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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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

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


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: 1308
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 # 84.

#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  


#21. To: Patriot Henry (#10)

Also, many times the child being violently beat is not a toddler and the "lesson" has nothing to do with danger.

Again, your irrational thoughts based upon your own abusive parent's irrational actions leads you to equate a slap on the hand with a baseball bat across the back.

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.

The average home is FILLED with dangers, be it a stove, a stairwell, windows, and a zillion other things that lie in wait. Unless of course you think a child should be locked up in a padded room 24/7, or strapped into a chair from which he can't escape, the average child can and WILL find things that can pose a danger and cause him harm.

If you can't teach a child NOT to do something dangerous because you have some irrational fear of "harming" that child, YOU are a failure.

As far as outlets, that was an example, but forks are pretty easy to find, and outlet covers DO come off, and are especially easy to access if the child pulls out a lamp from a socket and decides to probe it with some metal object, whether it be a fork, a paper clip, or anything else he might be able to find.

Or perhaps the best way is to let them just go ahead and do it, eh? Maybe if he just gets a nice strong shock and his heart doesn't stop, it absolved YOU of the need to teach that child a lesson, and YOU can feel good that YOU didn't have to "hurt" that child by slapping their hand when they were about to stick that paper clip into the socket.

Perhaps you should just shut up and get yourself a vasectomy, never date women with kids, and that way you'll never have to worry about it.

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-06-05   20:58:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: FormerLurker (#21)

Again, your irrational thoughts based upon your own abusive parent's irrational actions leads you to equate a slap on the hand with a baseball bat across the back.

No, it's the fact that hitting kids with a board bigger than a baseball bat is permitted in Ohio for teachers even.

Why are you in denial about the reality of "spanking"/hurting kids?

I'm not equating those two things - but since you only acknowledge the slap on the hand situation while ignoring that the beating with a stick is not only permitted and practiced in some situations it is also paid for by taxbux - you sure seem to be.

The average home is FILLED with dangers, be it a stove, a stairwell, windows, and a zillion other things that lie in wait. Unless of course you think a child should be locked up in a padded room 24/7, or strapped into a chair from which he can't escape, the average child can and WILL find things that can pose a danger and cause him harm.

Yep. And they will either learn from the parent or from the danger. If they aren't smart enough to learn by reason or emotion from the parent, or figure out from the danger, then they ain't gonna connect the pain with the problem.

As far as outlets, that was an example, but forks are pretty easy to find, and outlet covers DO come off, and are especially easy to access if the child pulls out a lamp from a socket and decides to probe it with some metal object, whether it be a fork, a paper clip, or anything else he might be able to find.

And again, so the kid is a kid, so you hurt them? That makes sense - if you are a barbarian.

Perhaps you should just shut up and get yourself a vasectomy, never date women with kids, and that way you'll never have to worry about it.

Even if I have a child holding a fork next to an outlet I won't be worried about it, and I also won't be hurting the child. I most especially won't be using the full range of "parental control" that you so blindly defend without considering it's nature.

Situation 7. Child gets a C+ in math instead of all Bs as required by the parental unit. Parental unit retrieves the beating stick (no larger than permitted by govt statute) and then uses it to make the child feel a great deal of pain while suffering no lasting injuries.

Why should that be permitted? Why should parents be allowed to inflict pain on their kids only "BECAUSE I SAID SO"?

There are two good reasons. The parents are barbarians - or because they are training their kids to complacently accept whatever irrational rules and punishments the state imposes no matter how cruel stupid and insane they are.

Patriot Henry  posted on  2010-06-06   13:08:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: Patriot Henry (#28)

No, it's the fact that hitting kids with a board bigger than a baseball bat is permitted in Ohio for teachers even.

Huh huh. Come back with some links from the state of Ohio that explains that law, and then perhaps I'll believe you.

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-06-06   18:07:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 84.

        There are no replies to Comment # 84.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 84.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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