The last few days and weeks should tell you that Congress does not give a damn about the support or desires of the American People.
- Ordinary Americans who do not support Obamacare have been vilified and mocked in the press and by legislators themselves as some sort of insurance industry shills and (God forbid) right-wing crackpots.
- Yesterday the White House directed the Justice Department to file court papers claiming the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against homosexuals, even though the Justice Department lawyers have been arguing that it is constitutional, and an infringement on the rights of taxpayers in the 30 states that specifically prohibit same-sex marriages.
It should insult you that this treaty will consider you an abusive parent unless you are able to prove otherwise. This sets a dangerous precedent that undermines our legal status as "innocent until proven guilty."
Under the UNCRC, instead of following due process, government agencies would have the power to override your parental choices at their whim because they determine what is in "the best interest of the child."
In essence, the UNCRC applies the legal status of abusive parents to all parents. This means that the burden of proof falls on the parent to prove to the State that they are good parents—when it should fall upon the State to prove that their investigation is not without cause.
For those who cannot believe that parental rights are endangered by this treaty, but here are a couple of examples of cases where judges decided against parents without the treaty. We are not talking about parents who are abusive and dangerous themselves. There are already laws on the books dealing with those. We are talking about judicial activism and a culture that increasingly devalues parents and seeks to place control of our children, if not with the state, anywhere but with us.
From www.parentalrights.orgExcuse me? With the girl's BABYSITTERS?? Does modern contempt for all things traditional or parental know no bounds? How about this one:
A West Virginia mother was shocked when a local circuit judge and a family court judge ordered her to share custody of her four-year-old daughter with two of the girl’s babysitters. Referring to the sitters as "psychological co-parents," the justices first awarded full custody to them, only permitting the mother to visit her daughter four times a week at McDonalds. Eventually she was granted primary custody, but forced to continue to share her daughter with the sitters.
When her case finally reached the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in October 2007, the beleaguered mother was relieved to finally be granted full custody of her daughter.
In their October 25 opinion Supreme Court justices wrote that they were "deeply troubled by the utter disregard" for the mother's rights. One justice referred to the mother’s right as the “paramount right in the world."
Chief Justice Robin Davis summed up the case in one simple question."Why does a natural parent have to prove fitness when she has never been found unfit?" he asked. (In Re: Visitation and Custody of Senturi N.S.V., 221 W.Va. 159, 652 S.E. 2d 490 (2007))
From www.parentalrights.orgDid you catch the date on that last one? That was almost 30 years ago! Do you really think that judges have become more traditional since then? The battle has escalated alarmingly in just the few months since Obama was elected.
The case involved 13-year-old Sheila Marie Sumey, whose parents were alarmed when they found evidence of their daughter's participation in illegal drug activity and escalating sexual involvement. Their response was to act immediately to cut off the negative influences in their daughter's life by grounding her.
But when Sheila went to her school counselors complaining about her parent's actions, she was advised that she could be liberated from her parents because there was "conflict between parent and child." Listening to the advice she had received, Sheila notified Child Protective Services (CPS) about her situation. She was subsequently removed from her home and placed in foster care.
Her parents, desperate to get their daughter back, challenged the actions of the social workers in court. They lost. Even though the judge found that Sheila's parents had enforced reasonable rules in a proper manner, the state law nevertheless gave CPS the authority to split apart the Sumey family and take Sheila away. (In Re: Sumey, 94 Wn. 2d 757, 621 P. 2d 108 (1980))
I know these last few posts do not deal directly with home business, but they do deal directly with homeschooling. Home schooling is already being restricted in other countries, notably in the UK, precisely because of provisions of this treaty. But even if you are not a homeschooler, if you have children and believe that you know better how to raise them than the state does, you should be afraid.