Should have gotten out long ago. On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:31 PM, El Tortuga <[email protected]>wrote:
> > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
