Protect against Nazi America

[John3v36]

Adolf Hitler once said:

“He Alone, Who owns the youth, gain the future”
Adolf Hitler

http://www.parentalrightsus.org is trying to get a constitutionally protected through the proposed Parental Rights Amendment which would state:

SECTION 1
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a
fundamental right.

SECTION 2
Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without
demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest
order and not otherwise served.

SECTION 3
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to
supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.​

I see this as a Good thing. Check out the video :smilewinkgrin:

http://www.parentalrightsus.org/Overruled/

 

[John3v36]

I forgot to say many Americans are losing their parental right and do not even know it. There is nothing in the construction to protect us as parent so it is left up to judges to define what parents right are. To me this is a scary thing:tear:

 

[InTheLight]

SECTION 3
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

Oh great, another solution looking for a problem to solve.

 

[Havensdad]

SECTION 3
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

Oh great, another solution looking for a problem to solve.

What? There is a current UN treaty that abrogates the rights of parents, that the US has not yet signed. If signed, the government would essentially have final say in regards to your children. One lady actually had her children taken away (due to the treaties implementation in Europe), because she told her 5 year old that she was sinful, and needed Christ. It was determined to be mental and psychological abuse.

The treaty, among other things, denies the rights of parents to instruct their children on religious matters contrary to the child's wishes, and forbids the parent from pushing things like "gender identity" on them.

 

[InTheLight]

What? There is a current UN treaty that abrogates the rights of parents, that the US has not yet signed. If signed, the government would essentially have final say in regards to your children. One lady actually had her children taken away (due to the treaties implementation in Europe), because she told her 5 year old that she was sinful, and needed Christ. It was determined to be mental and psychological abuse.

Do you have a link to information on this treaty?

 

[Robert Snow]

Do you have a link to information on this treaty?

I guess he is still looking for the link! :tear:

 

[Havensdad]

Do you have a link to information on this treaty?

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CRC.C.GC.8.En?OpenDocument

http://www.parentalrights.org/verti...ds/{D55811D1-F884-44EE-892C-793B36FBA5D9}.PDF

 

[John3v36]

Thank you heavendad. You seem up on the issue :type:

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CRC.C.GC.8.En?OpenDocument

http://www.parentalrights.org/verti...ds/{D55811D1-F884-44EE-892C-793B36FBA5D9}.PDF

 

[InTheLight]

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CRC.C.GC.8.En?OpenDocument

Not a word in there about a treaty. There was plenty of references to encouraging each individual state (nation) to pass laws consistent with the findings of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Committee is encouraged that a growing number of States are taking
appropriate legislative and other measures to assert children’s right to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity and to equal protection under the law.

and

The Committee has welcomed the fact that, in many States, the
Convention or its principles have been incorporated into domestic law.

http://www.parentalrights.org/verti...ds/{D55811D1-F884-44EE-892C-793B36FBA5D9}.PDF

Article 7, part 2 says: States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law

Not a word about a treaty. In fact, the U.N. is asking each nation to develop their own sovereign laws that would follow the recommendation of the committee's findings and conclusions.


Article 14, part 1: States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.


Furthermore, I saw nothing about gender identity. So the fact is that there is no treaty and there is nothing about gender identity. So, as I said about the original post, a solution in search of a problem.

BTW, I loathe the United Nations, but let's get our facts straight.

 

[mandym]

but let's get our facts straight.

ok?

Hoekstra last week introduced a bill in the House to amend the U.S. Constitution to permanently “enshrine” in American society an inviolable set of parents’ rights. The bill had 70 co-sponsors, all Republicans, including Minority Whip Eric Cantor and Minority Leader John A. Boehner.

The bill, said Hoekstra, is intended to stem the “slow erosion” of parents’ rights and to circumvent the effects of a United Nations treaty he believes “clearly undermines parental rights in the United States.”

The treaty to which he refers is the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a 20-year-old document signed by President Bill Clinton in 1995 but never ratified. The treaty sets international standards for government obligations to children in areas that range from protection from abuse and exploitation to ensuring a child’s right to free expression.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21041.html

Sen. Barbara Boxer is urging the U.S. to ratify a United Nations measure meant to expand the rights of children, a move critics are calling a gross assault on parental rights that could rob the U.S. of sovereignty.

The California Democrat is pushing the Obama administration to review the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a nearly 20-year-old international agreement that has been foundering on American shores since it was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995 but never ratified.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights#ixzz1WTF4TtUX

This treaty would ban spanking, home schooling, and even church attendance …if the kids reject them!

What we are writing about here is… the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. This horrific UN treaty has been around for a good 20 years now and 193 countries have signed on to it. Only two countries have not signed it. The US and Somalia! (Go figure!)

The Clinton Administration signed it but it was never sent to the Senate for ratification. It was understood, at the time, that it had a snowball’s chance of being ratified by a Senate with a teaspoon full of common sense. But common sense is something in extremely short supply in the Senate, and the House, for that matter, these day. It is almost certain to be ratified if brought up before the socialist Senate we have today. And… guess what? California democrat (What else), Barbara Boxer, is pushing to have it brought up in the Senate for consideration. More than likely she will have her way.

http://westernfrontamerica.com/2009/03/02/treaty-childrens-rights-outweigh-parental-rights/

Washington (CNSNews.com) - Sen. Jim DeMint (R- S.C.) said that if President Barack Obama gets his way and the Senate ratifies the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the precedent would be set to place parental rights under the jurisdiction of the international community.

“We believe we need to take clear action here in Congress to protect the rights of parents to raise their children," DeMint said at a Wednesday panel discussion. "This treaty would, in fact, establish a precedent that those rights have been given over to the international community."

http://www.cnsnews.com/node/70584

by J. Michael Smith
HSLDA President

Could a 10-person panel of foreign nationals dictate, with the full weight of U.S. law, how we raise our children? This idea seems far-fetched, even ridiculous, but, unfortunately, it is possible.

The problem stems from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been adopted by 192 nations. The treaty creates civil, economic, social and cultural rights for every child. The Clinton administration sought ratification, but the treaty was not approved by the U.S. Senate because of opposition from senators who were concerned it would undermine parental rights.

For example, the convention gives children autonomy regarding the school they attend, the friends they have and the activities they choose. If there is a disagreement, the parent’s decisions could be reviewed by a third party. Consequently, parents could be subject to “identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up.”

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/washingtontimes/200608280.asp

 

[Havensdad]

Not a word in there about a treaty. There was plenty of references to encouraging each individual state (nation) to pass laws consistent with the findings of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Committee is encouraged that a growing number of States are taking
appropriate legislative and other measures to assert children’s right to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity and to equal protection under the law.

and

The Committee has welcomed the fact that, in many States, the
Convention or its principles have been incorporated into domestic law.




Article 7, part 2 says: States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law

Not a word about a treaty. In fact, the U.N. is asking each nation to develop their own sovereign laws that would follow the recommendation of the committee's findings and conclusions.


Article 14, part 1: States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.


Furthermore, I saw nothing about gender identity. So the fact is that there is no treaty and there is nothing about gender identity. So, as I said about the original post, a solution in search of a problem.

BTW, I loathe the United Nations, but let's get our facts straight.

I do have my facts straight. You need to think a little more, and investigate a little more, before you post reactionary responses. I understand that, because I am much the same way, but it makes you look foolish.

First, most "teaties" are called "conventions." The terms are synonymous.

Definition of "Convention"

a : agreement, contract b : an agreement between states for regulation of matters affecting all of them c : a compact between opposing commanders especially concerning prisoner exchange or armistice d : a general agreement about basic principles or procedures; also : a principle or procedure accepted as true or correct by convention

Second, if you will read the text of the article, you will notice that it does not agree with what you say. Nations that ratify the Convention are bound to observe it (http://www.crin.org/resources/treaties/CRC.asp?catName=International+Treatie). They are bound to not only actively work to conform their laws to the provisions of the treaty, (with yearly reports on progress), but they become immediately subject to international courts.

Understand, this is not coming from a conspiracy theory website, but from the UN website itself. I have spent a lot of time researching this particular subject, and I encourage you to do the same, instead of simply reacting with googled bits of inaccurate information. Again, this is a vital issue that people need to understand!

 

[mandym]

I do have my facts straight. You need to think a little more, and investigate a little more, before you post reactionary responses. I understand that, because I am much the same way, but it makes you look foolish.

First, most "teaties" are called "conventions." The terms are synonymous.

Definition of "Convention"

a : agreement, contract b : an agreement between states for regulation of matters affecting all of them c : a compact between opposing commanders especially concerning prisoner exchange or armistice d : a general agreement about basic principles or procedures; also : a principle or procedure accepted as true or correct by convention

Second, if you will read the text of the article, you will notice that it does not agree with what you say. Nations that ratify the Convention are bound to observe it (http://www.crin.org/resources/treaties/CRC.asp?catName=International+Treatie). They are bound to not only actively work to conform their laws to the provisions of the treaty, (with yearly reports on progress), but they become immediately subject to international courts.

Understand, this is not coming from a conspiracy theory website, but from the UN website itself. I have spent a lot of time researching this particular subject, and I encourage you to do the same, instead of simply reacting with googled bits of inaccurate information. Again, this is a vital issue that people need to understand!

Anyone who is politically aware already knows about this. It is 20 years old. Not sure why this person is so uninfomred.

 

[InTheLight]

I do have my facts straight. You need to think a little more, and investigate a little more, before you post reactionary responses. I understand that, because I am much the same way, but it makes you look foolish.

At first glance it looked like one of the many inaccurate emails that make the rounds.

First, most "teaties" are called "conventions."

That is an awesome typo! Thanks for the chuckle.

Definition of "Convention"

a : agreement, contract b : an agreement between states for regulation of matters affecting all of them c : a compact between opposing commanders especially concerning prisoner exchange or armistice d : a general agreement about basic principles or procedures; also : a principle or procedure accepted as true or correct by convention

Yes, convention can mean an agreement between nations. Good point, I totally blew by that.

Second, if you will read the text of the article, you will notice that it does not agree with what you say. Nations that ratify the Convention are bound to observe it (http://www.crin.org/resources/treaties/CRC.asp?catName=International+Treatie). They are bound to not only actively work to conform their laws to the provisions of the treaty, (with yearly reports on progress), but they become immediately subject to international courts.

Where is the part about the international courts? I didn't see any enforcement mechanism in the stuff that you posted. All I saw in the documents were the ability for other U.N. entities, like the World Health Org. or UNESCO (for example) to sit in on committee meetings.

Understand, this is not coming from a conspiracy theory website, but from the UN website itself. I have spent a lot of time researching this particular subject, and I encourage you to do the same, instead of simply reacting with googled bits of inaccurate information. Again, this is a vital issue that people need to understand!

And I want to know more.

 

[InTheLight]

Mandym, thanks for the excerpts and the links. I consider myself to be somewhat well informed but I'd never heard of this. I have kids so it's an important issue for me.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

More of the typical overreacting paranoia from the right. :sleep:

 

[Havensdad]

More of the typical overreacting paranoia from the right. :sleep:

That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. This is not a partisan issue. There are quite a few blue dogs blowing the trumpet on this as well. This is a SERIOUS threat to our parental rights.

But you fight the war like all stupid liberals do, "Oh, guys, there is nothing to worry about. Just relax. You won't even miss those rights..."

 

[freeatlast]

Adolf Hitler once said:

“He Alone, Who owns the youth, gain the future”
Adolf Hitler

http://www.parentalrightsus.org is trying to get a constitutionally protected through the proposed Parental Rights Amendment which would state:

SECTION 1

The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a
fundamental right.​

SECTION 2
Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without
demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest
order and not otherwise served.​

SECTION 3
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to
supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.​

I see this as a Good thing. Check out the video :smilewinkgrin:

http://www.parentalrightsus.org/Overruled/

This is interesting and needs attention. I do have concern about section 2 posted. It sounds like it leaves the door wide open that they are trying to close. Can you elaborate?

 

[billwald]

Nothing is going to change as long as most parents use the public schools for free babysitting.

 

[Havensdad]

Nothing is going to change as long as most parents use the public schools for free babysitting.

True: we need to get rid of public schools, and the taxes that fund them.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. This is not a partisan issue. There are quite a few blue dogs blowing the trumpet on this as well. This is a SERIOUS threat to our parental rights.

But you fight the war like all stupid liberals do, "Oh, guys, there is nothing to worry about. Just relax. You won't even miss those rights..."

MOST ridiculous EVER? Not partisan, yet “stupid liberals”?

Your hyperbole and ad hominems prove my point. Thanks.