Remember the good old days when parents were allowed to make decisions about what was right for their family?  Your rights as a mom or dad are being sucked right out the door of your home.  It's a slippery slope - resist it.

Individual liberty is being burned at the stake, as governments set fire to people natural rights. This time it has everything to do with homeschooling.

It all started in Germany. Uwe and Hannelore Romeike were raising their five children in the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg, when they decided to remove their children from the public education system. In 2006, the Romeike's illegally withdrew their children from the German public schools system and began homeschooling. Believing that the public education system was undermining their Christian faith, the Romeike's began breaking the law and teaching their kids at home. By exercising their natural rights, the Romeikes were fined over $10,000 by the German government and at one point their children were forcefully removed from their home. In 2010, after getting their children back, they chose to flee Germany and move to the United States.

RWN has the story.  A middle-schooler wore an NRA t-shirt to school and, when he refused to take it off, the teacher removed him from class.  The school suspended him and had him arrested for obstruction and disturbing the education process.  Lame.

Eighth grader Jared Marcum wore a shirt that featured the NRA logo and a hunting rifle. The shirt didn’t violate school policy, which specifically bans clothing that features profanity, violence, and discriminatory messages, but says nothing about guns.

When Jared arrived at school, his teacher demanded that he remove the shirt. He refused. His teacher then had him removed from the class room, he was suspended, and then arrested and charged with obstruction and disturbing the education process.

All for wearing a NRA T-Shirt that says "Protect Your Rights."

What, are we in China?

Marcum’s father, Allen Lardieri, is naturally upset that his son has been treated this way. He’s vowed to "go to the ends of the earth, I will call people, I will write letters, I will do everything in the legal realm to make sure this does not happen again."

A little bit late, but it's a good speech and worth watching.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PFb6NU1giRA)

Look out for the eroding of parental authority.

Several news stories seem to indicate that America’s moms and dads are losing ground in the effort to raise their children as they see fit. To wit:

In Rhode Island, the Cranston school district announced it was banning father-daughter and mother-son events because a complaint from the American Civil Liberties Union indicated they violate state law. The civil rights group filed on behalf of a single mother who said her daughter suffered discrimination because she doesn’t have a daddy with whom she can attend the daddy-daughter dance.

“This is 2012 and [public schools] should not be in the business of fostering blatant gender stereotypes,” Steven Brown of the Rhode Island ACLU was reported to have said.

Which blatant gender stereotype is that? While single parent families are unfortunate in a lot of cases, it happens. I don't see the reason to cancel dances. How about adding a father/son or mother/daughter social that celebrates those relationships as well?

When I was a kid, I brought a lunch with me almost every day, except on occasion when they served pizza for hot lunch.  My kids do the same, except on occasion when the school has lasagne.  Even making lunches doesn't guarantee that the kid is going to eat what you give them, but it helps avoid situations where government mandated menu items go straight from the tray to the garbage.

Parents should be aware of what is served and make the decision whether to let their kids have it, or send them with a bag lunch.  Same with the fundraisers.  If they want to sell candy and someone wants to buy it, go for it!  Make options, not regulations.

In 2010, Michelle Obama went to a lame-duck session of Congress with a request: pass a nutrition bill giving the United States Department of Agriculture broad new powers to regulate school lunches. That bill was passed in late December of that year, and the new regulations have started to go into effect, with the predictable results of wasted food and angry, hungry children.

The cinnamon rolls and chili everyone loved from their childhood are now gone. Bands and other school groups can no longer sell candy bars as a fundraiser. The government is mandating everything from portion size to how many tomatoes have to be on a salad.

This is one of those stories that has me shaking my head, jaw hanging in disbelief.  It's one thing to have a policy that disallows kids from bringing knives, guns, or other weapons to school. When a three year old is forced to change his name because sticking out his thumb and index finger is seen as offensive or threatening, it's time to change the policy instead.

Hunter Spanjer says his name with a certain special hand gesture, but at just three and a half years old, he may have to change it.

Petition letter on change.org addressed to GIPS asking officials to let Hunter Spanjer keep his sign name.

"He's deaf, and his name sign, they say, is a violation of their weapons policy," explained Hunter's father, Brian Spanjer.

Grand Island's "Weapons in Schools" Board Policy 8470 forbids "any instrument...that looks like a weapon," But a three year-old's hands?

"Anybody that I have talked to thinks this is absolutely ridiculous. This is not threatening in any way," said Hunter's grandmother Janet Logue.

"It's a symbol. It's an actual sign, a registered sign, through S.E.E.," Brian Spanjer said.

S.E.E. stands for Signing Exact English, Hunter's sign language. Hunter's name gesture is modified with crossed-fingers to show it is uniquely his own.

This is related to the difference between a right and a commodity.  Basically, rights don't cost anything while commodities do.  Full employment, living wages, and a healthy future (whatever that means) are not rights.  The problem is that all of those things, while sounding great in concept, cost someone else in order to make them a reality.