[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up!

Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It!

Mike Johnson Holds 'Private Meeting' With Jewish Leaders, Pledges to Screen Out Anti-Israel GOP Candidates

Jimmy Kimmel’s career over after ‘disgusting’ lies about Charlie Kirk shooter [Plus America's Homosexual-In-Chief checks-In, Clot-Shots, Iryna Zarutska and More!]

1200 Electric School Busses pulled from service due to fires.

Is the Deep State Covering Up Charlie Kirk’s Murder? The FBI’s Bizarre Inconsistencies Exposed

Local Governments Can Be Ignorant Pissers!!

Cash Jordan: Gangs PLUNDER LA Mall... as California’s “NO JAILS” Strategy IMPLODES

Margin Debt Tops Historic $1 Trillion, Your House Will Be Taken Blindly Warns Dohmen

Tucker Carlson LIVE: America After Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk allegedly recently refused $150 million from Israel to take more pro Israel stances

"NATO just declared War on Russia!"Co; Douglas Macgregor

If You're Trying To Lose Weight But Gaining Belly Fat, Watch Insulin

Arabica Coffee Prices Soar As Analyst Warns of "Weather Disasters" Risk Denting Global Production

Candace Owens: : I Know What Happened at the Hamptons (Ackman confronted Charlie Kirk)

Illegal Alien Drunk Driver Mows Down, Kills 16-Year-Old Girl Who Rejected His Lewd Advances

STOP Drinking These 5 Coffees – They’re Quietly DESTROYING Your Gut & Hormones

This Works Better Than Ozempic for Belly Fat

Cinnamon reduces fat

How long do health influencers live? Episode 1 of 3.

'Armed Queers' Marxist Revolutionaries Under Investigation For Possible Foreknowledge Of Kirk's Assassination Plot

Who Killed Charlie Kirk? the Case Against Israel

Sen. Grassley announces a whistleblower has exposed the FBI program “Arctic Frost” for targeting 92 Republican groups

Keto, Ivermectin, & Fenbendazole: New Cancer Treatment Protocol Gains Momentum

Bill Ackman 'Hammered' Charlie Kirk in August 'Intervention' for Platforming Israel Critics

"I've Never Experienced Crime Of This Magnitude Before": 20-Year Veteran Austrian Police Spox

The UK is F*CKED, and the people have had enough

No place for hate apeech

America and Israel both told Qatar to allow Hamas to stay in their country

Video | Robert Kennedy brings down the house.


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Threat to Parents' Rights a Bigger Issue than Rights of a Child
Source: townhall.com
URL Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/Mary ... r_issue_than_rights_of_a_child
Published: May 26, 2010
Author: Marybeth Hicks
Post Date: 2010-05-26 09:06:24 by Eric Stratton
Keywords: None
Views: 1183
Comments: 132

Threat to Parents' Rights a Bigger Issue than Rights of a Child
Marybeth Hicks
Wednesday, May 26, 2010

If you’re a parent, you’re probably too busy doing the day-to-day work of raising your children to worry about an international treaty that could actually undermine your authority over them.

But if you’ve ever insisted that your teenager drag himself out of bed on a Sunday morning to attend church with the family, or required him to find a part-time job to pay for the increase in your car insurance, or – heaven forbid – if you’ve ever spanked a young child for an act of willful disobedience, there are folks who’d like to override your parental judgment.

Folks like President Obama, in fact.

The issue of parental rights is at the heart of the ongoing debate over the US’s failure to ratify the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Mr. Obama thinks it’s a travesty that the US and Somalia – a country not known as a beacon of human rights – are the only two nations that haven’t ratified this treaty. Not only does he support its intrusions into our national sovereignty on behalf of children, he’s openly embarrassed to be on the short list with Somalia.

Up to now, it’s been a worried American homeschool community that most vocally opposes the CRC. That’s because the treaty clearly places responsibility for the education of children in the hands of the federal government. Such a mandate would certainly threaten the freedom of states to allow, and of parents to choose, homeschooling as an option to educate their children.

But it’s not just homeschooling parents who ought to be nervous about the CRC. We all should because the language of the treaty – which would supersede all American law other than the Constitution – radically changes the authority structure between parents, children and the state. In short, in line after line, it applies the standard of “the best interests of the child” to determine what’s permissible and what isn’t.

For example, the treaty creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion." So if your child doesn’t want to go to a religious school, the law would favor his preference, not your desire to instill your faith.

It prohibits "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy," which means you’d better not snoop in your son’s pockets while sorting the laundry. This could literally be illegal, and too bad if you find something to set off your parental alarm.

In fact, in Scotland, a CRC nation, a pamphlet for Scottish children explaining how they are helped by the treaty says, “In Scotland, the law recognises that your parents should normally be the people who care for you, if it’s the best thing for you.”

That’s very different from a provision that might say, “You have the right to the protection and care of your parents and can only be removed from your family if you are the victim of abuse or neglect.” The reason it doesn’t read this way is because that’s not what the CRC intends.

And who decides what’s “the best thing”? Take a guess.

It makes sense that the US stands nearly alone in refusing to ratify this treaty, since we live in the safest, most prosperous, most desirable country in which to be a child.

The CRC makes sense in places where girls can be sold into marriage at age 10, or where children are routinely victims of the sex trades, or of child labor abuse.

But in the US, the only logical reason to sign the CRC is to expand, through that new “international order” the president mentioned this past weekend, the role of the federal government into the daily lives and decisions of American parents and families.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has introduced S.R. 519, opposing ratification of the CRC. He hopes to find 34 co-sponsors and thereby signal to the president that there’s no need to send the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent since it wouldn’t pass. This is the end-run play; the game winner is a Parental Rights Amendment to the Constitution.

It’s a good time to call a Senator or two and encourage them to join in co-sponsoring Sen. DeMint’s resolution.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 121.

#1. To: Eric Stratton (#0)

or – heaven forbid – if you’ve ever spanked a young child for an act of willful disobedience, there are folks who’d like to override your parental judgment.

Assaulting kids is not within the proper realm of "parental judgment" for any being more advanced than the chimps.

If the best or only option one can come up with is to use ones overwhelming physical advantage to hurt ones child - then one is a failed parent who is unfit to have custody of anyone.

Patriot Henry  posted on  2010-05-26   12:11:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Patriot Henry (#1)

If the best or only option one can come up with is to use ones overwhelming physical advantage to hurt ones child - then one is a failed parent who is unfit to have custody of anyone.

That's insane. You know full well that spanking isn't about inflict injury, it is to establish societal norms. Often times the only way to deal with a two-year-old is a slap on the hand and immediate denouement. Outlawing common sense empowers tyrants.

Dakmar  posted on  2010-05-26   21:09:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Dakmar (#3)

That's insane. You know full well that spanking isn't about inflict injury, it is to establish societal norms. Often times the only way to deal with a two-year-old is a slap on the hand and immediate denouement. Outlawing common sense empowers tyrants.

Spanking is about inflicting pain. Using pain as a negative reinforcement method on a child is a means befitting sociopathic Pavlovian social engineers and barbaric brutes.

If the only or best means available to you to communicate and teach a 2 year old is brute force - then you have failed and the child has not.

Patriot Henry  posted on  2010-06-04   12:30:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Patriot Henry (#4)

Have you ever had children, or are you just preaching what you've been told?

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-06-04   13:00:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: FormerLurker (#5)

Have you ever had children, or are you just preaching what you've been told?

Neither. My views are determined through my using my ability to reason.

A 120-220+ pound person hurting a 20-80lb person under the pretext of "BECAUSE I SAID SO" is behavior that belongs to primates, primitives, and the like.

Patriot Henry  posted on  2010-06-04   14:22:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Patriot Henry (#6)

Neither. My views are determined through my using my ability to reason.

Ah hah, another know it all who's never raised a child who thinks he knows everything there is to know. Go make a baby and come back to us when you have some real experience with children, and don't rely on bullshit you read in books for your "expertise".

A 120-220+ pound person hurting a 20-80lb person under the pretext of "BECAUSE I SAID SO" is behavior that belongs to primates, primitives, and the like.

A parent doesn't spank a child to "hurt them", a parent spanks a child to teach them things like they can't stick forks into electrical outlets and other such important things. Be around a toddler sometime, they are VERY curious, stubborn, and determined to do what it is they feel like doing, and the ONLY way to teach them NOT to do that thing that happens to be EXTREMELY dangerous is to give them a mild spank on the bum or a slap on the hand, since words do NOT matter.

I suppose people like you would try to reason with them, and then allow them to kill themselves since you are so afraid of "hurting" them. That, or allow them to do whatever they please, from whipping turds all over the house, to breaking everything they can find, if so inclined.

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-06-04   15:16:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: FormerLurker (#8)

Ah hah, another know it all who's never raised a child who thinks he knows everything there is to know. Go make a baby and come back to us when you have some real experience with children, and don't rely on bullshit you read in books for your "expertise".

As I said, I base my views on REASON. I also never claimed to know everything there is to know about the subject of raising kids. I only said that spanking kids is wrong, and should be illegal, just like spanking your parents, your siblings, your neighbors, your teachers, your policemen (try spanking a cop the next time you meet a jerk in uniform and see how that goes for you).

Assaulting a child is the sign of being weak, morally intellectually and emotionally.

Perhaps I should speak on your level: UGGG UGGG UGGG uhhh UGG!

A parent doesn't spank a child to "hurt them"

Right. That's why they hit the child and the child cries and screams in pain in direct response to being hit. Cause and effect are not related?

a parent spanks a child to teach them things like they can't stick forks into electrical outlets and other such important things.

Yes, other important things, like to always get "A"s, or to take out the trash now and not in five minutes, or because the parent changed the rule/standard in an arbitrary and irrational manner, or because.... well there's so many parents and so many reasons they abuse their kids there isn't any point trying to list them all.

" Be around a toddler sometime, they are VERY curious, stubborn, and determined to do what it is they feel like doing, and the ONLY way to teach them NOT to do that thing that happens to be EXTREMELY dangerous is to give them a mild spank on the bum or a slap on the hand, since words do NOT matter. "

That depends on the child - some kids can understand words and the concept of danger at that age. It also depends on the parents ability to communicate. Also, many times the child being violently beat is not a toddler and the "lesson" has nothing to do with danger.

>>I suppose people like you would try to reason with them, and then allow them to kill themselves since you are so afraid of "hurting" them. That, or allow them to do whatever they please, from whipping turds all over the house, to breaking everything they can find, if so inclined.

If they don't respond to reason they are not old enough to be around dangers. If you think a 2 year old, a fork, and an uncovered outlet is a safe situation in which any dangers that arise can be settled by hitting the kid then YOU ARE A FAILURE.

When you put a child into a dangerous situation and hit them for being a kid in the dangerous situation that you put them in - YOU ARE A FAILURE.

Patriot Henry  posted on  2010-06-04   23:04:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Patriot Henry (#10) (Edited)

As I said, I base my views on REASON.

No, you base your views on your preconceived notions, where you have ZERO knowledge to base your "reasoning" on, and view any sort of parental control as "abuse".

I also never claimed to know everything there is to know about the subject of raising kids. I only said that spanking kids is wrong, and should be illegal,

It is wrong to show a child that what they are doing is dangerous? Since you appear to think toddlers have the same intelligence as a grown adult, perhaps you should find a person willing to let you sit down with their 2 year old and discuss right and wrong.

just like spanking your parents, your siblings, your neighbors, your teachers, your policemen (try spanking a cop the next time you meet a jerk in uniform and see how that goes for you).

Adults have the ABILITY to reason, toddlers do NOT. AND, those other people are NOT your direct responsibility, whereas your own child IS your direct responsibility, and what THEY do YOU are responsibile for.

Assaulting a child is the sign of being weak, morally intellectually and emotionally.

You are one sick idiotic bastard if you think a slap on the hand is the same as a smack across the face with a closed fist.

Perhaps I should speak on your level: UGGG UGGG UGGG uhhh UGG!

Perhaps that's what YOUR kid will be doing when he drinks the Drano that you let him drink since you were afraid to yell at him not to do it, or to slap his hand when he first grabbed it.

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-06-05   20:44:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: FormerLurker (#19)

No, you base your views on your preconceived notions, where you have ZERO knowledge to base your "reasoning" on, and view any sort of parental control as "abuse".

I didn't say that about "any sort of parental control". The offensive use of pain is an abuse. Barbarians, savages, criminals, and other low life losers use this means of communication. The more humane and intelligent people have no need for it. As I recall from your earlier post you do not abuse your kids - so why do you defend the "right" of others to do so?

How about retards and senile old folks who are in a citizens custody. Is it okay to hurt them if they get out of line?

It is wrong to show a child that what they are doing is dangerous?

No. However, if the danger is "fork in an outlet" and the lesson taught is "Papa gonna hurt you real good" then that is dangerous. Not only was the danger not addressed, a new danger was introduced.

Since you appear to think toddlers have the same intelligence as a grown adult, perhaps you should find a person willing to let you sit down with their 2 year old and discuss right and wrong.

That doesn't seem to make much sense. Grown adults can't discuss right and wrong. They are too dumbed down. From what I've seen most kids, if raised well, by the age of two can understand simple things such as "DANGER" in the tone of a parents voice and they can respond appropriately.

AND, those other people are NOT your direct responsibility, whereas your own child IS your direct responsibility, and what THEY do YOU are responsibile for.

If you can only control your responsibility by hurting it - then again, you have failed. That is a sign of failure. If you have employees, you are responsible for the quality and quantity of work they output. If you have to resort to hitting them, you have failed.

You are one sick idiotic bastard if you think a slap on the hand is the same as a smack across the face with a closed fist.

They are different in terms of technique and degree - but they are same in principle if the purpose is to hurt the victim.

Perhaps that's what YOUR kid will be doing when he drinks the Drano that you let him drink since you were afraid to yell at him not to do it, or to slap his hand when he first grabbed it.

If I fail, or by some chance have an idiot for a kid, then I will yell at or slap the hand of my own child. Otherwise I'll use communication, based on reason and or emotion depending upon the situation and the child and their age and nature. A simple "NOOOO" in a voice filled with horror and fear and command should be enough to control most kids.

In addition - why would I be storing children and Draino in the same area?

Patriot Henry  posted on  2010-06-06   12:29:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: Patriot Henry (#22)

As I recall from your earlier post you do not abuse your kids - so why do you defend the "right" of others to do so?

People with functional grey matter realize the difference between a slap on the hand and "abuse". You apparently can't understand the distinction between the two.

How about retards and senile old folks who are in a citizens custody. Is it okay to hurt them if they get out of line?

There is a difference between an infant mind who CAN understand actions and consequences if taught correctly, and those who have lost the ability to do so. In those cases, physical or chemical restraint (in response to truly aggressive and violent behavior) is the only option. Confinement to "safe" rooms is required for people who would otherwise harm themselves or others.

No. However, if the danger is "fork in an outlet" and the lesson taught is "Papa gonna hurt you real good" then that is dangerous. Not only was the danger not addressed, a new danger was introduced.

A slap on the hand and a stern NO does not equate to "DANGER" or "Papa gonna hurt you real good". Electrocution IS a REAL danger, and may very well be lethal.

By the time you allow him to electocute himself, he will be dead, and YOU will be going to jail for criminal negligence. Perhaps we'll be reading about you in the paper, or seeing your face on TV sometime in the future.

From what I've seen most kids, if raised well, by the age of two can understand simple things such as "DANGER" in the tone of a parents voice and they can respond appropriately.

LOL!!!!

How many REAL kids have you been around, I'm not talking about the ones on TELEVISION.

If you have employees, you are responsible for the quality and quantity of work they output. If you have to resort to hitting them, you have failed.

Again, you equate a toddler's mind with that of college educated adults. Are you retarded?

They are different in terms of technique and degree - but they are same in principle if the purpose is to hurt the victim.

Wrong. The purpose of mild corporal punishment is to TEACH the child, and to HELP him or her. Abuse on the other hand is done purely to inflict pain, and to hurt that person.

A simple "NOOOO" in a voice filled with horror and fear and command should be enough to control most kids.

In addition - why would I be storing children and Draino in the same area?

The kid will either laugh at you or ignore you. It's obvious you've never been around toddlers.

As far as WHY the Drano would be in the same area, well, unless you put locks on all your cabinets and drawers, or unless you never clean your home and live in a pig sty, I'm sure SOMEWHERE in that house there might be something as dangerous as Drano, which a child can and WILL find eventually.

Child locks only work on really young kids, where the more clever older toddlers can figure out how to open them.

If you've never slapped his hand, he'll figure, what's the big deal, the most daddy will do is give me funny looks and make silly noises.

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-06-06   18:39:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: FormerLurker (#89)

From what I've seen most kids, if raised well, by the age of two can understand simple things such as "DANGER" in the tone of a parents voice and they can respond appropriately.

LOL!!!!

Let me throw in my LOL as well.

DANGER!!!!! Perhaps it would be more effective with five exclamation points.

abraxas  posted on  2010-06-06   19:08:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: abraxas (#96)

DANGER!!!!! Perhaps it would be more effective with five exclamation points.

I've already used a lot of exclamation points in my last post to Pat (hmmm, ever watch SNL?), so I'll try this on for size..

DANGER DANGER YOUNG CHILD DANGER DANGER

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-06-06   19:21:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#102. To: FormerLurker (#99)

DANGER DANGER YOUNG CHILD DANGER DANGER

lol......might I suggest using black letters on bright yellow. Paste them all over the house, at any spot where DANGER!!!! might be lurking.

Great plan!! Kids love bright colors!! Maybe a big neon DRAINO sign where ever that might be placed in the household so that the little children stay away from there..........

abraxas  posted on  2010-06-06   19:30:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#105. To: abraxas, FormerLurker (#102)

lol......might I suggest using black letters on bright yellow. Paste them all over the house, at any spot where DANGER!!!! might be lurking.

Great plan!! Kids love bright colors!! Maybe a big neon DRAINO sign where ever that might be placed in the household so that the little children stay away from there..........

No, no, what you need is the biggest stick allowed by law so that you can "knock some sense" into the little children. Yep. That makes perfect sense. We'll hit the kids to keep them from being hurt.

That's why you keep kids away from guns by leaving razors open in front of the guns.

Very young children must always be kept in a safe closed space or under close supervision. Substituting proper precautions and judgment calls with hitting the child for your error is terrible parenting. Those old enough to comprehend the dangers and maintain control over their behavior may be punished in many ways other than violence should they fail to obey (not their parents), but the sensible standard dictated by the situation for their behavior.

Patriot Henry  posted on  2010-06-06   19:37:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#107. To: Patriot Henry (#105)

Very young children must always be kept in a safe closed space or under close supervision.

What an original idea!! Lock them up in a padded sell until they are at least three, eh? Be an armed guard for your child to assist with fear development and massive insecurity.

Does your idiocy have no limits?

abraxas  posted on  2010-06-06   19:42:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#115. To: abraxas, formerlurker (#107)

What an original idea!! Lock them up in a padded sell until they are at least three, eh? Be an armed guard for your child to assist with fear development and massive insecurity.

I don't think it is necessary to lock them up. I should hope that I am able to outsmart the kids under 5 or 6. If after that they outsmart me I don't think it will create a danger, it would be them keeping me from manufacturing one.

Does your idiocy have no limits?

My idiocy that says if one has to hit kids under the age of 3 because you failed to keep them safe then it's your own stupid fault? Yep - where the force is defensive, that's one limit, and where the need for force would not be prevented by reasonable precaution, that's another limit.

Patriot Henry  posted on  2010-06-06   19:55:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#117. To: Patriot Henry, all (#115)

I should hope that I am able to outsmart the kids under 5 or 6.

Who can find a parent that hasn't had a toddler wander out of sight? Oh, but Partiot Henry is smarter than ALL parents have EVER been and this will NEVER happen on his watch......lol.

abraxas  posted on  2010-06-06   20:02:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#121. To: abraxas, FormerLurker, Eric Stratton, Artisan, Ragin1 (#117) (Edited)

At this point, the poster "acting" stuck in dementia is appearing to be more than a garden-variety ego-surfer, actually a shill, a troll, a time-waster, engaging the intelligent posters showing compassion for his feigned pathetic ignorance in order to deflect focus away from more weighty matters, like cutting the crap in Israel's latest propaganda, the oil volcano and the imminent deliberate collapse of the world's economic system.

The moniker may be a clue; the "Patrick Henry" moniker was already taken by the law-knowledgeable person so the fallback was to Patriot, the last refuge of a scoundrel! Also, an homage to the misleadingly named "Patriot Act", whose more apt name would have been the "Traitor Act".

See, we can all riff, but does it ring true? 8=>

Besides the lack of common manners, the display of petulance and the personal attacks on those attempting to reach "him" with reason are enough of a smoking ass to reveal the smoke-blowing agenda.

In any case, reasoned discourse with a dedicated ego-surfer content to live inside the ass of the nanny state, is a waste of valuable resources!

HighLairEon  posted on  2010-06-06   21:06:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 121.

#122. To: HighLairEon (#121)

At this point, the poster "acting" stuck in dementia is appearing to be more than a garden-variety ego-surfer, actually a shill, a troll, a time-waster, engaging the intelligent posters showing compassion for his feigned pathetic ignorance in order to deflect focus away from more weighty matters, like cutting the crap in Israel's latest propaganda, the oil volcano and the imminent deliberate collapse of the world's economic system.

The barbarism rampant in parenting techniques, both traditional and modern, is connected directly to those issues. All part of the same human system of society.

The moniker may be a clue; the "Patrick Henry" moniker was already taken by the law-knowledgeable person so the fallback was to Patriot, the last refuge of a scoundrel! Also, an homage to the misleadingly named "Patriot Act", whose more apt name would have been the "Traitor Act".

It's a play on words. It's also a test of reading comprehension - many people even after many posts interacting with me don't realize I am not Patrick Henry.

See, we can all riff, but does it ring true?

In any case, reasoned discourse with a dedicated ego-surfer content to live inside the ass of the nanny state, is a waste of valuable resources!

Of course, ignore the one questioning the infant beneath your boot and the little one shrieking under your raised hand. Was there ever any other option?

Patriot Henry  posted on  2010-06-06 21:20:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#127. To: HighLairEon (#121)

The moniker may be a clue; the "Patrick Henry" moniker was already taken by the law-knowledgeable person so the fallback was to Patriot,

Damn. This idiot had me. I initially posted thinking it was him/her. Great catch.

Ragin1  posted on  2010-06-07 18:04:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 121.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]