****Parents......Must read****

@xfahctor (14118)
Lancaster, New Hampshire
January 13, 2009 5:19pm CST
If you value your sovierngty as a parent, you would do well to read this and then complain LOUDLY before they even THINK about signing on to this thing. http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/washingtontimes/20091120.asp an exerpt from the article " [i]One of the issues American families could face this year is the ramifications from a treaty called the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). You may ask, “How could a treaty directly affect internal decision-making by American families?” We generally think of treaties as agreements affecting international relations between countries. The U.N., however, has initiated treaties that not only affect international relations, but also the domestic relations of member nations as well. These treaties, sometimes called “conventions,” require member nations that ratify the treaty to implement the requirements as binding law or rules. On Nov. 20, 1989, the U.N. adopted the CRC and submitted it for ratification to the member nations. It has been ratified by 193 nations—the United States is one of the few countries that has not ratified it. The ratification process requires a two-thirds vote by the U.S. Senate. On Feb. 16, 1995, Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., signed the CRC on behalf of the United States. The CRC, however, has never been sent to the Senate for ratification because there is insufficient support to pass it. Due to the recent election, however, there are rumblings from Capitol Hill that there will be an effort to seek ratification of the CRC during the next congressional cycle. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a strong supporter of the treaty, and as secretary of state, would have direct control over the submission of treaties to the Senate [/i] " Additional info: www.parentalrights.org/learn.
4 people like this
7 responses
@irishidid (8688)
• United States
13 Jan 09
Even if this was done for the best of reasons for the child when the nuts come out of the shell it has the extreme risk of the nuts going way too far, like they always do. Something like this passes and parents could be hauled into court for simply being parents. The rights and views of the child? Who decides which of these rights and views is legitimate? There's a reason kids need adult supervision. Someone needs to send them a copy of Lord of the Flies. Seriously.
3 people like this
• United States
14 Jan 09
I was actually wondering if this one was going to come back again. When the election happened and Obama won plus the dems picked up so many seats... I thought to myself, I wonder if htey are going to pull this one out now. This so does not surprise me. Definately spread the word about this one. Keep on top of it. We need to know if this is going to come up for a vote and when so we can get as many people as possible to contact their elected officials and tell them loudly not just no but heck no. How many politically active groups do you know that would be willing to maybe even protest it?
2 people like this
@Celanith (2327)
• United States
13 Jan 09
If this gets signed into law it is high treason because it violates many of our constitutional rights and amendments. The government is supposed to be run by we the people and this should be put to the vote of we the people and like someone else said a new amendment needs to be drawn up. It violates religious freedoms for one which was one of the primary reasons people left their countries to come and settle in America.
2 people like this
• United States
14 Jan 09
Our government and former spouses already have to many rights, and they are allowed to take away the parental right from another spouse especially as they together work to inflict injury upon the ostracized partner. The children should not become weapons and it is clear that my children are the weapons of my former spouse. Maybe the U.N. would allow me more parental rights? I can only hope to get my children back and find out what my former spouse is up to, there is something really wrong where she is concerned.
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
15 Jan 09
I can assure you, this treaty does NOT allow the parent more rights, in fact, it takes more away. Besides, the U.n. has NO autority over U.S. parents nor should grant them to them, or ANY international body. We are a soveirgn nation and do not nor should we ever allow our laws to be governed by anyone but the people of the united states. I hope your fight ends up bearing fruit. I am there too. I have a son that my ex took off with several years ago across countru and I haven't seen him since.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
14 Jan 09
This is certainly upsetting or it could be if it's used the wrong way. However, exactly what would this Constitutional Amendment mean to parents and children? Would it mean if the parents didn't choose to seek needed medical treatment for their child they wouldn't have to? Or that they wouldn't have to comply with immunization laws? Or that there wouldn't be any educational standards? I'm in favor of parents having the right to home-school their kids if they desire to but I also believe that when they do there need to be guidelines. This whole thing seems to be bad news no matter what, I'm afraid. Annie
1 person likes this
• United States
14 Jan 09
It basically takes decisions that should be left to the parents and gives them to the government. Which is wrong.
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
14 Jan 09
What it is basicly ,isn't an amendment, but an international treaty we would sign on to, so far we haven't signed it becoause it conflicts with many u.s. laws.
1 person likes this
@irishidid (8688)
• United States
14 Jan 09
As I said in my comment, the nuts come out of the shell and next thing you know they decide it applies to the most ridiculous things they can come up with. As for homeschooling I know for a fact in my state there is no guideline on what a child can be taught. The curriculum is left up to the parent/teacher.
1 person likes this
13 Jan 09
Too be honest my short and simple response is I have no trust for the UN, look at their recent history. It smacks of one world government, rather than the peaceful organisation it was originally supposed to be set up to be. Do not agree to anything that removes control from your country in any shape or form
1 person likes this
13 Jan 09
being a parent is a natural right, there should be nothing that can be codified into a legality. The rights of a child if you read it with legal definitions is very scary, you must remember when reading anything of this nature it is not your english dictionary definition that is at play here, but the definition of a law dictionary. A law dictionary should be on everyone shelves!
1 person likes this
• United States
14 Jan 09
I've read about this before.. this is not anything new.. Hilary wrote a book about it called "It takes a village" or something like that.. it takes the rights away from parents to raise their children as they see fit. It's crazy! I carried my kids 9 months each, gave birth to them, endured many hours of labor, took care of them when they were sick, lost sleep worrying about them, fed them, clothed them, and it's going to take more than the government to take away my rights to my own children!