[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: 1175
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 # 3.

#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  


Replies to Comment # 3.

#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  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 3.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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