Home More advice Politics & Law
Obama supports the ratification (make it U.S. Law) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This treaty states the UN has determined that the government will decide for all what is best for our children. The government has authority to intervene in decisions regarding a child's education. The government will choose whether the child's wishes or the parent's wishes are the best for children - Good idea or bad idea for America ?
That exact information is in this article - notice I did not write it - if you believe it to not be true I suggest you contact the author and register your complaints:
'Obama Knows Best' Michael Farris Wednesday, May 14, 2008
In his May 12 column entitled "McCain's Christian Problem," (The Washington Post) Robert Novak used a single, unnamed source to insinuate that I somehow favor an Obama presidency because it would somehow bring biblical judgment for the country’s sins.
Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. Mr. Novak's unnamed source is flatly wrong. I have never said nor do I believe that an Obama presidency is a good idea for any reason, biblical or otherwise.
On the contrary, I have every reason to believe that an Obama presidency would be incredibly and particularly harmful to the American family and homeschool community.
For starters, Obama supports the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, a treaty that would have disastrous consequences for the American family. This treaty would be, according to our Constitution, part of the Supreme law of the land. And in the U.S. international treaties override state law. >> What this means in plain English is that the UN has determined that the government will decide for all what is best for our children. The government has authority to intervene in decisions regarding a child's education. The government will choose whether the child's wishes or the parent's wishes are the best for children. <<<
This is the ultimate dream of elitists: they get to decide for all of us what is best for our own children.
Obama has clearly demonstrated his elitist core values. He has recently stated that people who believe in the Bible and who exercise their Second Amendment rights are driven by bitterness. It is not their fault, he says in a paternal voice, that they hold such regressive attitudes; an unjust society has led them to this unfortunate set of views and practices.
This very brand of elitist, statist thinking lies at the heart of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. No parent can be trusted to make decisions for their children without the government having the power to intervene in every case.
And not only do the UN experts believe that they need to control parents who might make misguided choices, they must control our state legislatures as well. We cannot trust American elected officials to make our public policy choices relative to parents and children. We must impose upon them an elaborate set of enforceable UN mandates that control the economic, social, cultural, civil, and political rights of children and their parents.
State legislatures have many legitimate complaints about federal mandates. Just wait until the UN mandates that Obama wishes to impose take effect.
Obama wants to turn every family and every state legislature over to the supervision of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. They will condescendingly tell us why our traditional desires for our children are not acceptable in this day and age. They will explain us to ourselves and to others while usurping control of our family and utterly destroying the principle of American self-government.
In light of this, is it credible for Robert Novak or anyone to suggest, with a straight face, that I secretly desire an Obama presidency? It is the last thing I would wish for American families, and I propose that Novak and his unnamed source have ignited little more than uninformed, petty gossip.
For McCain's part, I do wish he would speak out more about issues that concern many of us. I really appreciated it when he denounced the February decision of the California Court of Appeal to ban homeschooling in that state, and would love to hear more from McCain along these lines.
Novak, however, seems to like secrets. So why doesn't he spend more time digging into the undisclosed policy implications of Obama's elitist desires to grant the UN -- rather than state legislatures or American parents – power to decide what's best for our families? That would be journalism worth reading.
*** WARNING ANOTHER AMBLESSED STRAWMAN ***
The actual content states:
"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.
The Convention also obliges signatory states to provide separate legal representation for a child in any judicial dispute concerning their care and asks that the child's viewpoint be heard in such cases. The Convention forbids capital punishment for children.
The Convention also has two optional protocols, adopted by the General Assembly in May 2000 and applicable to those states that have signed and ratified them: The Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography." more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConventionontheRightsoftheChild
I doubt that any teenager on this site would disagree with anything that it does. There are too many horror stories on Funadvice to accept these kinds of raw political statements that are barely researched and just asked as a way to lay out a position instead of being based on fact.
@amblessed, I always respected you, regardless of political difference, but this is too much to swallow.
I have to agree that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, a treaty that would have disastrous consequences for the American family, would be a bad treaty for the U.S. to sign.
It would take away from the authority of parents and the right of parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs and values.
As it stands now, a state or the U.S. government would have to go to court to prove that a parent's care and choices were harmful to the welfare of the child in order to override parental decisions.
If the U.S. signed the UN treaty, then the UN would be able to dictate what a parent could or could not do, because, under the U.S. constitution, treaties supersede U.S. and state laws.
As an example, let's say that the UN decided that parents must teach their children about evolution as a fact. It would then be wrong for those parents who don't believe in evolution to teach Creationism in its place or that evolution should be considered as a theory.
As things stand now, parents have the freedom to teach their children what to believe. That is a right that should never be infringed unless it is actually detrimental to the child.
I'm a moderately conservative non-Christian Republican. I don't think that the UN, the U.S. or any state has the right to usurp parental authority unless it is actually detrimental to the child's health and welfare.
I am against any treaty with the UN that takes away from the sovereignty of the U.S., any state or individual. The U.S. is founded upon freedom and it is wrong to assign away those freedoms and the responsibilities that come with them to an international organization.
By the way, I do believe in evolution and also in the posibility of a Deist God.
jimahl - filters removed:
On April 11, 2008, Reuters reported: Obama declines to criticize Carter on Hamas.
INDIANAPOLIS (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday it was not his place to criticize former President Jimmy Carter if he were to meet with Hamas, although Obama said he would not meet with the militant Palestinian group. ...
“I’m not going to comment on former President Carter. He’s a private citizen. It’s not my place to discuss who he shouldn’t meet with,” Obama told reporters while campaigning in Indianapolis.
Five days later, on April 16, 2008, Reuters reported: Obama criticizes ex-President Carter’s Hamas meeting.
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama on Wednesday disagreed with former President Jimmy Carter’s overtures toward Hamas, saying he would not talk to the Islamist group until it recognized Israel and renounced terrorism. ...
“That’s why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas,” Obama said.
This isn't a good idea at all!! This country doesn't need a government to interveen with any childs education. If I had kids, I certainly wouldn't want the government to help with education. I wouldn't want the government to tell us, what to do, what to watch, ect. If Obomma wins, he is going to jeperdize our freedom, give us false security, ruin the best health care, raise your taxes, and well, you know the rest. I just don't like this man already as it is. I don't think that our future would be good with either Hillary or Obomma at all. Even though all of us conservatives have disagreements with MCaine, he's our best candidate right now.
@amblessed ... '... family is important me and many other Americans ...'
So I guess family is not important for me, right? I'll be sure to tell my lovely daughter that when I get home tonight. Maybe in her little 4 year old brain she might understand that @amblessed implied her daddy is unamerican and does not care about his family.
lets see...
Me: Sasha, today my friend @amblessed said that daddy does not love you!
Sasha: Don't worry daddy, I love you anyway. Who is @amblessed? I sure don't like him, because he thinks other people are stupid! Are we going to the beach this weekend?
Me: Sure sasha, sure. Sigh.
Amblessed you exact quote was as follows:
"econsult1, family is important me and many other Americans - too much to swallow ?? - look it up - it is Fact - Researched."
Since you directed this directly at econsult1 after he was critical of your loaded question, it is easy to see you were implying that not supporting the UNCRC means family is not important to you.
This is FACT, and it was RESEARCHED??? Puhleeeaze!!
If you think an article by a bigtoted, narrow-minded zealot is research, you might want to remove all those filters you must have on your PC that blocks anything but right-wing websites.
I said NONE of this - I rest my case.
So I guess family is not important for me, right? I'll be sure to tell my lovely daughter that when I get home tonight. Maybe in her little 4 year old brain she might understand that @amblessed implied her daddy is unamerican and does not care about his family.
lets see...
Me: Sasha, today my friend @amblessed said that daddy does not love you!
Sasha: Don't worry daddy, I love you anyway. Who is @amblessed? I sure don't like him, because he thinks other people are stupid! Are we going to the beach this weekend?
Me: Sure sasha, sure. Sigh.
Well thanks for the source amblessed. And not surprisingly, it is biased to say the least. Google Michael Farris and you will see he is a religious zealot who is afraid they might actually dictate certain curriculum, like evolution. Oh my, not that!!!
He is a big proponent of home schooling. His opinion should be of no consequence to any sane, right thinking person. Farris had, and has, a close relationship with Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority (a misnomer if I ever saw one), and also Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition. That alone should disqualify his opinion of this program.
Well, I just read the thing for myself and it seems to be saying that we would agree to the following:
1.) Children are not property and may not be treated as such. 2.) Children may not be exploited or abused. 3.) Parents should act like parents and do what is in the child's best interest.
As a person who cares about familes (all kinds of families), I have to say I'm for it.
If I've missed something or misinterpreted part of it, let me know.
"Amblessed dummed it down for you"
That is true. Amblessed has a talent for making good ideas sound dumb. I have read the text, and if you expect me to get what amblessed said from it, then you expect me to be too dumb to understand it. I understand it quite well, and amblessed has proved once again that his only motivation in posting such drivel was to deceive.
It seems the original question was just to slam Obama and to not really get any opinions. Why else talk about Obama's reaction to Carter?
I'd rather have a President who can change his mind than one who is so stubborn that he will never bend.
Having read the text of it provided by esconsult1, I don't see anything I disagree with in it.
Amblessed, we all know you can't stand Obama, but at least present valid gripes. You discredit yourself when you distort the facts.
And?
He changed his mind about commenting on it after the meeting actually took place. I see no problem with that. However, I happen to disagree with Obama on this issue. I think it was fine that Carter talked to them.
Amblessed dummed it down for you, if you cant read the real text and get what Amblessed said, maybe you should not have replied to it, all I have to say.
And I think its bad.
oh, we all know that amblessed quotes from right wing, christian propaganda.
heaven forbid he should actually research something...
I always check his sources...lol.
amblessed - the way you worded this question sets a new low, even for you...
and thanks to esconsult1 for providing the ENTIRE text.
econsult1, family is important me and many other Americans - too much to swallow ?? - look it up - it is Fact - Researched.
bad idea Who is the government?
what do you think of the site:
christianpoliticalview (dot) com ?
Thanks for your kind words.
LOL !!
