Personal Freedom

Family Sanctity


Take a moment to read a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America.  Pay particular attention to the clauses that say that children are the property of the government.


I’ll wait.



Are you having a hard time finding that clause?  It was a trick, sorry, that clause does not exist as you probably guessed.

Okay then, go back, check again and read the clauses that say the government, federal State or local (or any government bureaucrat), is omniscient and knows what is best for all children under all circumstances.

Oops.  You may have noticed that wording is non-existent also.

All right, look again and please read the clause that defines the absolutely correct way to raise a child.

Drat.  That one seems to be missing too!

Okay lets go down a notch.  Find similar clauses in your State’s constitution.  I could find them neither in my State’s nor several other States’ constitutions.  I doubt you will find any of those clauses or anything similar in your State’s constitution either.


Even in the highly vaunted Social Security Act of 1935, Title XI, Section 1101, Paragraph (6) (d) reads: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing any Federal official, agent, or representative, in carrying out any of the provisions of this Act, to take charge of any child over the objection of either of the parents of such child, or of the person standing in loco parentis to such child.


A parent will normally speak of their offspring as “my child” or “our children”.  A person will refer to another person’s offspring as “your children” or “their child”.  ‘My’, ‘your’, ‘our’ and ‘their’ are all possessive pronouns.  We ask, “Whose child is that?”  The response is usually, “He’s mine.” Or “She’s his.”  All this semantics imply, if not denote, ownership.  Children ‘belong’ to their parents.

When I use the word ‘belong’, I don’t mean children are chattel to be bought and sold.  I mean their complete welfare is the parents’ total responsibility.  Biology, Nature and society bestows upon parents the right and obligation to love, feed, clothe, house, educate and maintain the health of offspring as they see fit.  State and local governments all across the country are doing insanely outrageous things that seem to indicate they believe that children are the property of the nation, state, county or municipality and the parents’ beliefs and child-rearing philosophies are inconsequential.


Let’s start with the food children receive from the government at schools.  There are thousands, if not millions, of complaints about and Tweeted pictures of woefully inadequate (to put it politely) substances trying to pass as lunch sold (or given) to children at schools.  And there are many instances of lunches prepared at home for children to eat at school being confiscated on some idiotic rule about not complying with ‘nutrition’ regulations.  How can a parent feeding their child food of their (both or either the parents’ or child’s) choice be any government’s business?  If Susie is a vegetarian, how dare the government insist she eat meat?  If George is allergic to milk, the government’s instance on dairy in his diet might kill him!  Schools also provide breakfast and now supper to many children.  Really?  Is it not more important that a child spend time at a table conversing and bonding with family than consuming some bureaucrat’s concept of ‘food’ in a sterile institutional setting?

[And with more than 45 million people on food stamps, why are schools giving away food?  It would seem that if a child is not eating at home due to poverty, then the food stamp program is a failure and should be scrapped or massively overhauled.  A subject for another article.]


Next there are cases where parents are harassed or arrested for letting their small children play naked in their own yard or play unsupervised at the neighborhood playground.  These are not crimes warranting prosecution and kidnapping of the children by the government.  While clothing was generally not an issue with my toddler daughter, there was no way I could keep a hat on her.  Should I have been charged with child endangerment when she played in our yard without a head covering in winter?  Are playgrounds really so unsafe that children must be under constant supervision there?  Perhaps playgrounds should be prohibited as a public hazard.  Or maybe our local government officials should be charged with negligence for not maintaining a safe environment for their citizens.  And if your neighbor or local-beat police officer finds a two-year-old sans diaper repulsive or erotic, then maybe he or she should be admitted to a psych ward.


And then we have a plethora of health related inanities involving governments.

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, people got sick.  I am sure this fact comes as a shock to you, but it IS true.  Children contracted measles, mumps and chicken pox.  Really! And equally shocking is the phenomena of survival!  Yes, even your humble author suffered all the above and is living proof of the fact that they are not universally fatal.  There is evidence emerging that ‘mandatory’ vaccines for these diseases are not entirely effective and likely to be causative of autism and other conditions – including death.  It is documented that most of these vaccines contain mercury, a known toxin.  Why should a parent be forced to expose their child to a toxin?

Vaccines for influenza are even more ridiculous.  While governments and employers (who actually have more right than the government to make such demands, misguided though they may be) require ‘flu shots’ each year, the truth is that there are dozens, if not hundreds of strains of influenza virus in nature.  The vaccine makers and the federal CDC are making a WAG (wild-ass guess) forecast as to which variant(s) will be prevalent in any given ‘flu season’.  There is definitely a risk in not vaccinating, but there is also a risk in doing so.  A parent should have that choice of which risk to take.  The State of California requiring vaccinations is clearly an unconstitutional and morally reprehensible position.

Suppose your child develops a potentially fatal disease like cancer or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or multiple sclerosis (MS).  There is much research on curing or at least prolonging the life of victims of these ailments.  But there is NO guarantee and singular identified surefire treatment for them.  Doctors disagree on effective treatments for any particular condition.  And actually many such diseases are diagnosed by process of elimination rather than definitive identification!   A prudent response to such a diagnosis is to get a ‘second opinion’… or third or fourth.  Treatments for diseases like cancer can be horrendous, inflicting as much pain and misery as the disease itself. They can also be expensive.  The prognosis and cost and pain of these treatments could be considered cruel and inhuman – to both the child and family!  Many people decry the use of torture on prisoners.  But is it acceptable to torture medical patients?  A couple of examples are here and here.  And even though the government or medical establishment does not want the serfs to know about it, there are other less toxic options to combat these diseases.  The bottom line is:  what bureaucrat knows absolutely that one medical treatment is better than another?  What justification is there to jail a parent and kidnap a frightened sick child because of a choice of medical treatment – or lack thereof?  Especially when the diagnosis is in debate.


It turns out that the State of Kentucky thinks it can dictate its inhabitants’ lifestyle!   And apparently, the State of New Jersey thinks they have absolute power over families also!

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States of America nor any State Constitution that grants that kind of authority over citizens of their jurisdiction.  What is evil about homeschooling? What is subversive about living ‘off-grid’ (Not being connected to the electrical or water system)?

The Tenth Amendment of the American Constitution states; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Common Sense clear leads us to the conclusion that child rearing is covered by this statement.  Child rearing is a right reserved to the People.


Governmental authorities definitely should protect its citizens from harm, but where is that line in which government interferes with appropriate discipline and punishes abuse.  Generations of children have been disciplined with ‘corporal punishment’.  [Your author had his share of spankings for misbehavior, as did the vast majority of his and his elders’ generations!]  Of course, excessive abuse is repulsive and should be prohibited.   The problem is:  who gets to decide where that line is?  It can be argued that sitting a child in a corner for ‘time-out’ is cruel solitary confinement.  That might be the worse torture to inflict on a gregarious extroverted vivacious child.  Shall we ban ‘time-out’?

The 0bama administration wants schools to punish more non-black students because there are disproportionate numbers of blacks being punished for misbehavior.  Really?  Does it not make complete common sense to punish perpetrators and not look at race, gender or any other characteristic other than guilt to mete out discipline?  By not punishing misbehavior, we raise a generation that cannot distinguish right from wrong.  Ask the Minneapolis school system how that works.


So I repeat:  what authority grants the responsibility of child ‘welfare’ to any government?  As I point out at the beginning of this article, the American Constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to dictate how a parent raises a child.  State constitutions do not seize that power either.  Of all the supposed ‘rights’ being promoted these days, the ‘right of parental responsibility’ should be very high on that list.


Do you have children or grandchildren?  If you have no children, do your neighbors have children?  Do you believe these young people belong to the government?  Do you believe that the government has absolute authority and trumps anything a parent might wish concerning the raising of their children?  The governments of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union certainly believed children belonged to the state.  Apparently the American federal and State governments (and others) do.  Melissa Harris-Perry of MSNBC believes children belong to the ‘community’ not their parents.  If children do not ‘belong’ to their parents, then why should parents have to pay the expense of their care?  Indeed, why should anyone spend any direct effort or expense in support of any child if children ‘belong’ to the government or ‘community’?  Why even bother begetting children if they are nor ‘yours’?  If this is true, then please have someone send me an address where I can send an invoice for all the expenses I have incurred for child rearing.


Welcome to the Busybody Nanny Police State.

As I have written elsewhere on this site, the Power is with the People, why do they allow this nonsense?

2022  Common Sense Constitution   globbers joomla templates