Posted on 01/11/2009 10:19:48 PM PST by Crush
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is a treaty that is extremely damaging to parental rights and the family structure, as well as our national sovereignty. The CRC was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1995, but opposition by members of the Senate kept the treaty from being ratified. Legislators found that it was incompatible with the rights of the parents to raise their children. But new Democrat majorities in Congress and a new administration in the White House make ratification of the CRC far more likely. President-elect Barack Obama has already expressed his support of the CRC and has said, “It is embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia,” the only other UN nation not to ratify the CRC. If our government were to ratify the CRC, the UN would undermine parental authority through government control of our children.
Our Constitution and Supreme Court protect the fundamental right of parents to raise their children as they see fit. After all, parents act in the best interest of their children, and know better how to raise their child than bureaucrats half a world away. Two Supreme Court cases are in direct conflict with the CRC. In Reno v. Flores, the Court held that “The 'best interests of the child' is not the legal standard that governs parents' or guardians' exercise of their custody.” Then, following Troxel v. Granville, Justice David Souter stated that parents cannot be overruled “merely because the judge might think himself more enlightened than the child's parent.” But the Constitution states that once treaties are ratified they become “the supreme Law of the land.” Existing laws are overruled in favor of the treaty, and in the case of the CRC, almost all American laws concerning children and parental rights and
(Excerpt) Read more at familysecuritymatters.org ...
Hamas and their war tactics should be subject to the CRC.
What is wrong with the world? Raising your children is a sacred right of parents.
How? Details lacking...
Not according to the UN and the supporters of the globalist movement in Washington.
The UN won’t do anything to tyrants like the ones who run Gaza, it wouldn’t help them whatsoever. Their goal is world domination and fleecing money from the US.
I sure would have enjoyed the “right to rest and leisure” though. But having someone with a funny haircut and Belgian accent taking me from my parents wouldn’t be so cool.
This and the awful Law of the Sea Treaty are genuine threats to US sovereignty, which of course 0 is likely to undermine at every opportunity.
Good call. Add LOST to:
International Criminal Court Treaty
Kyoto Protocol
Convention of Biological Diversity
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
The joke is that children in Muslim and 3rd world countries won’t see a single benefit from this nonsense. It is just another UN attempt to undermine US sovereignty and control our children. They hate America. Our worthless liberals think they are cool for going along with the world’s goons, and they consider themselves enlightened for selling out the future of our children. My child is receiving a good education. He has a good diet, warm clothing, and he is learning the values he needs to become a good man, father, husband and Christian. The UN and Omerica can stay out of my child rearing business.
We do have precedence for armed bureaucrats invading America and how to deal with them.
In the past they were called Tories and Hessians, and General Washington left for us a method on how to instruct the latter to leave us be.
Even better, sergeantdave - we could have a bloodless revolution every election, and not vote for socialists and globalists, but a whole lot of ‘we the people’ are far too ignorant and apathetic to care.
There was never an intention to benefit the children. The point is to attack the family structure in order to separate the child from the parents. Traditional families are far less likely to turn out people who are dependent on the state. The children turn into little globalists and neo-Marxists who will support eventual UN domination over the US.
In large part, what exists now is American "caretakers", not "family".
Caretakers have the "offspring"....the government has the "children".
Remember, according to Marxists the state is your mother, the state is your father.
In which of the 190 countries that have ratified the CRC has there been kids removed from their families unecessarily? The only situations that the UN or any other body acting in accordance with the CRC will act upon are those in which the kids in question are being abused or denied of their rights. I for one have parents whose disciplinary system may seem extreme to some - three smacks if i’m out of line too much, and there are plenty of people who would say that is abuse. Still, Australia has ratified the CRC and i don’t see anyone knocking on our door to take me away. Refusing to ratify a document such as the CRC because of suggestions as baseless as the ones suggested here is unreasonable.
The chancellor of Patrick Henry College is warning parents about a dangerous United Nations treaty. The Convention on the Rights of the Child was established about 20 years ago. Although the U.S. has signed the treaty, it has not been ratified according to Constitutional mandate. Michael Farris, chancellor of Patrick Henry College, says if the treaty is ratified during the Obama administration, it would override all state laws regarding parental rights. "The biggest problem with this treaty is that we replace American law [developed] by our elected officials with international law that is governed by a board of 18 child's rights experts in Geneva," he explains.
According to Farris, the treaty is far-reaching. It treats all parents like criminals -- even before trial, he explains. "The child's wishes have to be considered by the government, and the government gets to decide at the end of the day -- when there is any conflict between parent and child, or any conflict between the government and the…parent -- ...what it thinks is best for the child," he points out. "That's in religion, that's in education, that's in 'do you let your kids put their real names on their Facebook accounts?' On every parenting decision you can imagine, the government gets to make the final call."
Farris is also certain that ratification of the treaty will be considered. He notes it will be up to the secretary of state -- Hillary Clinton -- to submit the treaty to Congress for ratification, a treaty Bill Clinton's administration favored. "And the chances that it is going to be attempted are 100 percent," Farris contends. "Barbara Boxer said so in a meeting just before Christmas...every indication is that there is going to be an attempt." For more information on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, visit ParentalRights.org.
IBTZ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.