An Ol' Broad's Ramblings
Parental Rights
In a move that would devastate our nation even further, Barack Hussein Obama may sign on to give the United Nations, aka Useless Numnuts, sovereignty over OUR children.
From the Preamble of Convention on the Rights of the Child:
Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”,
And a few other tidbits:
Article 2-2 States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.
Article 3-3 States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision.
Article 4 States Parties shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention. With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, States Parties shall undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international co-operation.
Well, I would suggest you read the entire thing. It’s quite an eye opener! But here are a few highlights:
* Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
* A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
* Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
* The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.
* A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
* According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
* Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
* Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
* Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
* Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
Instead of pulling out of the UN, as we should have done a LONG time ago, B. Hussein Obama is looking to exchange the rights of American parents for a “higher level of presence” in that bastion of democracy and freedom. (please insert extreme amount of sarcasm)
It’s quite frightening to know that there are some legislators who feel the threat is so great that we actually need an Amendment to our Constitution to protect the rights of the parents over the wants of the UN. H.J. Res. 42 was introduced 3/31/09 by Rep. Peter Hoekstra [R-MI].
Article–
‘Section 1. The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.
‘Section 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
‘Section 3. No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.’.
There are 70 cosponsors of this important bill, yet NOT ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT seems to have signed on to protect your rights as a parent.
For more information, and to get involved go to Parental Rights. I would also suggest, if your representative is not listed in the cosponsors, that you contact him/her as soon as possible, and urge them to sign on, and stand up for the rights of the American parents!
Oh crap ! What the hell is he gonna pull next? May I swipe this please?
Absolutely ma’am!
Umm…they have to get past the claymore mines around our perimeter first. And if they do, God help them. It won’t be pretty.
Dugg for great information.
Spread to help get the word out.
Thanks!
The Mr won’t let me put out mines…..or even put up a fence…..yet. We don’t have kids, other than four footed, but my grandchildren are already being brain washed by the public school system, and as hard as I try to counter it…. This is just one more assault on our sovereignty, aided and abetted by the current resident of the WH. I’d say that clown should be tried for treason, but that’s just me.
We homeschool, and already have them leaning right. No way am I turning my kids over to the public schools, the federal gov’t, or the U.N.
Obugger belongs in Gitmo, indefinitely.
When my oldest granddaughter lived with us last year, she was definitely being home schooled. Long story, but she’s now in public school. Fortunately, it’s a reasonably conservative area, but public school is still gubmint run, and they definitely have an agenda.
If you read the first part of the Amendment it seems ok, but the second part: Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served. I have a problem with this, I am not a lawyer, but it sounds like if the government can demonstrate their interest is necessary then that overrides the parent’s rights.
http://www.revivetherepublic.com/a_constitutional_amendment_to_support_parental_rights.htm
A natural right is stronger than a fundamental right. If a right is fundamental the state can show a compelling interest to regulate parenting choices. But when a right is a natural right, it is much more difficult.
The wording can be interpreted to give the state more rights, which is a big fear. I don’t know the reasoning behind wording it in that manner, but perhaps the intent is for the state to intervene when major abuse is involved?
@Daniel I appreciate the help. The more people who know, the better our chances, one can pray, that this will not be shoved down our throats.
I posted some of this on a bulletin on MySpace this is what I got back:
Oh what a bunch of crap. Nothing is going to change for responsible parents who don’t smoke crack. Sex Ed?! Come on, we all need it.
————————-
The part where she said “No one is going to get involved unless you are abusing or neglecting your child.” I thought showed the mentality of too many people out there. That powers such as this would not be abused. Not only that, I don’t think very many people out there especially the libs, have ant concept of sovereignty.
Is it possible to unfriend people on myspace? Jeeeez. Talk about head up hinder! I’m afraid you’re right. There seem to be way too many who are anxious for the One World, and they have NO idea what that entails.