38 S.R. 99 Most recent change: Feb. 6, 2012 |
Â
STOP the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child
The Resolution begins... "Expressing the sense of the Senate that the primary safeguard for the well-being and protection of children is the family, and that the primary safeguards for the legal rights of children in the United States are the Constitutions of the United States and the several States..."
Â
Â
Excerpted from, Why Cosponsor S.R. 99?
1. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) must not be ratified.
The CRC undermines traditional parental rights and obligates us to implement its provisions, effectively transferring jurisdiction governing family law matters from the states to federal government. It will also lead to courts deciding domestic law by U.N guidelines rather than by the intent of elected American lawmakers. The CRC runs counter to our American heritage and freedoms.2. The current leadership in Washington has demonstrated a willingness to go to great lengths to get what it wants, the will of the American people notwithstanding.From buy-outs to socialized health care, the current administration and legislative leadership have shown that they will go to extraordinary measures to get what they want when they want it. And President Obama, Ambassador Susan Rice, Senator Barbara Boxer, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have all made it clear that they want to see us ratify the CRC. We must be sure the President knows the Senate will not provide consent. And that begins with 34 cosponsors to S.R. 99.
Â
Â
Has your Senator signed it yet? To find out Click Here
Â
Â
Excerpted from the article, Does your child belong to state?
[Pete Hoekstra, former Michigan Congressman says], “There are people each and every day who are scheming to take away parental rights to start to destroy the family structure,†he said. “What we’ve seen over the last 40 to 50 years is continual legislative and judicial overreach going into areas that we never thought they would reach into.â€
This is seen as the government’s intrusion inside the family’s boundaries.
“The government has a role, but it’s not the role of a partner, it’s the role of a backstop,†Farris said (ParentalRights.Org President Michael Farris). “If you abuse your kids, if you neglect your kids, and they have evidence of that, the government moves in, and they should move in under those circumstances. But when they treat all of us as if we’re child abusers, that’s absolutely outrageous and we can’t stand for it.â€Â
Â
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 39
They also determine how many times they have to got to church weekly and at what age the parent can no longer insist they go. Many of the rules are flush with extending possibilities.
It just so happens Michael Farris said it exactly the way I believe it; so I'll use his words(again):=======
Wil B. Mar 19, 2012, 7:32pm EDT
After 20 years of inaction, it would be great if the United States Senate finally ratifies the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Every other nation in the world except for the US and Somalia has ratified it, and it would be great if the United States Senate finally ratifies it, too.
I can't imagine allowing them to be top authority of my family. I'm more careful than that with baby sitters; let alone making them my children's supreme authority.
I don't think you really mean that wil. No one that loves their kids could willingly hand them over to such scoundrels. Your kids are part of you and I know you want good standards for them. Have you read it?
And it recognizes that every other child on the planet has those same rights, no matter where they live, or what kind of government they live under, or who their parents are.
My kids have lived their entire lives in a country where the government has ratified the CRC and recognizes their human rights, and I think it's great.
We should have freedom to raise the children the way we decide is best the same as you and WC want to raise your children in their own way.
I can't think why you feel it is better to allow others to take authority that really belongs to you. There's nothing in my brain that understands that.
With these laws we will have to allow teachers to them anything. Limited in how much they have to go to church etc that are cutting into the philosophy that we teach our children. Our constitution protects parents to make their own decisions.
The United Nations is filled with deceit and deceitful people. Worse than our own possible and certainly socially and religiously different. And you know government, once it gets it foot in the door it makes more and more rules.
Oh well ... :) we argued this once before and neither one of us changed. It's just the vote is making a difference in MY relationship with my child and not just yours and I don't want it.
Guess I'll go check on The Rights of the Parents in our own government and see how it's coming.
That is a starkly true statement.
Scandals galore in regard to finances ... but if that isn't enough, remember this example of the U.N.'s unworthiness?:Iran was ""elected by acclamation," meaning that no open vote was requested or required by any member states ..."
Yeah, those are the people I want monitoring my decisions in regard to my own children ... yeah, I want them to have oversight on whether or not my state gives our children in general the "rights" to which they are entitled...Further, Iran was elected to that position in the U.N. 'just a week after one of its respected senior clerics, Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi, declared that women who wear revealing clothing are to blame for earthquakes, a statement that created an international uproar ...' But not enough of one to cause trepedation about putting Iran on that committee as an "international arbiter of women's rights"...
Yeah, those are the smart people of the world, the good ones ... yeah riiiight...
True, although it seems that different laws set different standards for what constitutes "excessive". Did you see that video of the Texan judge beating his teenage daughter with a belt? But in any case, there are many other ways to violate a child's rights besides physically assaulting them.
Who took that film? I don't remember. but those kids got the info out there on their own. That was cool.
I've already forgotten. How many times did he hit her & how hard.
If I remember right, I didn't think it was too much in and of itself. It was the whole way in which it was delivered. I hated to spank them and they knew it. We were always very close afterwards. It wasn't filled with rage. His entire discipline was poor, however she might have plain worn her folks out be then.
Let me ask this, is it OK with you for us to become a one world gov't? That would explain your thoughts more.
God doesn't want that & that (besides common sense:) It would also explain why you're not concerned about their slow intrusion into exercising law over us.
That's how it works, Glome. And the CRC doesn't change that. Ratifying the CRC would mean that the US government formally recognizes the human rights of all children. It would also mean that the US government would submit a report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (which it already does) and receives recommendations from the Committee.
"Why run next door to the neighbors and ask them what to do?"
I'm not running anywhere, Glome. But it would be nice if the governments in the US listened to some of their "neighbors" and stopped using their laws to violate the human rights of children within their jurisdictions.
"Who took that film?"
The abused girl made the video.
"If I remember right, I didn't think it was too much in and of itself. "
I think beating a child with a belt is abusive. I understand that some people think it's okay, but I don't agree with them, and I think it would be great if it were a criminal offense in all 50 states.
"Let me ask this, is it OK with you for us to become a one world gov't? That would explain your thoughts more."
I don't have any particular problem with the notion of a "one world government", or with any other number of governments. I think how many governments there are is much less important than the nature of those governments and what they're actually doing.
"God doesn't want that & that (besides common sense:)"
As you know, Glome, I'm not all that interested in what people say the god or gods they worship do or don't want. Especially when different people who claim to worship the same god disagree on what that god does or doesn't want. Like when you say that your god doesn't want a one world government, but other people say that the same god does want that (whether they call it the Global Caliphate or the Kingdom of God).
"It would also explain why you're not concerned about their slow intrusion into exercising law over us."
Glome, I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me what intruding laws this "one world government" would be exercising over us if the US Senate ratifies the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Thanks Lee, I just wish everyone knew it was pending and what powers can escalate from it.
A Trojan got in my computer and crashed it big time. That was Sat nite or Sun morn. I got it by going to a gun internet store. I just up again tonight. I didn't think I would :)
A trojan; Oh my goodness Glome ... well don't go there again!(obviously lol).
First of all, the material told the kids to stop certain sexual activity during pregnancy. My gosh, I didn't even know people DID that. Way too much info :)
We went to the meeting of teachers and trainers & teacher union.
Not exaggerating ... they openly told the teachers to deceive the parents. They also were dividing the sex lessons into all classes. Finding places where it could be introduced NOT given title of any kind of sex education. Also, they said, Start discussing right away about how fundies will try to scare you to death. share that at school meeting . That way, once the talk begins to start, others will already be prepared to disregard or mock them.
We were shocked at their openly telling them to lie also. There was no honor, my mind changed forever on who school authorities are. Even who sweet little teacher are. You never know. Many of them are regular people only less moral in areas because they are all in it together. It's hard to stand against all your bosses and coworkers.
I took the material back and the principal said he expected unmarried pregnancy to almost disappear.
All this, just to say people aren't who we think they are. God said "Man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked." We are. I guess I just assumed most people wrestled with it until that meeting.
So if many of our good old USA grade/high school teacher are like that, how deceitfully will the UN twist rules in changing all our ways so that eventually the whole world will be one happy family? : (
We were shocked at their openly telling them to lie also. There was no honor, my mind changed forever on who school authorities are. Even who sweet little teacher are. You never know..."
That's amazing. Your first hand experience is very compelling.
I guess I just assumed most people wrestled with it until that meeting.
Yeah, probably exactly like so many others think... That most people are 'just like normal ordinary parents who love their children and who hope for the best for other people's children'. ... And apparently that is just not so.
So if many of our good old USA grade/high school teacher are like that, how deceitfully will the UN twist rules in changing all our ways so that eventually the whole world will be one happy family? : (
Yeah... If ordinary teachers and school leaders have fallen for and encourage others to practice those tactics... Imagine how much worse it would be if they actually had official sanction from the "world" and the authority of the UN behind them using the facade of US law.
I've signed the petition and will be contacting my representatives.
============
Dan E. Mar 24, 2012, 5:59am EDT
Thanks Lee,
I've signed the petition and will be contacting my representatives.
For example --- I am very proud of my son's wife ... she was at lunch at school with my 7 year old grandson and bought herself a soda. And can you imagine a teacher came up to her and asked her not to buy anything else while she was there ... because it wasn't fair that the other kids didn't have sodas (the teacher thought it was for her son)?
Well, she is not someone to mess with in that way, and she told the teacher whatfor (not in a questioning way but in a way that more than likely assures that teacher won't be bothering her anymore with silly demands). Plus, she's pregnant and you just don't get between a pregnant woman and her cravings ...
When she told me about the incident, I fully supported her rant against that kind of intrusion into what she gives her son.
=============
Chuck Larlham Mar 24, 2012, 7:27am EDT
So Pete Hoekstra, reactionary extraordinaire has sponsored a bill expressing paranoia regarding a UN resolution, has he? As a Michigan resident I can tell you that anything Mr. Hoekstra proposes should be carefully evaluated, then set afire and opposed.
But even if she had bought one for herself and one for her son what business is it of the school's?
If the other kids don't have one that's just life. They will get over it. We all did.
And we are better people for learning that lesson early ... that other people's stuff isn't ours no matter how much we want it so we better just drink our own milk until we can buy our own soda if you see what I mean.
Too many children these days have grown up without learning that basic fact of life ... time to start letting them absorb it again.
Further, we already have lunch police (chicken nuggets given to a child because his own mom's packed lunch wasn't good enough), and abortions without parental permission in U.S. done on school time with parents not even notified after the fact ...teachers being lauded (instead of jailed) for patting kids on the head and reminding them to use condoms for that "special date" with that older man (instead of notifying authorities)...
I hate to imagine what we would have to put up with if the UN gets it's talons any further into our legal and judicial system in regard to our children.
LOL!
Love it Lee!
=====
Dan E. Mar 24, 2012, 1:26pm EDT
"progressive so-called "sane" any day"
LOL!
Love it Lee!
LOL. Maybe he's hoping that by insisting that the United States remain one of only two nations on the planet that refuses to ratify a document acknowledging the rights of children, people will forget about his disgraceful, racist "Debbie Spenditnow" ad.
Our eye is always on the UN wil. And our Dem President. Joke! You guys did great by putting him in. (*^%~$#!!!*& :)
And btw, we all believe children have rights and we live up to them. We just don't want dishonest people to butt into our business. USA is big enough to take care of ourselves. It was God's idea to put parents in charge of children you know.
LEE, I love your daughter in law. I can imagine the looks on the kids faces when she stood up to the teacher. And what did she have?
Pete Hoekstra was a member of the House of Representatives representing the Michigan 2nd until he decided to run for Governor instead of for another term in Congress, and lost in the primary.
"You guys did great by putting him in."
If you think we did great in 2008, just wait until we get him re-elected in 2012.
"And btw, we all believe children have rights and we live up to them."
I don't know who you're referring to when you say "we", but clearly some people have some pretty crazy ideas about what rights children have. Like those parents who believe their children have the "right" to be beaten, sexually molested, etc. Or the people who believe that it's okay for their state governments to execute children. Or to "try them as adults" and sentence them to life in prison with no possibility of parole.
"It was God's idea to put parents in charge of children you know."
Violating a child's human rights is wrong, regardless of whether or not the person doing it claims that their god says its okay.
I agree with you unless my ideas and your ideas of morality is too different.
We aren't too different as long as we don't try to itemize the rights of the child :)
But I cannot understand why we think differently on something so simple as who should make the laws and enforce them for America.
Every year more and more agreements are signed giving the UN little bits of rights here and there. Pretty soon they will have as many laws for us as US government has already strung through our noses to control us.
For those who perceive it, to coin a phrase, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not, none is possible...
Translation: I got nothin'!
I don't know. But I'm guessing (tomorrow I look it up if I can think how to look up what kind of control the UN has over us when we break their rules.
Ok, do their laws have any force? If not what's the use of them? However, I suppose our weak sniveling little country will run to their offices in DC and get a bill out regulating us with an American law that is a replica of the UN bill. & then the American law will take our childrn : (
Wil, read Lee's post again. She's being a little mean to you (In a very nice way) and you missed it. (In a very funny way)
The treaty provides a framework that federal, state and local governments can use to to incorporate the provisions of the treaty into policies and laws.
In the case of the CRC, it would require that the US government submit a report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (which it already does) and then the Committee would ask questions and offer recommendations about any issues which it feels need to be addressed.
"Wil, read Lee's post again. She's being a little mean to you (In a very nice way) and you missed it. (In a very funny way)"
I didn't miss it, Glome.