Hmmm...lets look at those articles in detail shall we?
Really? In the rest of the article, the only thing addressed by this statement is the relationship to the UN. Nothing else in this first statement is mentioned other than the general "hundreds of other items". Nothing on civil rights, slavery at all. Specifics please.
Dumb...why did they even bring this up. Doesn't matter to me either way, they both reference the same thing.
The UN, like every other organization, is not perfect. Now, specifics on 'undermining US sovereignty' might be a bit far, but why shouldn't we put the UN under a microscope? We certainly have been putting US history and policies on the dissection table lately, seems only fair to me to do the same to the UN.
Okay, there are 2 statements here. First statement says "strengthened the requirements on teaching the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers". This could be interpreted as either "the basis of moral authority from which the Constitution was derived" or "the Founding Fathers wanted this to be a theocracy". Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure it was the former...using guidelines and examples from history and their own lives, including Christanity, to develop what became the Constitution and the US government. The second statement is "attempted to water down rationale for the separation of church and state." Note the first word...attempted. Seems they were unsuccessful...imagine that.
The US Government IS a constitutional republic (as is most modern "democracies"). The US Dollar has declined in value, and the US abandoned the gold standard a long time ago.
These are both probably true...and not new critiques of any educational system.
As far as the UN article goes, lets again look at the statement..."efforts by global organizations including the U.N. to undermine U.S. sovereignty". Again, this does not assume that they have been successful, and the US does have veto power. What it might suggest instead is looking at instances of UN actions working directly against US interests. Could this be considered an 'effort' to 'undermine' US 'sovereignty'? Maybe...each instance would have to be evaluated on it's own.
For all the 'fear mongering' being thrown around, I see a whole lot of nothing here...no other specifics are mentioned. If they were, maybe we could evaluate what was actually passed a little better. The whole "UN" thing might be a little overboard...but certainly they should be looked at as sternly as US history and policies are...seems only fair.
FC