Time to get out of that POS organization. Where can we buy blue helmet targets?
On Feb 6, 10:19 pm, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Travis > Subject: United Nations' threat: No more parental rights > > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=87929 > > Friday, February 06, 2009 > ------------------------------ > *THE NEW WORLD DISORDER > WorldNetDaily Exclusive* > United Nations' threat: No more parental rights > Expert: Pact would ban spankings, homeschooling if children object > ------------------------------ > Posted: February 05, 2009 > 12:00 am Eastern > > By Chelsea Schilling > ------------------------------ > WorldNetDaily A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit > children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the > death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families' religion is > on America's doorstep, a legal expert warns. > Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of > ParentalRights.org<http://parentalrights.org/>, > chairman of the Home School Legal Defense > Association<http://www.hslda.org/Default.asp?bhcp=1>and chancellor of > Patrick > Henry College <http://www.phc.edu/>. He told WND that under the U.N. > Convention on the Rights of the > Child<http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm>, > or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to > determine whether it is in the child's best interest. > "It's definitely on our doorstep," he said. "The left wants to make the > Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as > stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you > begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into > treaty form, we're stuck with it even if they lose the next election." > The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but > not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized > government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there's > been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to > it by international law. > Although signed by Madeleine Albright, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., on Feb. > 16, > 1995<http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&id=133&chapter=...>, > the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives' > efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily > would be enforced against parents. > The international treaty creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural > and even economic rights for every child and states that "the best interests > of the child shall be a primary consideration." While the treaty states that > parents or legal guardians "have primary responsibility for the upbringing > and development of the child," Farris said government will ultimately > determine whether parents' decisions are in their children's best interest. > The treaty is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has enforcement > powers. > According to the Parental Rights > website<http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7BB56D7393-...>, > the substance of the CRC dictates the following: > > - 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. > > *(Story continues below)* > "Where the child has a right fulfilled by the government, the > responsibilities shift from parents to the government," Farris said. "The > implications of all this shifting of responsibilities is that parents no > longer have the traditional roles of either being responsible for their > children or having the right to direct their children." > > Michael Farris > The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in > every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris > said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions > about their children's lives. > "If you think your child shouldn't go to the prom because their grades were > low, the U.N. Convention gives that power to the government to review your > decision and decide if it thinks that's what's best for your child," he > said. "If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook > account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to > determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the > child." > He continued, "If you think your child should go to church three times a > week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets > to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the > frequency of church attendance." > He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for > implementation of the policies. > Farris said it could be easier for President Obama to push for ratification > of the treaty than it was for the Clinton administration because "the > political world has changed." > At a Walden University presidential > debate<http://debate.waldenu.edu/debate-transcript>last October, Obama > indicated he may take action. > "It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless > land," Obama said. "I will review this and other treaties to ensure the > United States resumes its global leadership in human rights." > Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a strong supporter of the CRC, > and she now has direct control over the treaty's submission to the Senate > for ratification. The process requires a two-thirds vote. > Farris said Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., claimed in a private meeting just > before Christmas that the treaty would be ratified within two years. > In November, a group of three dozen senior foreign policy figures urged > Obama to strengthen U.S. relations with the U.N. Among other things, they > asked the president to push for Senate approval of treaties that have been > signed by the U.S. but not ratified. > Partnership for a Secure America Director Matthew Rojansky helped draft the > statement. He said the treaty commands strong support and is likely to be > acted on quickly, according to an Inter Press Service report. > While he said ratification is certain to come up, Farris said advocates of > the treaty will face fierce opposition. > "I think it is going to be the battle of their lifetime," he said. "There's > not enough political capital in Washington, D.C., to pass this treaty. We > will defeat it." > > -- > *~@):~{> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
