It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sen. DeMint: Ratifying U.N. Children's Rights Treaty Would Turn Parental Rights 'Over to Internation

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Sen. DeMint: Ratifying U.N. Children's Rights Treaty Would Turn Parental Rights 'Over to International Community'


www.cnsnews.com

Sen. Jim DeMint (R- S.C.) said that if President Barack Obama gets his way and the Senate ratifies the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the precedent would be set to place parental rights under the jurisdiction of the international community.

“We believe we need to take clear action here in Congress to protect the rights of parents to raise their children," DeMint said at a Wednesday panel discussion. "This treaty would, in fact, establish a precedent that those rights
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   


Sen. Jim DeMint, Washington, D.C., August 4, 2010.

Placing parental rights to the international community?

That's what the globalist elite want - they want to take your child away to control them.

Surely you will find the world's wealthiest pedophiles in that elitist bunch.

You wouldn't wanna give your child to the globalists, would you?

Sen. Jim DeMint is right about this issue.

www.cnsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   


Only four more senators need to sign on to inform President Obama that he does not have enough votes in the Senate to ratify the treaty, DeMint said.

DeMint has also introduced a joint resolution, proposing a constitutional amendment to protect parental rights



WOW everthing falling to place for UN/NWO/Agenda 21

Call your Sen. and demand them to block this bull.


[edit on 7-8-2010 by cosmo740]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Jim DeMint is a grandstanding moron.

The United States is one of only two countries in the entire world not to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The only other country is Somalia. The US is becoming a laughingstock.



The Convention acknowledges that every child has certain basic rights, including the right to life, his or her own name and identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a family or cultural grouping and have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated.

The Convention obliges states to allow parents to exercise their parental responsibilities. The Convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, to have their privacy protected and requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference.
Source

Seriously, how on earth could anyone have a problem with this? Do these people actually support corporal punishment for children?

The rights of the Child are more important than the rights of the Parent.

The moment a child is born, that child becomes a citizen and is therefore entitled to all the rights citizenship grants. Just because you gave birth does not give you the right to physically and emotionally abuse your children.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ironfalcon
 


Demint & Graham. Two I seldom agree with. But I do agree with him on this one



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   
www.crossroad.to...

This site tells a little more about what can be expected from such action.


As for this:
"...to be protected from abuse or exploitation, to have their privacy protected and requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference...." (This applies to influence from parents if it doesn't fall in line with the values of the State!)

Don't let the nice language fool you.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   
When the UN issued this resolution back in 1989, they apparently hadn't thought it through sufficiently to realize what an impact it would have on the general communities. The result is that the teenagers and pubescent and pre-pubescent children are now running amock and threatening their parents with child abuse if they are disciplined in any way.

However, in the beginning of 2009, this resolution was softened slightly so that parents can discipline their children, but here's the rub, WITHOUT LEAVING A MARK OR A BRUISE. This I question, as discipline requires sufficient force to make sure that the child remembers it, therefore any such discipline will, of necessity, leave a mark. It is interesting to note that no government, to my knowledge, has let this information be known to their population.

Nothing can be done about those people who have been brought up without discipline, unless they are forced into the armed forces and undergo the discipline that is given there. It may wake them up to what they have been doing with their lives



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


I can tell you don't have children. At the risk of being called a child abuser, since when has corporal punishment, in it's summary, been analogous to child abuse?

What you say sounds good but it's not well thought out. I'd venture to say you haven't experienced trying to be a good parent.


Originally posted by drwizardphd
The United States is one of only two countries in the entire world not to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.


That is because we are a sovereign nation governed by the U.S. Constitution not by the U.N.

[edit on 7/8/2010 by Iamonlyhuman]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman


What you say sounds good but it's not well thought out. I'd venture to say you haven't experienced trying to be a good parent.


And I'd venture to say that if you can't raise your child without hitting them, then you haven't experienced trying to be a good parent.

The problem with corporal punishment is twofold:

1. It stays temporary misbehavior by inflicting long-term psychological damage. The child associates misbehavior with pain, but does not learn why the action resulting in punishment was wrong. Also, this association makes the child more likely to physically assault others through adolescence into adulthood.

2. While minor spankings are harmless, frustration with the child (because the child has not learned anything) often leads to more harmful (abusive) punishment, such as targeting the head and extremities or using objects such as belts or rulers to strike the child. This is legitimate abuse, and can lead to permanent physical harm to the child.


But this is beside the point.

The real reason the US will not ratify the convention?



The two reasons often given for the US Senate not ratifying the convention were:

* Some states allowed children to be given the death penalty, which the Convention would not allow. In 2005, the US Supreme Court decision in Roper v. Simmons has held execution of juveniles to be unconstitutional, citing the Convention as one of several indications that "the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty".[14]
* The claim by conservatives that "this Treaty would virtually undermine parents’ rights as we know it in the United States."[15]
Source

So there you have it.

We like to execute minors (not legal any more).

And we have grandstanding conservatives.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ironfalcon

Sen. DeMint: Ratifying U.N. Children's Rights Treaty Would Turn Parental Rights 'Over to International Community'


www.cnsnews.com

Sen. Jim DeMint (R- S.C.) said that if President Barack Obama gets his way and the Senate ratifies the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the precedent would be set to place parental rights under the jurisdiction of the international community.

“We believe we need to take clear action here in Congress to protect the rights of parents to raise their children," DeMint said at a Wednesday panel discussion. "This treaty would, in fact, establish a precedent that those rights
(visit the link for the full news article)



Thanks, IronFalcon, this is a dangerous law. It's all about making the individual as powerless as possible.

SeaWind



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


Although I agree in some ways with what has been said, as a pensioner, I have raised a stepson since he was five years of age. During his teenage years, obviously he began to rebel against the discipline that he had been receiving and began to make his own way in the world. This I heartily agreed with as it gave him an insight into what I had had to put up with while he was growing up.

I understand that now he is married, he is over-protective about his own children and prefers to keep them at home until they have left school. Unfortunately, this leaves the children without the necessary social skills to deal with life after they leave home and start to find their own way in the world.

I suspect that his experience taught him that it would be better to over-protect his children than to allow them free reign as other parents have done, to their detriment. But over-protection is a two-edged sword as I indicated above.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Judge cites homeschoolers for violating U.N. mandate
Police interrogate parents, confiscate their curriculum

www.wnd.com...


An international organization that has fought pitched battles over parents' rights to educate their own children in Germany, Sweden and the United States, as well as lesser fights in a number of other countries, is taking on officialdom in Botswana after police there grilled homeschoolers, confiscated their teaching materials and ordered them to appear in court.


This is how it happens. Whether people want to teach their children at home for religious reasons or just because they see the malicious indoctrination occurring in public schools,the U.N. will tell you that you are interfering with their rights!

So,whose rights will matter more? The U.N.'s,of course!


...U.N. "treaty obligations" as a reason to find that the parents violated the "welfare of these children, particularly enjoyment of their right to education as espoused in various local legislation and treaties to which the country ascribes," the report said.


I'm not a home-schooler,but I'd be very worried if I was!

And what will happen in Arizona since Obama reported them to the U.N. for Human Rights violations?

Hate to say it,but this is where it's all headed. No more American sovereignty,period.


The U.N. Charter and constitution is a thin paraphrasing of the Soviet model which Alger Hiss borrowed from when he coauthored it. The U.N. constitution is therefore a Marxist socialist paradigm.

www.unrfid.com...



"A One-World Government? God is Laughing!"
watchmannewsletter.typepad.com...



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join