Saturday, July 4, 2009

I Pledge Alliegence to the United Nations Flag?




By Theosebes

This past Monday morning, Susan E. Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations made a visit with Unicef to a classroom at the Harlem Children’s Zone. She spoke with an audience of eighth and ninth graders about volunteerism and shared that she hoped they would have similar opportunities to engage with the United Nations and with young people in the developing world as she had had. She said, “Your generation will have more to do than any other generation with people in other countries.” According to the New York Times article June 22, 2009, In Harlem, Ambassador to U.N. Urges Volunteerism, she shared about the civil war in Congo, and the supplies that Unicef, in honor of Harlam Children’s Zone, would be donating to this area. “Kids all over the U.S., and particularly here in New York, need to understand how their security, future and economic livelihood is linked to what happens in other parts of the world,” she said. “They’re not passive bystanders in this life, even as young people.”

Benign as this might seem, there is more to the story. Yesterday morning an email was sent out to members of Home School Legal Defense Association in regard to this visit. What the New York Times didn’t report was shared in the E-lert sent from HSLDA. http://www.hslda.org/elert/archive/2009/06/20090624132525.asp According to the email, Susan Rice told this group of students that the administration officials are actively discussing “when and how it might be possible to join” (that is, ratify) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). As before, she also communicated what a disgrace it is that the U.S. would stand with only Somalia against such a widely accepted treaty.

Michael Farris, HSLDA Chairman asked the members to take action by calling the White House and their Congressional leaders, letting them know that they strongly oppose the “anti-family and anti-American treaty.” He also asked that calls be made to Ambassador Susan Rice’s office at the United Nations voicing these concerns.

A few hours after the initial E-lert from HSLDA, another email came through sharing this fantastic news: “The office of UN Ambassador Susan Rice has been inundated with calls! The first phone line we sent out has been completely shut down, and the voice mail system for all of their lines has been crashed.” http://www.hslda.org/elert/archive/2009/06/20090624163733.asp

Home Schooling families stepped up to represent not only their rights, but the rights of all Americans. The grassroots movement that took place yesterday must continue on a larger scale by educating all Americans about the danger of this U.N. treaty and placing calls to their elected officials.

Once again, our liberal friends in Washington, who claim to love America, are covertly hoping to ratify CRC making it the law of the land here in the United States helping to strip away the rights of parents in America and allow the U.N. to dictate what proper parenting looks like at a global level.

Both Drudge http://www.drudge.com/news/122366/us-may-join-un-childrens-treaty and Free Republic http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2278566/posts reported on this development on June 24, 2009, but this has been on the back burner for Barbara Boxer as reported earlier this year by FoxNews.com. “Sen. Barbara Boxer is urging the U.S. to ratify a United Nations measure meant to expand the rights of children, a move critics are calling a gross assault on parental rights that could rob the U.S. of sovereignty.” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights/

According to J. Michael Smith, HSLDA President, in Washington Times Op-ed—U.N. Treaty Might Weaken Families

“Article 43 of the CRC establishes an international committee on the rights of the child to examine compliance by member nations. This committee, which sits in Geneva, has final authority concerning interpretation of the language contained in the CRC.

Two central principles of the CRC clearly are contrary to current U.S. laws related to parent-child relationships. The CRC provides that in all matters relating to children, whether private or public, or in courts, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. Additionally, nations should ensure that children are capable of expressing their views freely in all matters affecting them, giving due weight to the age and maturity of the child.

This is contrary to traditional American law, which provides that absent proof of harm, courts and social workers simply do not have the authority to intervene in parent-child relationships and decision-making. The importance of this tradition and practice is that the government may not substitute its judgment for that of the parent until there is proof of harm to the child sufficient to justify governmental intervention. It is clear that in two very important areas of the parent-child relationship, religion and education, there will be potential for tremendous conflict.

The international committee in Geneva, in reviewing the laws of practice of countries that have ratified the CRC, has expressed its concern that parents could homeschool without the view of the child being considered; that parents could remove their children from sex-education classes without the view of the child being considered; that parents were legally permitted to use corporal punishment; and that children didn’t have access to reproductive health information without parental knowledge.

The bottom line is the CRC would drastically weaken the United States’ sovereignty over family life, which would have a substantial impact on every American family."

To find out more on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, visit http://www.parentalrights.org/learnrn.

Our sovereignty as parents in America is threatened by the United Nations if our Administration and Congress ratify this treaty. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and teach my children to do the same. We must not lie down on this issue for the sake of our children and grandchildren. We must fight with everything we have to remain One Nation, Under God, not One Nation caving into the demands of the world.




12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh my goodness, the evil Left is trying to take away your parental rights!

More fear mongering from the Right based on scant evidence and hateful rhetoric. The fact that people actually believe this nonsense is truly truly scary.

Peace.
Rick Beagle.

Anonymous said...

Rick Beagle,
State some facts for a change,you troll through the internet and leave your comments with no sustance.
Please Rick, GET A JOB, and maybe an education.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

Sorry to disappoint you, but I have a job and a Masters... what about you?

I think that makes me one of those elitist Liberals. But seriously, the logic in this post is absurd.

Do you folks really think that the Liberals want our kids swearing to a flag that isn't American? It was a rhetorical question, we do not.

Where you folks come up with this stuff is a big mystery, and seriously, you should be ashamed for passing it along.

Peace.
Rick Beagle

Anonymous said...

Rick Beagle,

You said the logic in the post was absurd but didn't back up your assertion. Instead you went on to comment on the headline, which I agree is a bit of an exaggeration.

Can you explain why you think the United States should ratify this treaty?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

Again, I have read the entire article, and the head line is not far off the mark. The entire crux of this nonsense is the belief that the UN is trying to insert themselves into the lives of American families.

Rather than link you a few hundred articles on the subject, let's try a more practical discussion on this issue. Do you think the UN has either the power or will to intercede in the family values of average Americans? We both know that they do not.

So, if it impossible for the UN to intercede in our daily lives then what could be the goal of this treaty? Could it be that the UN (which is their mandate) are looking to provide for the rights of children across international borders? Could it be that they are trying to staunch the child slavery trade? Could it be that they are trying to keep children from being kidnapped from their villages and pressed into rebel armies? Could it be that they are trying to protect children from truly awful lives? If you have no idea what any of that is, I encourage to brush up on the subject, but be warned, it is extremely disturbing (a friend of mine's son did a movie on the Lost Children - highly recommend it, but again, bring a strong stomach).
But none of this matters to the Right, who use this as some sort of rallying call for American parental rights (which was never ever the dang target of the treaty). They twist the wording and whip up their constituents - a group too willing to believe this nonsense - with tales of lost rights and international intervention into their lives. None of which is true.

So instead of ratifying a treaty to help staunch some of these gruesome acts against children, we stand with Somalia and oppose it over "family values"?

If you want links ask again, but they are out there, I assure you.

Peace.
Rick Beagle

Anonymous said...

1. Question
"Do you think the UN has either the power or will to intercede in the family values of average Americans?"

Answer
The UN will have the power to intercede in the family values of Americans, average or otherwise, if we ratify the treaty. Because of Article VI of the US Constition, any ratified treaty would become "the supreme law of the land" unless that treaty is overridden by the US Constituton. Parentalrights.org is supporting a simple amendment to the US Constitution to protect parental rights in the event that the treaty is ratified.


2. Question
"...what could be the goal of this treaty? Could it be that the UN (which is their mandate) are looking to provide for the rights of children across international borders?"

Answer
Obviously children are abused and neglected and that should be stopped. But ratification of this treaty by the United States will do nothing to directly protect children in other countries. We already have laws in the US to protect our children from these atrocities.


3. Assertion
"They twist the wording and whip up their constituents..."

Response
Just like in a previous post, you made another assertion but didn't back it up.


4. Assertion
"So instead of ratifying a treaty to help staunch some of these gruesome acts against children, we stand with Somalia and oppose it over 'family values'?"

Response
Now that's twisting words. It's a fallacious argument to try to say we "stand" with Somalia. Somalia has no central government and can't ratify anything. They certainly don't share our "family values". If Somlia did have the capability to ratify this treaty, they probably would. But, like all the other countries that have ratified the treaty, they wouldn't enforce every article. This statement is from an article on the parentalrights.org website "there isn’t a nation in the world that has fully adopted the CRC without reservations or omission". You can read the whole article here
(http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B0997BEC2-8843-4B50-95CC-4DDBCB630933%7D)
If every other country has ratified the treaty but children around the world are still being abused then what good is the treaty?


Did you go to the website parentalrights.org referenced in the article? Please review the site without your "elitist Liberal" filter engaged.

Ratification of this treaty will not protect children; I wish it could. Instead it shifts authority from parents and states to the federal government and the UN. Is that what you want? If so, then you've got a hidden agenda and I'd like to know how that protects children.

Anonymous said...

1. Falsehood:
"The UN will have the power to intercede in the family values of Americans, average or otherwise, if we ratify the treaty. Because of Article VI of the US Constition, any ratified treaty would become "the supreme law of the land" unless that treaty is overridden by the US Constituton. Parentalrights.org is supporting a simple amendment to the US Constitution to protect parental rights in the event that the treaty is ratified."

The three amendments are absurd and subject to substantial abuse by the overly religious sect. I am not referring to people who home school, but what about those clowns who refuse to treat their children medically but would allow them to die unless God performs a miracle. No way we put an amendment in the constitution to support those idiots.

Furthermore:
"As ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court, under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, no treaty can override the Constitution [(Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)]. In addition, the CRC is not a “self-executing treaty” - it cannot be automatically implemented without legislative action. As with any treaty, each U.S. state would be responsible for developing and executing its own legislation."

CRC FAQs

2.Falsehood:
Obviously children are abused and neglected and that should be stopped. But ratification of this treaty by the United States will do nothing to directly protect children in other countries. We already have laws in the US to protect our children from these atrocities."

"The U.S. has some of the best programs and laws in the world to protect our children, but too many of them continue to face considerable hardships, including insufficient health care, inadequate educational opportunities, and high rates of poverty, abuse, hunger, infant mortality, incarceration, teen pregnancy, homicide, suicide, and firearm-related deaths."

This quote, like many here, come directly from childrightscampaign.org, but the assertions in this comment are backed up by the CDC, Planned Parenthood, The March of Dimes and other organizations. Time for us to face the ugly truth about some of these issues in our own country.


3. Assertion
"They twist the wording and whip up their constituents..."
Response
Just like in a previous post, you made another assertion but didn't back it up.

"Over 300 organizations representing the interests of the religious, education, health care, humanitarian, labor, legal, and social service communities have lent their support for ratification of the CRC. However, a small number of political organizations have spearheaded efforts to oppose U.S. ratification. These groups have sought to minimize the Convention’s value by employing “scare tactics” to fallaciously portray the CRC as a threat to American families. In general, opponents largely base their arguments on unsubstantiated claims regarding national sovereignty and interference in the parent-child relationship."

You can find the rest of the text here. I would presume that you would consider that backed up?

Anonymous said...

4. Say what?

"If every other country has ratified the treaty but children around the world are still being abused then what good is the treaty?"

Using this logic we would have to question why we have laws on the books for murder or for any crime. Even with these laws, people still commit crimes, so why have them. Do you see where the logic of your argument fails? This provides a tool and a general acknowledgement by all people that the governments of the world need to provide care for our children. 198 countries have ratified this treaty, if it is as poorly written and so authoritarian, why did our allies chose to pass this? Are we presuming that they are so stupid or lazy as to not realize your fears?

Or rather do you think it is more likely that a small group of people are using the rights of children as a political pawn in their quest for power and leverage? A way to inflame the flames in hopes that the outrage of parents will translate into votes for their party?

Yes, I read the website you listed and found its logic wanting. Please take off your outrage and visit the official site for the treaty here.

Peace.
Rick Beagle

Anonymous said...

1. The treaty protects the "liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children". It does not protect a parent in the event that they abuse or neglect their children. Withholding essential medical treatment is abuse/neglect and the governemnt already has the authority to intervene in those cases.

2. I agree that some children in the US face extreme hardships. But we can pass and enforce domestic legislation to continue to deal with tose issues. We don't need the UN to help us with that.

3. Your response does not back up your assertion. It presents another unsubstantiated assertion.

4. I'll admint that the last sentence in that paragaraph did not clarify my overall point very well. The point was that our ratification of the treaty will not protect children in countries that have already ratified the treaty but that don't enforce its articles. If it's so important to you that we follow in the footsteps of the 198 ratifying countries, which articles of the treaty do you suggest we eliminate/ignore?


I absolutely disagree that this issue is just now being raised by a small group of Republicans to try to salvage a few votes. The treay has been around for a few presidential administrations but has never had the support it needs for ratification. That's because it's a bad treaty. You haven't heard much from its critics until now because no previous administration had the audacity to try to ratify it.

Larry said...

In my previous post I started out saying "The treaty protects the ...". I meant to say "The amendment protects the...". Sorry for the confusion.

Anonymous said...

1. The treaty protects the "liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children". It does not protect a parent in the event that they abuse or neglect their children. Withholding essential medical treatment is abuse/neglect and the governemnt already has the authority to intervene in those cases.

You are incorrect sir. This amendment gives constitutional protection to abuse children. Please reread your amendments with those miscreants suggested in mind, and ask aloud if they could be used to give Constitutional protection to child abusers. Constitutional amendments trump national and state laws. I do understand that this is not your intent (just wanted to make sure that was said).

2. We finally agree on something, but why not sign a treaty that provides rights for children across the planet? There have been a number of cases in the news lately where the immigration status of a child was in question. Perhaps tis treaty is a great springboard to begin immigration reform in this area?
I know that is a sensitive subject, but let me take a stab at potentially common ground. If two married adults become naturalized citizens, perhaps their three year child could inherit that right too? Following that logic, if a couple illegally entered this country and then had children, shouldn't those children inherit their parent's nationality? Some consistency amongst all nations might be a good idea?

3. Read the headline to this post. I would have to scroll down, but didn't you mention it as being an exaggeration? Given the crowd who visit these sites suggesting that our children pledge to the UN flag is inflammatory. As is the incredulous insinuation that the UN is trying to usurp American parental rights. You may read it that way, but even you, a true believer, can not possibly believe that the UN is trying to come between an American parent and their child?

4. Don't worry about your last sentence, my comments were worded just as poorly. If you have a problem with the language in a particular part of the treaty, then work within the system to make a positive change. Why isn't that an option? Why is our answer to the world a big fat "no", followed by a call to arms?

5. "I absolutely disagree that this issue is just now being raised by a small group of Republicans to try to salvage a few votes. The treay has been around for a few presidential administrations but has never had the support it needs for ratification. That's because it's a bad treaty. You haven't heard much from its critics until now because no previous administration had the audacity to try to ratify it."

No, it is the flavor of the week and you are not naive enough to believe that this isn't some sort of attempt to grab headlines and garner votes? If it were not, would there be such defiance, and posturing?

In conclusion, the solution to this problem is easy, workable, and requires very little effort on anyone's part (i.e. modify the treaty). But instead of a productive dialog on how to make this a better treaty, we are inundated by inflammatory statements, and misleading titles. Again, it is my assertion that the political arm of the Right are using this issue to garner favor with their base at the expense of our children. I am sorry sir, but I find that sad and small. Furthermore, you seem like a good egg with perhaps some good ideas, but their methodology simply keeps us from meeting in the middle.

Nice talking with you.
Rick Beagle

Larry said...

1. Section 2 of the Amendment protects children from abuse.

2. Again, our ratifiaction of that treaty would do nothing to directly help children "across the planet". Also, I read the treaty and, while I may have missed it, I don't see anything in it that would affect our immigration laws.

3. I don't presume to know the will of the UN or our federal government. I do know that this treaty has been used by federal governments to intervene between parents and their children in cases where no abuse/neglect has occurred. The CRC has been used "to challenge the US Army’s recruiting practices, threaten educational choice in Great Britain, and discourage corporal punishment in Guatemala".

4. While I do object to some of the language in the treaty, the larger problem is not what it says but the fact that its interpretation will be left up to a UN council. For example, I can read item 1 in Article 19 "...protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence..." and agree with it because I don't think children should be beaten. But that clause has been interpreted by government officials to mean "no spanking". Spanking a child should not be a federal crime.

5. The organization opposed to the treaty and for the amendment has been around for at least a couple of years. My family and I started working with them about two years ago during the Bush administration. You are hearing more about them now because the current administration is seriously considering ratifying this treaty. If you want to believe that this is just an issue to generate support for a specific party then it's just as reasonable to say the Democrats are just using it as an issue to try to gain favor by trying to convince voters that they care more about children than the Republicans do.


While I oppose ratification of the treaty and will continue to try to convince others that it shouldn't be passed, the middle ground you speak of could be ratification of the treaty and passage of the parental rights amendment. But I'm not sure that anyone will be satisfied with that.

Smart Girl Politics ©Template Blogger Green by Dicas Blogger.

TOPO