just me

Columbia, MO

#1 Apr 27, 2009
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp

America is poised to adopt the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. President Obama supports this treaty. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a leading advocate of this treaty for over twenty years. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has “promised” that this treaty will be ratified during this term of Congress.



If this treaty is ratified:



· The laws of all 50 states on children and parents would be superseded by this international law by virtue of a specific provision of the US Constitution which expressly declares treaties to be supreme over state law. Virtually all law on children and parents is state law.

· Good parents would no longer be entitled to the legal presumption that they act in the best interests of their children. Instead, the government would have the authority to overrule all parents on any decision concerning the child if the government believed it could make a better decision.

· Parents could no longer spank their children.

· Children would have the legal right to choose their own religion. Parents would be permitted only to give advice.

· America would be under a binding legal obligation to massively increase its federal spending on children’s programs.



The only kind of law that can override a treaty is the Constitution of the United States. State laws or state constitutions cannot override treaties. There is no guarantee that federal statutes could override treaties—moreover, we enter a binding legal promise to obey a treaty when we ratify it. America should not promise to obey a treaty and then claim it is appropriate to obey the treaty only when we want to. America of all nations must respect the rule of law.

Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC:

Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

A murderer aged 17 years and 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.

Christian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.

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.


It now has 80 sponsors in congress
Disgusted

Frisco, TX

#2 Apr 27, 2009
Just Me thanks for posting this.
There are several points to be made about this.

#1 it is BS. Let's get that point made right away.

" The laws of all 50 states on children and parents would be superseded by this international law by virtue of a specific provision of the US Constitution which expressly declares treaties to be supreme over state law. Virtually all law on children and parents is state law."

#2 Another infringement on state's rights by the federal government.

#3 The government is hell bent on indoctrinating our children with socialist ideals. We already have a generation of young adults who have been affected by this. I also believe that is part of the reason the feds want to control all student loans for college so they can dictate what is taught in private colleges.

#4 We should never submit ourselves and our nation's constitution to international law.

#5 By allowing children to have abortions without any parental influence, the government can persuade and control to a greater extent who has children.

Please watch this video:

http://contributors.blogsome.com/2008/10/18/d...
Woo Hoo

United States

#3 Apr 27, 2009
just me wrote:
... Children would have the legal right to choose their own religion. Parents would be permitted only to give advice.

... America would be under a binding legal obligation to massively increase its federal spending on children’s programs.

...Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

...it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.

...Christian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.

...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.
Well, I do think a parent should be allowed to be a parent, and discipline their children. Children need discipline, and a swat on the buttocks isn't going to harm them.

I do like certain parts of the policy. We have too many narrow minded parents force feeding Christianity down the throats of their children. The same goes from Muslims in the Middle East.

What is wrong with spending money on children, instead of spending it on bombs and weapons so the weapon's manufacturers can make massive profits by blowing up children in other countries?

Yes, I think kids should be allowed to have abortions. Kids are going to screw, let's be real. Don't we already have enough teen mothers? Society would be so much better if half of the pregnancies were terminated. In fact, I think there should be pregnancy licenses. We've got far too many white trash welfare mothers, and they are multiplying.
Disgusted

Frisco, TX

#4 Apr 27, 2009
Woo Hoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I do think a parent should be allowed to be a parent, and discipline their children. Children need discipline, and a swat on the buttocks isn't going to harm them.
I do like certain parts of the policy. We have too many narrow minded parents force feeding Christianity down the throats of their children. The same goes from Muslims in the Middle East.
What is wrong with spending money on children, instead of spending it on bombs and weapons so the weapon's manufacturers can make massive profits by blowing up children in other countries?
Yes, I think kids should be allowed to have abortions. Kids are going to screw, let's be real. Don't we already have enough teen mothers? Society would be so much better if half of the pregnancies were terminated. In fact, I think there should be pregnancy licenses. We've got far too many white trash welfare mothers, and they are multiplying.
I believe the main objection here is the fact that an international law would override our own laws concerning children. You could probably ask 100 people about their views on raising children, abortion, religion, etc. and not find any two that agree on everything. But I think most would agree that citizens should be a part of the law-making process that rules these issues rather than the United Nations. JMO
just me

Columbia, MO

#5 Apr 27, 2009
I believe that as well. It matters not your beliefs on abortion for your child...what matters is that the decisions should not be made by an international treaty.

it maybe great that more money is spent on children than on defense, but that should not be dictated to our country by an international treaty.

If there are good ideas that are agreed with, that's great but the idea that a treaty will mandate something is fundamentally wrong.
Rico

Zacapa, Guatemala

#6 Apr 27, 2009
Hi, after reading your posts, I am offering this knowledge and advice to you and yours...
1st=Don't be reactionary, respond...
2nd=You can't be forced, you must accept any "assumed" rules that are offered, to be binding...
3rd=the key here is, "Language", not what you think you understand, but, what in reality is being said...
4th=All laws, contracts and treaties have to be understood by all parties to be applied, NONE of the laws, contracts and treaties are written in a procedurally-correct-language. ..
5th=All laws, contracts and treaties are written with nouns/facts "modified" into verbs, adverbs, pronouns & adjectives which in turn creates, opinions, assumptions, presumptions & guessing = impossible-communication between persons = only confusion...
6=When you read, you use "word-association-skills ", not language skills...Language skills mean constructing complete-thoughts in a clear, procedurally-correct-manner, not throwing words about, hoping for any understanding by the other person...
7=When you truly communicate, in a true language, the "prepositional-phrase " is mandatory, to just making noise, hoping that the person understands, shows one of two things, either your not able to communicate factually, or, your using modified language to take advantage of another person...(Which brings us to number 8)
8=Through you ignorance/lack of knowledge, careless speaking, laziness you involve yourselves in situations where you become the victim of a language manipulator, trying to take advantage...
9=Your public-servants are supposed to serve you, safeguard, and care for you, but in reality, they are committing criminal-acts with authority granted by the people lacking the language-skills necessary to govern their public-servants...
10=Don't allow yourself to be bullied into something that you disagree with(remember, you must give permission, voluntarily)...Learn to stand your ground peacefully, with conviction and knowledge of the English language(not just English-words/noise)
Where My Check At

Ozark, MO

#7 Apr 27, 2009
Rico wrote:
Hi, after reading your posts, I am offering this knowledge and advice to you and yours...
1st=Don't be reactionary, respond...
2nd=You can't be forced, you must accept any "assumed" rules that are offered, to be binding...
3rd=the key here is, "Language", not what you think you understand, but, what in reality is being said...
4th=All laws, contracts and treaties have to be understood by all parties to be applied, NONE of the laws, contracts and treaties are written in a procedurally-correct-language. ..
5th=All laws, contracts and treaties are written with nouns/facts "modified" into verbs, adverbs, pronouns & adjectives which in turn creates, opinions, assumptions, presumptions & guessing = impossible-communication between persons = only confusion...
6=When you read, you use "word-association-skills ", not language skills...Language skills mean constructing complete-thoughts in a clear, procedurally-correct-manner, not throwing words about, hoping for any understanding by the other person...
7=When you truly communicate, in a true language, the "prepositional-phrase " is mandatory, to just making noise, hoping that the person understands, shows one of two things, either your not able to communicate factually, or, your using modified language to take advantage of another person...(Which brings us to number 8)
8=Through you ignorance/lack of knowledge, careless speaking, laziness you involve yourselves in situations where you become the victim of a language manipulator, trying to take advantage...
9=Your public-servants are supposed to serve you, safeguard, and care for you, but in reality, they are committing criminal-acts with authority granted by the people lacking the language-skills necessary to govern their public-servants...
10=Don't allow yourself to be bullied into something that you disagree with(remember, you must give permission, voluntarily)...Learn to stand your ground peacefully, with conviction and knowledge of the English language(not just English-words/noise)
Nice "copy and paste" Rico. Where'd you get that? Reader's Digest?
Rico

Zacapa, Guatemala

#8 Apr 27, 2009
Where My Check At wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice "copy and paste" Rico. Where'd you get that? Reader's Digest?
Hi, nice to hear from you, the answer to your question is , that I am a English-Language-consultant, for the past 16 years I have been helping people with their English-Language-Procedures/co ntracts, I have spent endless hours in court rooms and teaching halls...

And you, what do you do?
BS Buster

San Antonio, TX

#9 Apr 27, 2009
Rico wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi, nice to hear from you, the answer to your question is , that I am a English-Language-consultant, for the past 16 years I have been helping people with their English-Language-Procedures/co ntracts, I have spent endless hours in court rooms and teaching halls...
And you, what do you do?
I am a BS Buster and you are full of shi*.
American Vet

Ava, MO

#10 Apr 28, 2009
PARENTAL RIGHTS ALREADY BEING LOST
State could take over decisions on health, schooling, abortion

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php...
As If

Willow Springs, MO

#11 Apr 28, 2009
Hasn't this pretty much already taken affect? I mean honestly how many of the mentioned changes have not already occured?

1. When was the last time you could "spank" a child. Mine is 14 and I have never, was too scarred the state or other would step in.(I always threatened to take his toys away, it worked)

2. Wasn't they or did they trial the 8 year old as an adult that killed his father and his renter/co-worker last year. What about the girl from Summersville that had her boyfriend kill her mother and attempt to kill her dad?

3. Religion, well my parents were different, one catholic one mormon. I was actually raised penicostle, my son is baptist, that should be a choice. I would perfer to be baptised babtist not catholic-since I've never been in a catholic church that I remember.

4. Best interest of the child-go through a divorce and custody battle the courts already make that descision for the parents-thankfully I was the best interest of my child-Duh, he was a butt.

5. How many kids already say "if you don't let me do this I will tell and they will take me away from you!" Thank God mine don't but I have seen some who have tried that with thier parents!

6. Haven't researched this but given the idea of just how many on welfare there is Howell county alone, I'd say we already spend more on child welfare than we do military, and either way aren't both sponsored by our tax dollars?

7. Children should have so much time for leisure, they get up early and as we all know brain strain wears you down faster than physical. My son has his chores but on days he has a late athletic practice or game he gets a break from them. Don't we as adults get some much leisure time at work and at home?

8. What school christian or public is allowed to teach the way they were meant to be, another example of "we have fought for our rights so much we have screwed ourselves" How many parents have sued a catholic school over teaching thier child catholic beliefs?

9. Sex ed--We need it, maybe less money on child welfare! I want my son to know about it before he comes homes at 17 saying "ooppss, my girlfriend and I messed up, what is a condom?"

10. Our children are the future, spend as much as we need on them to educate, prepare and suceed in their path that lies ahead.

Please excuse my spelling errors, rushed through and stating my oppinion didn't worry about proper spelling and grammer, sorry.
just me

Columbia, MO

#12 Apr 29, 2009
1. it is legal to spank a child in Missouri. You have to sign a waiver in some schools if you don't want them to.

2. Heinous crimes are not commonly committed by children. Last time I checked, however, if your child damages property, you are liable for the cost. Notice that this is not a proposed change on this "treaty".

3.Religion is a choice that we make on the way that we believe.Faith. Do you not think that the parents should have the right to raise their children in the faith that they believe? Do you think that if someone disagrees with that they should have the option to step in and change that. If you are raising your children in a way that is keeping with your morality do you want someone to take that right away from you?

4.Courts are only asked to determine the best interests when the parents cannot come to that conclusion themselves. They don't do it automatically and are not required to do it, basically it is at the request of the parents.

5.I know several police officers that have disappointed children that thought they could call the police on mom and dad. This is a good example of how adults need to act like adults, from the parents to the police to the dfs.

6. I don't know what we spend on defense or our children but believe that money should be spent where it is needed. Imagine in wwII if we would have had to spend more money on children than defense. This simply should not be mandated to us by the u.n.

7.My cousin's daughter told the school social worker that her mother forces her to do the dishes. Her mother was told that her child was not "labor" and should not have to do the dishes every night. Again, don't you think that the parents should have the rights to raise the children the way they see fit? A treaty mandating leisure time? Are you kidding?

8. I have never heard of a catholic school being sued for teaching catholic values. Can you tell me where you did? They are private businesses. The beauty of that is, if you don't like it you take your kid, and your money, elsewhere.

9.What about parents that teach sex education at home? Honestly, and no offense intended, but isn't that YOUR job? Having it available is one thing but mandatory is debatable for many parents.

10. your tenth point is very good, but the point is, we don't need an international treaty to tell us to do this. The point is, international law on how to raise our children should be scaring you. What is the next treaty? Who makes the next law? The country is still "we the people".
Where My Check At

Columbia, MO

#13 Apr 29, 2009
Rico wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi, nice to hear from you, the answer to your question is , that I am a English-Language-consultant, for the past 16 years I have been helping people with their English-Language-Procedures/co ntracts, I have spent endless hours in court rooms and teaching halls...
And you, what do you do?
Interesting. Your resume, as stated, is quite impressive. A firm grasp of the predominant language as well as local dialects is tatamount to a published literata. What puzzles me is not the content of your post, but rather the relevancy and context as a response to the prior author. What I do is irrelevant. Suffice to say, my continued employment is contingent upon a certain endowment of the verbose coupled with an innate ability to transcend bullshit.
I have a bridge for sale

Columbia, MO

#14 Apr 29, 2009
I can't believe that people believe this BS they read from the internet. I went to one of the links provided and the author's name was Political Pyro. Yeah, I take him seriously. It is amazing to me what some people will do to undermine the current administration. Naive!
Disgusted

Frisco, TX

#15 Apr 29, 2009
I have a bridge for sale wrote:
I can't believe that people believe this BS they read from the internet. I went to one of the links provided and the author's name was Political Pyro. Yeah, I take him seriously. It is amazing to me what some people will do to undermine the current administration. Naive!
Naive, Here is the UN Resolution. It does exist. Most people are not trying to undermine the current administration. They just do not want our constitutional rights trampled on by any party.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm
I have a bridge for sale

Columbia, MO

#16 Apr 29, 2009
Okay....this is a much better link, however I fail to see which one of these articles would be offensive.
Rico

Guatemala

#17 Apr 29, 2009
Where My Check At wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. Your resume, as stated, is quite impressive. A firm grasp of the predominant language as well as local dialects is tatamount to a published literata. What puzzles me is not the content of your post, but rather the relevancy and context as a response to the prior author. What I do is irrelevant. Suffice to say, my continued employment is contingent upon a certain endowment of the verbose coupled with an innate ability to transcend bullshit.
Hi, as to your wondering as to the "Relevancy" of my post, well sir, in reading the prior posts, I can sense the posters frustration over things they perceive to be factual/true, but unable to resist without becoming another victim...
I am 66 years old, been there done that, knew the problems, but not the solutions, kicked against the pricks & only became more frustrated...
Sixteen years ago I met a man by the name :David-Wynn:Miller out of Wisconsin, within a few hours of talking with him, I was awakened to the falseness/fraud of my surroundings(a very dis-heartening-feeling learning of the tricks and traps of the "system," orchestrated through modified-language), since then I have educated myself and many others, to the truths I've learned...
The truth is, as things are, "nothing is real" as we perceive...
Truth is hidden in the folds of Lady Justice's robe, the balance is fixed, the sword is double-edged though(it cuts in both directions), knowledge of the truth and the wisdom to use truth correctly, gives the party[person] the right to wield it against the fraud...
All the laws are in place to govern the public servant, knowing how to use the true-volition of the law, is the key to being the master, or servant...
Modified-Language is the tool used worldwide to control the masses...

Your statement, "What I do is irrelevant. Suffice to say, my continued employment is contingent upon a certain endowment of the verbose coupled with an innate ability to transcend bullshit", reminds me of a Magistrate Judge I use to have coffee with...
just me

Columbia, MO

#18 Apr 29, 2009


apparently the issue has been discussed in congress, this video says that it was not "yet ratified".

Someone is taking it seriously if they feel the need to make legislation to prevent it.

maybe hoekstra is 'political pyro'?

you don't find an international treaty superceding your law of the land offensive?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Willow Springs Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who's got the biggest and thick wiener in town 18 hr Greaserak 6
missing girl-Elisabeth Hornbeck (Oct '15) Sun Izzy-_- 74
Stalker Queen Sun Red Kia 9
Popular men Jul 21 iwantacountygirl 2
Tracey Collins Jul 21 TRACY COLLINS 5
Mike Swartz Construction (Apr '09) Jul 21 Unsatisfied 6
scammed (May '12) Jul 20 Goforit 11

Willow Springs Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Willow Springs Mortgages