers are the official perpetrators of........dare we say it?............Persecution!!!!!!!!!!! That's right!

And what's mnore diabolical is the fact that this persecution is taking place against Christians. That's right, Christian America is officially against her own righteous people.

Here are the details: Christians send their children to government schools and the following happens:

1. The children are exposed to explicit sexual content as a part of the curriculum without the parents being previously notified.
2. The children aren't allowed to pray on their own.
3. The children aren't allowed to form their own Christian clubs.
4. The children's Christian club isn't allowed to use school property the same as all other clubs .

This is just the beginning of a list that could go on and on for awhile. But the obvious does not need to be stated. Christians are in trouble and suffering needlessly. What are we to do about it!!??????

Well let's see. How can this be alleviated?

It might start with helping parents to understand that, pursuant to American tradition and law, their children really don't belong to them. Their children are the property of the State.

If that sounds rather bizarre, settle down. It's simply a matter of law.

Every Parent has the fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit. That fact is not in dispute by anyone. However, once a parent send their child to a government school, the parent abandon's their right to ultimately direct the upbringing of their children. The government is then in the position formerly held by the parent. The government has become the parent. The parent has become only the guardian, following the dictates of the government. This legal doctrine is known as Parens Patraei and it's found mostly in State Court decisions.

The fact is that there is absolutely no persecution of children or parents in this nation. It is simply a matter of parents and others being ignorant of the law and their freedoms in this country under that same law.

James Dobson & Mitt Romney: A Pro Family Duo

According to this report from One News Now, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson is seriously considering supporting Mitt Romney in his campaign for President.

OK! Let me get this straight (no pun intended)! James Dobson has established a career promoting Pro Family values such as Traditional Marriage and Anti Gay & Lesbian Rights. In the past he has publicly refused to endorse candidates not possessing the same Pro family stance as well as the historical voting record.

All of a sudden, the general public is supposed to believe that the Pro Family Advocate is throwing all political caution to the wind and will endorse Romney, who has an established record supporting such anti family activities????? And this is supposed to be good for American families???????

Do I smell something?? Is that a hint of brimstone politics. Does this mean that Dobson is coming out of the political closet? Are his true colors about to be revealed????? Has this been the real Dobson all along??????

Actually, I have reason to realistically believe such a proposition. For it was the week prior to the last Presidential election that Dobson, along with every other Pro Family Advocate in this nation, to my knowledge, failed to inform their supporters, Republican and Democrat, of the statements of President Bush in a public interview. President Bush informed everyone that, regardless of the initiatives of anyone, the final result of the entire Gay rights fight would be a Federal Marriage Amendment or Federal Marriage Statute as well as civil unions. To my knowledge, that conspicuous silence has continued to this day.

And now this!?

When you consider that Pro Family, Pro Constitutional Advocate and Civil & Religious Rights Attorney Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice has also agreed to support Mitt Romney for President, nothing is surprising any more.