Parental Rights Under the Gun

The post yesterday on homosexuality was a set-up for this post. Parental rights are not, as one might assume, protected under the US Constitution as an "inalienable right". In fact, the rights of parents to raise their children are no more protected than homosexuality or abortion are protected under the constitution. When the constitution was drafted, it would have been unthinkable to question the parent's rights to raise their children, including educating them, and so were not specifically drafted into the statutes. But times have changed. Oh, how they have changed.

Current thinking in the US Supreme Court on individual rights guaranteed by the constitution is very narrow. If a right is spelled out in the language of the constitution, then it is, more or less guaranteed. If the right is not spelled out, then any such right would have to stand on the history of precedence and would be subject to interpretation. Parental rights, as such, are not spelled out in the constitution, hence do not enjoy an inalienable status. Parental rights are afforded no more protection under the constitution than say, private property, or abortion. In the same way as the Wade vs Roe decision is subject to the whims of the sitting judges, so are parental rights subject to interpretation.

I mention this because, as you probably know by now, the Socialistic determination to bring the world under one rule -"the Ring that rules them all", is pitting the right of the parents to decide what is proper and good for your child, against the right of the state to make those determinations. If the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) becomes ratified here in the US, the reprisals will be swift and ruthless. Posing as the defenders of the child's rights, the state can do pretty much anything it wants with your children (and to you, for that matter - should you be found in violation of your child's rights), including enforced schooling mandated by the state (in the larger sense). The treaty will become part of the "highest law of the land", an enforceable and binding law, such is the way treaties are granted force by the constitution here in the USA. It would, believe it or not, trump even the US Constitution.

If that happens, the Globalists will have won: checkmate. Think for a moment, if you will, what that would mean in terms of trying to raise a family. The state can and will, step in at any time to intervene in the child's rights; guaranteed by the convention and the constitution, there will be nothing you can do to stop them, no court to plead your case. The effect would be devastating. If that happens, then America will be no more.

Our children are being prepared right now, today, for such a take-over. Where is the outcry? Nowhere, except a few cries in the wilderness. If Hillary or her ilk come to power, you can rest assured she will make ratification of the UNCRC a priority of her administration. Think about it. For more information, click on any UN image on this page. Or here.



The UN is not our friend.

From the Home School Legal Defense Association:

There is no group in America as well situated, as well trained, or as strongly committed to parental liberty as homeschoolers. And we have allies. We need to raise the banner, create a plan for victory, and secure our place in history as the generation that placed the God-given right of parents into the category of expressly protected rights in the U.S. Constitution.

This may take a number of years. But we cannot wait until it is too late to start. Members of Congress will tell us that they are not ready to respond to protect parental rights until the threat is more advanced. We must not believe them. The issue of homosexual marriage is well advanced and they still do nothing.

Parental rights will be an urgent matter in Washington not when the UN Convention agents are at your door, but when sufficient Americans are at the doors of Congress, demanding protection now.

The time to fight is now. HSLDA is drafting a constitutional amendment and circulating it to friendly lawyers and organizations for review and comment. Once the text is done, we will find sponsors in the House and Senate. Achieving sponsorship, passage, and ratification will take an unbelievable effort from all of us and all of our allies. But we must not rest until the amendment becomes law.

Incidently, the current crisis involving the socialist take-over is why I no longer blog on such subjects as Islamic jihad, red/blue politics, etc. It's not because I have lost interest, but because I feel if we lose this battle over the right to school our children as we see fit, or if parental rights are further undermined, or if we don't defeat the fascist - collectivist oligarchy, then the rest won't matter. Just my opinion.

Trackbacks:

Trackposted to Dr. Sanity, Perri Nelson's Website, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Maggie's Notebook, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The United Nations is Anti-family

A "Family" Crisis at the United Nations
By Wendy McElroy

In 1979, the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) passed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which the United States has yet to ratify. Also in 1979 -- the International Year of the Child -- the UN began discussion of a draft agreement on the rights of children, which resulted in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Adopted in November 1989, the CRC remains unratified by the United States. Both documents have become flash points of controversy.

The UN itself evolved from the Declaration of United Nations, signed in 1942, through which twenty-six nations pledged to support the Allies during World War II and to work toward peace thereafter. Libertarians have long been critical of the UN, viewing it as a step toward a collective global government. The criticism became outright condemnation as the UN's peacekeeping role assumed a more military air. For example, SFOR -- the "Stabilization Force" of tens of thousands of troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina -- operated under the authority of a UN Security Council Resolution. The fear of World Government was made more real by the Millennium Summit (2000) at which the UN assembly considered proposals to establish a UN bank that issued currency, a permanent standing army of its own, and UN control of international financial institutions.

Today, influential conservative groups are adding their own unique criticisms of the UN. Specifically, the Family Research Council and the Heritage Foundation accuse factions within the organization of interpreting both the CRC and CEDAW according to a radical feminist ideology that seeks to subvert the family, national sovereignty and religion. The Family Research Council recently published a collection of essays entitled "Fifty Years after the Declaration: The United Nations' Record on Human Rights." In the book, nearly two dozens experts roundly criticize the recent social policies of the UN as they relate to women, abortion, and children's rights. Teresa Wagner, the editor, charges that the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights "has become a tool...to advance abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia and other destructive causes..."

Meanwhile, on February 5, 2001, the Heritage Foundation issued a report entitled "How U.N. Conventions on Women's and Children's Rights Undermine Family, Religion, and Sovereignty" by Patrick F. Fagan, a former Bush administration official. The Heritage report claims that, under "the political cover of international treaties that promote women's and children's rights," the committees that "oversee implementation of U.N. treaties in social policy areas and the special-interest groups assisting them" are pressuring nations to change their laws in a manner that reflects an anti-family, pro-feminist ideology. To such conservative organizations, the UN has become anti-family.

Perhaps a more accurate statement is that the UN is currently experiencing an ideological conflict between Committees who condemn the traditional family and powerful forces that call upon the UN to protect that institution.

Indeed, the conflict has become so public and the right-wing has become so effective that radical feminists -- who generally pursue a strategy of ignoring opposing opinions -- have issued their own reports on what they call an "anti-feminist" onslaught. For example, in the wake of the 44th Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (March 2000), Anick Druelle prepared a report entitled "Right-Wing Anti-Feminist Groups at the United Nations" which was funded by the Canadian government.

It has taken years for the conflict over family within the UN to emerge publicly. Part of the reason is that the shift toward anti-family policies has been gradual. For example, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) proclaims that the "family" is entitled to protection by society and state and speaks of nurturing motherhood. Especially since the Fourth's Women's Conference in Beijing (1995), however, that provision has come under increasing assault. The low profile with which the UN's new feminist agenda has operated is also due to the vague and seemly innocuous terms being used to describe it -- e.g. "gender mainstreaming." Moreover, these terms are often embedded deeply within tedious mega-documents that most members of the UN probably do not read in toto.(emp added)

But now that the light of controversy is shed upon UN policies regarding family, let us consider whether the influential feminist groups operating within the UN are, in fact, anti-family?

Feminism within the UN
read the rest

Concerned Women for America has provided Biblical support for six core issues, which go to the heart of our Western Values in which the functional family unit is key. In addition, CWA has been following CEDAW since it was spawned in the UN, and they have a lot to report on the organization's committee rulings.

I have looked into Wendy McElroy a bit. Perhaps it may seem presumptuous of me, but I'm new at this and need to check out anyone I recommend. I can say this without hesitation: Wendy McElroy is a woman who can think on her feet (a superlative recommendation from yours truly). What I have read of her writing, she is very adept at pulling back the curtain sham of the politicization of women's role in today's society, and exposing the radical feminist's goals.

This is very necessary in order to understand and refute the idiocy being perpetrated on women and children, who in the Radical Feminist's war on the prevailing patriarchy, have become mere pawns, expendable and ultimately discardable.

It's all part of the "Criticise, criticise, poke out their eyes" mentality. In the Feminist View, all who don't espouse the party line are guilty of supporting the patriachy - ergo, they are beneath contempt. It's not okay to be a lady.

Ladies, toss these misguided souls out on their respective derrières.