Crc

KenHigg

Registered User
Local time
Today, 09:36
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
13,327
International Kids 'Right's Treaty

A Letter from Michael Farris,
President of ParentalRights.org.

Dear Friend of Parental Rights,

I was in the United States Senate this past week meeting with lawyers for a Senate office. They told me directly what I have been hearing indirectly on a regular basis ever since the election.

Those who want to change family policy in America to comply with international law are preparing a full-scale effort to seek ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child during this next Congress. Barbara Boxer recently told a planning group that they intend to use children’s health care as leverage to seek ratification of this UN children’s rights treaty.

Please link to our website to see a succinct summary of the problems with this UN treaty.

The strength of their forces has been greatly increased with the addition of Hillary Clinton as the nominee for Secretary of State. She will have direct control over the submission of this treaty to the Senate and will acquire the authority under international law to sign any other treaty on any subject.

Hillary Clinton was the person who made the announcement for the Convention on the Rights of the Child when her husband’s administration signed the treaty. Seeking its ratification is a lifelong dream for her.

Our situation is grim if we were to look only at the position of the elected officials.

However, recent post-election polling demonstrates that almost 70% of Americans do not believe that the use of international law in American courts on such matters is appropriate. Less than 20% favor the use of international law. (The rest are undecided). Virtually every sub-group in America opposes this kind of use of international law.

America is on our side. However, we have to be able to get the word out to help people hear the truth about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Our proposed Parental Rights Amendment will permanently stop this treaty. So we have a one-two punch planned for the internationalists.

First, we must build a huge grassroots movement of patriotic Americans who believe that good families should be able to raise their children without worrying about compliance with international law.

Second, these same grassroots forces need to convince our elected officials that we are not content with defeating this treaty for today alone. We insist on a permanent solution. We need the Parental Rights Amendment.

I need you to do two things to help this become a reality. First, please send a copy of this letter to everyone you know who believes in parental rights and American patriotism.

Second, we need to raise a war chest to get prepared to launch a massive grassroots campaign. The other side has millions of dollars left in their campaign coffers, and they have the President of the United States, the Secretary of State and all the media waiting to carry their message.

We can win the debate because we have the truth on our side. And we have public opinion. But we won’t win if we can’t reach people.

Will you please make as big a gift as you can to support Parentalrights.org?

Here is what they are saying about us. At the hearing which featured Barbara Boxer, one of the speakers said that the people who will oppose this treaty are the “narcissistic sovereignty crowd.” In other words, those who love America first are so guilty of excessive self-love that he describes us as having the mental illness of narcissism.

This is their real heart. Not only do they want international law to control our families. They think that we are mentally ill for loving America.

It is time for those of us who believe in loving our families and loving America to rise up! We will not surrender this country or our children to such people.

Get involved today! The battle is about to begin.

For God, family, and America,

Michael Farris

Read it for yourself....

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Sounds all nice until you start reading it:

Link

2.2: States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.

But it's ok to send a 15 year old to war?!?::

38.2. States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities.
 
Last edited:
Well, its not perfect but its better than sending 12 year olds off to fight.

I guess you have to start somewhere.
 
Here's the fallacy: Treaty's take priority over a country’s laws. I don't want somebody from another culture on the other side of the world dictating how I raise my kids. And I doubt they do either. It's all a bunch of flim-flam by the brain dead power hungry likes of Hil Clinton
 
Here's the fallacy: Treaty's take priority over a country’s laws. I don't want somebody from another culture on the other side of the world dictating how I raise my kids. And I doubt they do either. It's all a bunch of flim-flam by the brain dead power hungry likes of Hil Clinton
Just wtf do you Yanks think your doing now in Iraq and Afghanistan and in other countries for the last half century then, you think you have the moral right to lecture the rest of the world but not they you:rolleyes:
 
Here's the fallacy: Treaty's take priority over a country’s laws. I don't want somebody from another culture on the other side of the world dictating how I raise my kids. And I doubt they do either. It's all a bunch of flim-flam by the brain dead power hungry likes of Hil Clinton

Treaty's are only valid if you sign up for them

the age of 15 does seem a little low - however in certain counties an adult is consider to be 12 upwards

Islamic countries can get married at 12 (and technically jewish - however this has lasped in recent times)
 
"Just wtf do you Yanks think your doing now in Iraq and Afghanistan and in other countries for the last half century then, you think you have the moral right to lecture the rest of the world but not they you"

We're trying to help the people of Iraq be free and let them run their country free from the likes of Hussein.

Now please keep the discussion focused. This is about a 'treaty' dictating how a person in another part of the world raises their kids. The way I see it you're either for it or against it. Which are you?
 
I am not for the treaty as outlined..

however that does not mean that I disagree with some of it's points

Cultural differences have to be taken into account ..

if we go back a couple of decades a baby born in China was not offically alive until it was 5-7 days old (due to high mortaility rates at birth and the lack of adequate health care)

While this seems very backwards to us (and me) we have to look at the enviroment that they are brought up in

Does that mean they are less compassionate - no.. well maybe depending on your stand point

as to the treaty -
it is a well meant piece of legilation (typo) - State side you already have something along these lines in your state schools - no religion (I think i am right here but happy to be shot down in flames if not ..lol)

Europeans - have taken a differnet stance - the vast majority of religious schools are in the top brackets of achivement and a lot of other religious groups want their children to go to a Catholic/Cof E school even though they may be not of that faith - Ok there are a few who get their child in and then kick up a fuss about christianity - but these are the minority
 
I like it, but that's mostly due to the animosity and disgust I feel for the majority of swine having children in our country.

The entitlement mentality that is all the rage, even worse now than with my age group, makes me sick.

It's a cruel thing to say but 60% of teenagers in America right now could be poster children for abortion and their knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, Zoloft popping parents should be spayed and neutered.

Seeing one of these 15 year olds going off to the military would please, unfortunately the BS war going on right now isn't something I'd wish on anyone.
 
Here's the fallacy: Treaty's take priority over a country’s laws. I don't want somebody from another culture on the other side of the world dictating how I raise my kids. And I doubt they do either. It's all a bunch of flim-flam by the brain dead power hungry likes of Hil Clinton
I understand what you're saying, but even within America, there's quite a spectrum of culture - legislation formulated on the other side of your country could be almost as alien.

Was the United States not a participant in the formulation of this framework of rights? (that's an earnest question - I can't seem to find the answer on the unicef site)
 
WOW that coming from a country that will not sign the accord to ban cluster bombs or land mines.
 
Can't have someone from another culture dictating whose limbs they blow up.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom