Blog or Article?
Blogs often focus on personal opinion, experiences, views, anecdotes or advice. Blogs tend to have a relaxed and conversational feel, such as in storytelling and are generally 300-500 words.
Articles aim to deliver well-researched, informative content with solid evidence to back up the points made. Articles are usually more formal, organized and frequently range 500-1000 words.
Comments
Hi all, This is an article about a man's parental rights being denied in Tennessee this spring. He was not allowed to see his child's medical records - it was not because of abuse or neglect but because the doctor "said so". FYI
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={6A006580-AF53-4C46-9EF0-6050E4DFF197}
This is a response to the myth that the US is not "leading" the rest of the world because we have not ratified the CRC yet. LOL!
The link will take you to the entire thing.
"What makes us a leader in human rights is not accession to some over-reaching international treaty; it is the precepts of moral decency already enshrined in American law. Self-governed Americans, responsible to write, implement, and enforce our own laws, became a model for human rights, not because we will surrender our sovereignty to the United Nations, but expressly because we won’t. Historically, we have valued human life in America, from giving “unwanted” babies up for adoption to preserving the rights of the people, individually and through their states, to govern themselves as they see fit, and while we argue amongst ourselves over whether that life begins at conception, at birth, or somewhere in between, we cannot stomach “disposing of” live-born children as Namibia’s mothers apparently do, and I hope we never will. Nor would we sell our children as prostitutes, like those in Burma and Thailand, nor torture them in our prisons as the North Koreans do.
In no way do we wish to make light of the plight of the children in any of these countries, including those in our own country who slip through the cracks. But the idea that we can save these children by ratifying this dangerous convention is simply wrong; the notion that our refusal to ratify is a national human rights failure is a grievous error; and the implication that accession to this treaty will restore us to some “human rights leader” status from which we have presumably fallen is a subtle lie. Yes, Namibia, save the babies, with or without the U.N.’s help. But babies in America will be far better served without the treaty, thank you very much."
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={1B854884-089D-40B3-9D41-30BFF4DBB89F}
Well, after a wild week of chorus rehearsals and more to come, here's some interesting articles.
This came by email today from parentalrights.org Very interesting and calls out the naysayers who believe or contrive that the CRC is just a benign document.
"American academics are not the only ones who have recognized the obligations created by the CRC. In 2003, the European Court of Human Rights stated in two separate decisions that national governments who have ratified the CRC "are obliged to develop and undertake all actions and policies in the light of the best interests of the child (Article 3)."5
But perhaps the strongest evidence for a "binding" Convention comes from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which is charged with evaluating the compliance of member-states. In its reports, the Committee has repeatedly recommended that states ensure that the principles of the Convention be "understood, appropriately integrated and implemented in all legal provisions,"6 chided nations for not incorporating the Convention into "all laws, judicial and administrative decisions, policies and programmes relating to children,"7 and encouraged nations to ensure that the Convention "prevail[s] whenever domestic law provisions are in conflict with the rights enshrined in the Convention."8
Such admonitions are not gentle suggestions, but emphatic demands that have changed the laws of nations around the world."
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={55EA8E5E-D91D-432F-B518-F4C6076891DD}
Another good one:
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={528CA7AF-ED5D-4CB0-B42D-9F0260DCD2AA}
Thanks for sending that website! I went through it very briefly but will delve into it more later today!
I agree that the parental rights amendment raises things to the federal level, that's where the fight is because the UNCRC will automatically void all family law at the state level.
A signed and ratified treaty becomes international law which supercedes the Constitution. So, putting the parental rights amendment in place in the Constitution will prevent the treaty from having jurisdiction over the Constitution if the treaty is confirmed.
If the parental rights amendment is accepted, it will not prevent state family law at all. It will only serve as a check if any case goes federal or international.
Will send more later. :)
What I see in all of this is that we're painting ourselves into a corner with anything that assumes children need to be protected from their parents. I agree with you, children need to be protected from criminal behavior in whatever form it manifests itself.
It's really all about our relationships and how we build and maintain them. Parents need support, information and help to learn and fulfill their responsibilities to their children and families. I really think the church environment provides one of the best support systems for that where you have compassionate involved pastoring and a community of people sharing their collective physical, mental, emotional and spiritual resources together to help each other.
The interests that shoot to eliminate that from society are just shooting themselves in the foot trying to cut all reference and influence of such a positive powerful resource for fear that they'll have to hear the word "God" or "Jesus". I don't care if someone doesn't want to be a Christian or hear about it, that's their decision. Just don't infringe on mine, please! Government doesn't need to assume I'm inadequate to do the job. If we became more understanding of our common interests and promoted true freedom, this could all work a lot better.
Amen and thanks for writing!
I still remember Dr. saying over and over again, "you never let anyone put you in bondage again, you got that? God gave his only son so you can be free, you just never let them do that to you."
Whatever anyone thinks of him now, the fact remains he was absolutely right.
In today's news is an article on Sen. Boxer trying to push the current administration to ratify the CRC, sent to me by a friend, thank you!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treat...
It's Fox News, for those who are concerned about sources.
Here is some information copied from www.parentalrights.org Proponents of the CRC keep trying to make people think that the CRC will protect children from abusers. It will in fact do the opposite. We tend to buy into that lie because we feel guilty that criminals hurt children as if we have xray vision and could stop them. The truth is they are criminals, they hurt anyone they can and law abiding citizens do not have to feel guilty because of the criminal actions of others.
I think the UNCRC is actually promoting child abuse because it strips children of their God-given protectors, their parents.
"10. I've heard some people say that the Parental Rights Amendment will protect child abusers. Is this true?
The Parental Rights Amendment will not protect child abusers. "Fundamental" rights are not "absolute" rights: the government can restrict a fundamental right, but only if it proves that it has a compelling reason to do so. Put another way, the government must prove that a parent is "unfit" before it may override the decisions of a parent.
The danger is that government officials are often able to strip parents of their rights without providing proof of unfitness. This is why section 2 of the proposed Parental Rights Amendment requires the government to prove that its interest "is of the highest order and not otherwise served."
State laws that define and punish child abuse will not be affected or altered by this amendment. The only thing that will change is that the state will need to prove that parents are unfit in order to remove their parental rights.
The Supreme Court said in the 1982 case of Santosky v. Kramer, "until the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship." The Parental Rights Amendment does not protect child-abusers: it protects parents from being treated like child-abusers until the government provides proof otherwise. "
(Copied from http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={8A0140D9-399C-446D-AA1B-D4023A46AD64}#10)
I guess - one thing that strikes me in general about the entire proposition is that the language throughout isn't precise. It leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Given the scope of what it proposes I don't see how that helps anyone. If the intent is to help children in countries where basic fundamental rights are ignored, unknown and/or abused, and each country is supposedly able to sign on and take this to the next level of implementation themselves, how well will they be able to interpret and apply it correctly and in a way that actually supports the intent? It looks like there's potential for a huge subjectively interpreted and applied mess to result. And I don't have a lot of confidence in the collective wisdom of all countries involved to administrate themselves and make sound determinations. Basically the document gives direction and decision making ability (more or less, it's pretty vague) without the foundational information and values that would drive and maintain correct actions. If the countries and societies have the problem, does it do any good to tell them to enact processes to correct the problems without the means to do so?
I don't see how it adds to what we already have in the U.S. with our existing constitution and the laws we currently have. We're not a perfect system in action but we do seem to have the basics in place.- I shudder at the notion that yet another organization with loosely defined powers to advise and decide "what's right and best" for our families and children will solve problems. I can see how countries that don't have what we have can use the assistance and guidance and some extreme cases where intervention is needed to insert some form of help into dire, immediate circumstances. But signing on for what could amount to a club for all the nuts in one place and giving them any form of authority over how "I" or "we" raise our children and choose to lead them as parents - I don't like that.
Anyone can see the world needs help - the last thing I want is more people inserting their well intentioned and "enlightened" understandings on me as to what's best for my family.
Hi Everyone, here is some information about David Ogden, the presiden'ts pick for Deputy Attorney General in Senate hearings today.
"President Obama's Choice Against Your Family Values"
http://www.thevoicemagazine.com/society/428-president-obama-choice-...
The Deputy Attorney General of the United States (Wikipedia)
United States Deputy Attorney General is the second-highest-ranking official in the United States Department of Justice. In the United States federal government, the Deputy Attorney General oversees the day-to-day operation of the Department of Justice, and may act as Attorney General during the absence of the Attorney General. The Deputy Attorney General is appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. The position was created in 1950.[1]
On January 5, 2009, Barack Obama announced his nomination of David W. Ogden as Deputy Attorney General.[2] His nomination will require confirmation by the United States Senate.
Hi Everyone,
Here is some news today (February 9th) from parentalrights.org
Senator Boxer Asks State Department to Expedite the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={C483C563-EBDC-40F1-A33B-D2819B6230A6}
I am sure other news websites have this posted. A good search would be sure to find it.
Please pray and read up on it and call your Senators.
I gave a short talk on the implications of the UNCRC for us in the US yesterday to a group of about 40 people.
Half way through, a retired international lawyer sat shaking his head as I said that international law under the UNCRC would supercede our Constitution.
When I noticed him shaking his head, I asked him to please correct me if I was wrong.
He said most emphatically that the information was "exactly right" and he was appalled by the whole thing.
God bless you and your families in the name of Jesus Christ.
many blessings, Karen
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next