The Latest news on UNWANTED ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child

March 11, 2011 Dear Champion of Parental Rights, Yesterday afternoon in the U.S. Senate, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced SR 99, a resolution opposing ratification of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Joining him are 28 original cosponsors, and two more Senators signed up with his office last night. This means SR 99 already has 31 of the 34 senators needed to prevent ratification of this dangerous treaty for the rest of this Congress  FULL STORY

"If government could create jobs and raise children, socialism would have worked." -Gerald Gilder

"Destroy the family, you destroy the country." -Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

CONTACT YOUR REP AND SENATOR TODAY HERE'S THE QUICK and EASY WAY ~  Action Item #1~ The Parents' Rights Amendment

Twenty things you need to know about the UNCRC
Parental Rights.org

Best interest of the child- A new "Civil Right"

A FLDS girl receiving her Best Interest Civil Right Photo: Scott Sommerdorf, The Salt Lake Tribune

October 16, 2009
Family Rights Examiner Leonard Henderson

Last year, I was cleaning up my computer desktop.  One item I came across was a poignant photo of a FLDS girl alone on a bus waving goodbye to her home and the life she knew.

As I was looking at this image, it struck me that- This IS a photo of the "Best Interest of the Child".

And then it struck me.  THIS IS A NEW CIVIL RIGHT

That is, the child has the "right" to have her decisions made for her by government.  HER "BEST INTEREST" CIVIL RIGHT

The term "In the best interest of the child" itself originates in the 1959 United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child, Principle 2 and 7.

The term is in the 1990 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child-

(Article 3, paragraph 1) In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

On February 16, 1995, Madeleine Albright, at the time the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, signed the Convention, against massive protest by American families. The United States has not ratified the CRC.  (We never want it to be ratified.  See the Parental Rights Amendment  Lots more info at http://familyrights.us/UNCRC)

But the "Best Interest of the Child" concept under Parens patriae was fully implemented in the United States beginning with CAPTA '74.  

So the truth is, the Convention on the Rights of the Child has been supplanted into law and already DE FACTO in force.

There is likely no phrase in our language more dangerous to children than "the best interests of the child", because it's the banner enabling the unconstitutional government officious and tyrannical intrusion into families. 

European Socialism's Best Interest Rights of the Child?  

I would much rather give American children their CONSTITUTIONAL Fourth Amendment Right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The best interests test has long been the subject of academic as well as judicial criticism for being indeterminate, providing little guidance on how to weigh the different needs of individual children, especially as they change over time" -Robert H. Mnookin, Child-Custody Adjudication: Judicial Functions in the Face of Indeterminacy, 39 Law & Contemp. Probs., 226, 257 (Summer 1975).

Best interests operates as an empty vessel into which adult perceptions and prejudices are poured." --Hillary Rodham, Children Under the Law, 43 Harv. Ed. Rev. 487, 513 (1973).

'Best interest of Children' doesn't love and care for children. It's about the industry collecting the money." --Bro Will Gaston

There is no system ever devised by mankind that is guaranteed to rip husband and wife or father, mother and child apart so bitterly than our present Family Court System." -Judge Brian Lindsay Retired Supreme Court Judge, New York, New York

There is something bad happening to our children in family courts today that is causing them more harm than drugs, more harm than crime and even more harm than child molestation." -Judge Watson L. White Superior Court Judge, Cobb County, Georgia

Supreme Court Urged to Impose Unratified U.N. Treaty 9/23/2009 The Supreme Court this term has agreed to hear on appeal two cases which question the authority of a state to sentence juvenile violent offenders to life without parole. Amnesty International and other global organizations have filed briefs urging the Court to apply the U.N.’s controversial Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) to Florida law as a matter of binding “Customary International Law”. On Monday, sixteen members of the U.S. House of Representatives filed an opposing brief which argues that this use of international law is contrary to both the facts and the law. “Amnesty International believes that international law, rather than American law, should be used to make this decision. We have been warning people for some time that this theory could be used to force this treaty upon an unwilling American public. Americans want to retain family-based decision-making and American-made law. The UN Convention Rights of the Child would undermine both of these principles,” constitutional lawyer Michael Farris said. Amnesty International’s brief asserts that the United States is the only nation with laws that permit juveniles to be sentenced to life in prison. The opposing brief, written by Farris and filed by the Members of the House, uses the records of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child to demonstrate that at least 23 nations impose either life sentences or the death penalty for certain juvenile offenders. Moreover, the brief argues that the United States cannot be bound by any form of international law in a domestic case of this character. Amnesty International’s argument is premised on the prior Supreme Court decision of Roper v. Simmons in 2005. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled the imposition of the death penalty against juvenile murderers to be unconstitutional. In reaching that decision the Court relied on the unratified CRC as persuasive authority to support its decision. However, Amnesty International has asked the Court to move to the next step. AI contends that this treaty is already binding on the United States because 193 nations have adopted this convention.  FULL STORY

Child-rights advocates seeking to convince the U.S. Senate and the American public to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, are pursuing a curious line of reasoning. They say we can ratify the treaty, which preempts parents' fundamental rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children, without incurring binding legal obligations. They argue that American legislators will choose how much, if any, of the treaty to implement.

Jonathan Todres, a professor at Georgia State, told the Associated Press that American parental rights would be safe because U.N. treaties contain "no enforcement mechanisms or penalties." Meg Gardinier, who chairs a coalition of groups supporting the U.S. ratification of the treaty, told the AP, "No U.N. treaty will ever usurp the national sovereignty of this country."

This smacks of the kind of American diplomacy the Left demonizes whenever conservatives suggest that America "can go its own way." Ratify the treaty, they say. It's not legally binding. We can choose what to obey and what not to.

This argument is not only patently hypocritical, it is legally wrong.

The most important principle of international law is: pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept). In other words, keep your promises.

Make no mistake, whenever the United States ratifies a treaty it enters into a binding legal obligation to comply with its terms.  FULL STORY  The Neo Coms know exactly what they are doing in sabotaging the US and selling us out.

The Right to Direct the Upbringing of One's Own Child, otherwise known as the Parental Liberty Doctrine, is a crucial civil liberty. It includes direction of a child's education, health care, lifestyle, regimen, religious observance, and discipline. The characterization of the liberty as "fundamental" under the substantive due process of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution makes an enormous practical difference to home educators and court litigants.

...The Parental Liberty Doctrine is really a component of the much broader Family Liberty Doctrine (which overlaps with the Right to Family Autonomy, a facet of liberty oriented towards familial privacy and association). Jurists, journalists, and politicians have tended to focus on "parental rights" or "parental liberty," because parents are often in a better position to assert family prerogatives in protection of the children. Often the public does not understand any term other than the widely-used colloquial expression parental rights. But to be technically precise, the Child Liberty Doctrine protecting the interests of children, as well as the state's interests in general health and safety, are similarly intertwined with and served by the Family Liberty Doctrine. Children and society are better off when children are not treated as creatures or property of the state.  FULL STORY

Also see their essay on Parens Patriae

U.S. sovereignty on swap block?
Obama negotiating for seat for U.S. on U.N. commission
Posted: April 30, 2009 9:20 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The Obama administration is preparing to swap U.S. sovereignty for a higher level of U.S. presence at the United Nations, a plan that has alarmed officials working to protect the rights of Americans, specifically the parental rights that traditionally have been recognized across the nation's history.

Michael Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College, said, "The move is little more than another attempt at political correctness by an administration frantic for acceptance by the international community."  
FULL STORY

The truth is, parent's rights were gutted by CAPTA '74, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child has been de facto in force ever since.  It was enhanced by ASFA "97, a bullet to the head of parents, which entire ungodly mess was renewed on October 7, 2008 when Lame Duck George W. Bush signed into law the Orwellian-named Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act.

The man behind Parental Rights Amendment
Farris championed homeschooling, built college, local church
Posted: April 28, 2009 9:07 pm Eastern
By Alyssa Farah
© 2009 WorldNetDaily 

New website!

Hoekstra Introduces Parents' Rights Amendment
Constitutional Amendment Would Explicitly Establish the Rights of Parents
 
Washington, Mar 31 - U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland, has introduced a bill with 70 congressional co-sponsors that would amend the Constitution to explicitly state that parents, not government or any other organization, have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit.

"In the President’s first address to a joint session of Congress, he stated that there is ‘no program or policy that can substitute for a mother or father,’" Hoekstra said. "I agree wholeheartedly."

The most effective means of protecting the parent-child relationship is by securing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The proposed amendment (H.J.Res 42) places the text preserving parents’ rights into the text of the Constitution, ensuring that the child-parent relationship remains protected for generations to come.

"The right of parents to raise their children as they see fit is under direct attack by government and the courts," Hoekstra said. "The Parents’ Rights Amendment is about preserving that right for parents as opposed to empowering policymakers either in Washington or any other organization."

More information can be found at the newly created Web site www.parentsrights.us

Don't miss the page to Sign Up to Show Support

Parental Rights – Analysis by Article of the UNCRC
Peter Kamakawiwoole

The words "Treason against the Constitution of the United States" come to mind

Sen. Boxer tries to hurry children's 'rights' treaty
Opponents warn U.N. measure would put government in place of parents
Posted: February 26, 2009 1:17 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., is urging a hurry-up timetable for adoption of a United Nations treaty she says provides for "basic human rights" for children but opponents argue would destroy parental rights to raise their children as they choose.

"Children deserve basic human rights ... and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected," Boxer said, according to Fox News.

Boxer wants quick action on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a proposal on which for 20 years Congress has refused to act because of concerns and questions.  Full Story 

Senator Boxer Asks State Department to Expedite the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child February 9, 2009 Parental Rights News After Ambassador Susan Rice’s inability to make an “iron-clad commitment” for immediate ratification, Boxer will ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for U.S. support of the UNCRC. The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which opponents say could destroy American sovereignty by imposing international rulings on American law, could reach the Senate within 60 days. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) says she wants a 60-day timeframe for the State Department to complete its review so the Senate can move toward ratification of the UNCRC. During the Senate Confirmation hearing between Boxer and UN Ambassador-designate Susan Rice held on January 15, 2009, Boxer told Rice the UNCRC would protect “the most vulnerable people of society.”  From what? Opponents vehemently disagree. Under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI) of the U.S. Constitution, ratified treaties preempt state law. Since virtually all laws in the U.S. regarding children are state laws, this treaty would negate nearly 100% of existing American family law. Moreover, it would grant the government authority to override parental decisions by applying even to good parents a standard now only used against those convicted of abuse or neglect. In the hearing, Rice promised to review the treaty but noted “challenges of domestic implementation.” Rice also resisted a strict timeframe: “I don’t have a sense of how long it will take us, in light of the many different things on our plate,” she said. Calling it a “complicated treaty,” Rice expressed her commitment to the treaty’s objectives, but when Rice concluded that she could not meet the Senator’s strict timeframe, Boxer said they would take it up with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  Nothing complicated about it.  It's a raging, insane piece of COMMUNIST trash.  Wad it up and put it through the shredder.  The truth is, it's ALREADY IN PRACTICE, and it has been since 1974.  It's a War on Families.

United Nations Population Fund Leader Says Family Breakdown is a Triumph for Human Rights By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman MEXICO CITY, February 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A leader in the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has declared that the breakdown of traditional families, far from being a “crisis,” is actually a triumph for human rights. Speaking at a colloquium held last month at Colegio Mexico in Mexico City, UNFPA representative Arie Hoekman denounced the idea that high rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births represent a social crisis, claiming that they represent instead the triumph of “human rights” against “patriarchy.” "In the eyes of conservative forces, these changes mean that the family is in crisis," he said. "In crisis? More than a crisis, we are in the presence of a weakening of the patriarchal structure, as a result of the disappearance of the economic base that sustains it and because of the rise of new values centered in the recognition of fundamental human rights."  FULL STORY See the Communist Manifesto of 1848 Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution. The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

June 24th, 2008
Government-Supervised Parenting
Part I of an In-depth Look at Article 18 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

During our series on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, most of the articles we have considered have focused on the relationship between the state and the child. Article 18 is therefore unique in its emphasis on the responsibilities of parents, and the supervised relationship that these parents have with the state. Full Story

Madeline Albright signed us up for this, HIGHLY against the will of the American People

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
The Most Dangerous Attack on Parents’ Rights
In the History of the United States
By Christopher J. Klicka, Esq.
and
William A. Estrada

Senator Dole on February 24, 1995, stood before the Senate and condemned the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. ..... He stated,

Mr. President, in the past several days, I have received thousands of calls from all over the country in opposition to this Convention. My office has not received one call for it. These contacts have raised many serious problems that need to be examined. They have raised questions about Articles 13, 14, and 15, which grant children the freedom of speech, thought, conscience, religion, association, and assembly. Could these articles be interpreted to limit the ability of parents to decide for themselves how best to raise their children? Should U.S. citizens be subject to some sort of international committee that enforces compliance with Article 28(2) which states: “State Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention?”

Under Article VI of the Constitution, Senate ratification of this Treaty would make it the supreme law of the land. Would the Convention then supersede Federal and State laws? What would the effect of the convention be on the Tenth Amendment? Is the convention merely a symbolic exercise, or will it actually require the United States to take actions? These are sincere questions from sincere people. They deserve answers ...

I also believe we in the United States have made significant progress in protecting the rights of the child through Federal, State, and local laws. These laws are better equipped to deal with the varying challenges posed by the issue of child rights. If there is one thing this election taught us, it is the need to get excessive government out of people’s lives. This applies to the Federal government, and it certainly applies to the multilateral, quasi-government that is the U.N. (Congressional Record, page S-3081).  MUST SEE FULL STORY

Search the internet for U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child

Basically what it's about is the UN saying that THEY DECIDE a child's future.

"The best interests test has long been the subject of academic as well as judicial criticism for being indeterminate, providing little guidance on how to weigh the different needs of individual children, especially as they change over time"; Robert H. Mnookin, Child-Custody Adjudication: Judicial Functions in the Face of Indeterminacy, 39 Law & Contemp. Probs., 226, 257 (Summer 1975).

"Best interests operates as an empty vessel into which adult perceptions and prejudices are poured." --Hillary Rodham, Children Under the Law, 43 Harv. Ed. Rev. 487, 513 (1973).