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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But..

Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’

Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC

Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines

New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics,

BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk,

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


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: 1382
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 # 25.

#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  


#9. To: FormerLurker, Patriot Henry, SonOfLiberty (#8)

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.

I used to babysit for my neighbors, and they had an extremely bratty three year old boy. This boy insisted on fiddling with the wooden stick propping up a large window on their enclosed porch. While I was watching him, he wasn't allowed to pull on the stick, but one day I was over there while his parents were home, and they kept trying to deter him with pleas of "No, Junior, baby mustn't play with with stick". What do you suppose happened?

Whammo, once Junior pulled that stick out the window came crashing down, damned near severing three of the little tykes fingers, they had to ruch him to the emergency room. I thought my smacking his hands away (and once or twice pushing him backward to fall on his butt) was much more productive. Of course, locking the little bugger in his room would have been even better, but he kept screaming so his Mommy would let him out after five minutes, and of course he'd head straight for the window.

All in all, I gotta vote for a slap on the hand given the options in that particular case.

PH: Yes, I realize the parents were idiots, the mother anyway. The father, best I recall, agreed that a slap on the hand was most elegant solution to safeguard Junior's long-term well-being.

Dakmar  posted on  2010-06-04   19:02:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Dakmar, FormerLurker, SonOfLiberty (#9)

All in all, I gotta vote for a slap on the hand given the options in that particular case.

There is a major difference between a slap on the hand in defense of the child and a series of premeditated or impulsive strikes intended to hurt or harm the child.

Situation 1. A child is about to touch a hot stove. The mother slaps their hand to keep them from burning their hand.

Situation 2. A child says "those shoes are ugly". The mother spanks the child 20 times.

Situation 3. A child finishes their homework by 6pm as their parent ordered them to. The parent flies off the handle and says "I said 5pm you brat" and then hits the child 5 times before spanking them 10 times.

According to the advocates of child abuse, all of these are fine and dandy.

Patriot Henry  posted on  2010-06-04   23:11:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Patriot Henry (#11)

Situation 1... Situation 2... Situation 3...

I didn't realize you were one of those screamin mimis.

Critter  posted on  2010-06-04   23:16:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Critter (#13)

I didn't realize you were one of those screamin mimis.

Situation 4. Child hits a triple winning the Little League game. After they get home, Dad says "I told you to get a home run" and then spanks the child 12 times.

Patriot Henry  posted on  2010-06-04   23:18:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Patriot Henry (#15) (Edited)

Situation 4. Child hits a triple winning the Little League game. After they get home, Dad says "I told you to get a home run" and then spanks the child 12 times.

Well there we go, your parents were horrible monsters so ALL parents must be horrible monsters. Get some help before you end up worse than them.

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-06-05   20:45:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: FormerLurker (#20)

Well there we go, your parents were horrible monsters so ALL parents must be horrible monsters. Get some help before you end up worse than them.

My parents were liberal "hippies" from Mass. Horrible monsters in some ways but they didn't hurt their kids (at least not physically speaking).

I never said ALL parents were horrible monsters. I was and am saying that the use of pain as a compliance technique is the method of monsters.

Is it okay to use electricity on a child? One can easily control the power so that it hurts no more and no less than a particular slap or spanking or belt.

Or how about making them kneel or maintain other painful physical positions?

And of course, using a large board to beat them is okay in many states, so you don't have any problem with that right?

You don't see any potential problem with authorizing parents to use pain and physical harm as a means of parenting with the only standard being that it can't result in any lasting physical damage? You don't see anything wrong with authorizing parents to abuse and torture their kids?

Situation 6. Everyday before dinner Momma spanks each child 25 times, for making her cook the dinner. Every single day until they are 18 or run away.

You are cool with that? After all, it's just "parental control" right?

Patriot Henry  posted on  2010-06-06   12:36:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Patriot Henry (#23)

You don't see anything wrong with authorizing parents to abuse and torture their kids?

Situation 6. Everyday before dinner Momma spanks each child 25 times, for making her cook the dinner. Every single day until they are 18 or run away.

Gee, could up pump up the melodrama a bit more? Even your hypotheticals are ridiculous for a person who claims to have a firm grasp on reason.

abraxas  posted on  2010-06-06   12:55:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 25.

#27. To: abraxas (#25)

Gee, could up pump up the melodrama a bit more? Even your hypotheticals are ridiculous for a person who claims to have a firm grasp on reason.

Many parents are stupid, insane, or otherwise incompetent and they create situations which are melodramatic and dramatic for no good reason.

The only thing y'all have done with the situations I have posited is to ignore them. You do the exact same thing with the real life equivalents. You ignore them. You remain ignorant and cover your ears and your eyes and pretend that the only use of pain compliance is moderate, reasonable, and judiciously executed by a caring loving parent.

Why do y'all have to ignore the real world applications of parental pain compliance? Is it because you actually hurt your kids for no good reason in a barbaric and savage manner, or because your parents did that to you, or because you are so naive and innocent you just can't imagine how horrible and stupid other people are?

Patriot Henry  posted on  2010-06-06 13:06:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 25.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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