We the People...
ON PARENTAL RIGHTS
2 MARCH 2010
Parental Rights versus Student Privacy Last August, a mother in Tennessee was denied access to her son’s community college records unless he first signed a release to grant permission. The dual-enrolled son was only fifteen years old! His parents not only paid his tuition, but were still legally fully responsible for his upbringing, yet they could not monitor his educational progress because of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA. Action Item This week’s action challenge is to get just one new signature on the Parental Rights Amendment petition – just one each week for the next 4 weeks. Theoretically, we could expand the petition by more than half a million in that time if everyone got just 1 signature a week. Even at a modest rate of 10% we can add 50,000 new supporters of the Amendment. So get out there and find at least one new supporter this week! You're Invited
On-line Training Seminars ParentalRights.org will be hosting a live "webinar" to discuss how you can successfully create a chapter to defend Parental Rights, or succeed with the chapter you have just launched. Open to all chapter leaders or volunteers who are interested in starting a chapter, webinars will be held Wed., March 10, at 3:30 pm (EST) and on Thurs., March 25, at 8:00 pm (EST). To sign up or for more information, email Eric@parentalrights.org. |
Join the Network Click here to sign up for this weekly newsletter and/or action alerts regarding parental rights. | Amendment Cosponsors To date we have 129 cosponsors in the U.S. House and 6 cosponsors in the U.S. Senate. | Become a Member Your gift of just $25 or more will support our on-going efforts, and we'll send 2 decals to recognize your donation. | View This Email Online In case there are updates or you have trouble viewing this properly, you can view it online here. |
--
Rebekah Pizana
National Coalition Director
ParentalRights.org
540.645.9475
Rebekah@parentalrights.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 DECEMBER 2009
"Best Interests" Means Junk Food and Child Removal
“While we understand Mr. and Mrs. Hessey’s distress, Zak’s welfare was paramount, and we believe we acted in [the child’s] best interest.” So said a spokesman for the British hospital that called in Social Services and had the two-year-old removed from his parents and four older siblings for four months.
The charge? Mom refused to follow the doctor’s advice to feed her son sugary snacks to address his failure to gain weight. “They said I should feed Zak chocolate, cakes and junk food just to get calories into him,” Mrs. Hessey told The Daily Mail. “But I objected, saying that was only a short-term answer and not a proper solution.”
The result was four months without their little boy, during which time the State-funded foster care program obviously applied the doctor’s prescription. “[N]ow it is hard to get him to eat anything else,” Hessey laments. On the doctor’s prescribed “regimen”, the boy gained about a pound. “[I]n foster care, Zak was the same with his food as he was at home. They [eventually] said we were very good parents,” Hessey adds.
The hospital’s defense quoted at the start of this article demonstrates perhaps the greatest danger of the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC): “In all matters…the best interests of the child shall be a primary concern.” Should the U.S. ratify the CRC, this core principle will replace the current standard, “proof of harm,” with the “best interest standard” applied in this case. Since the hospital and Social Services worked to ensure what was (in their opinion) in the best interest of the child, they did nothing wrong under the CRC.
In the U.S. today, because we have not ratified the CRC, such an event would be illegal. Fit parents have the right by law to make medical decisions for their children unless and until neglect or abuse can be proven. While this event is an outrage in England as well, the bureaucrats there were simply obeying the law, the CRC.
The proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the Constitution will end the threat of the CRC ever becoming binding law in America. So spread the word to your family and friends to sign the petition for the Amendment’s passage.
Action Item
Also, in honor of the season, we would like to ask you to send Christmas cards (or Hanukkah, etc., as appropriate) to your Congressman’s and Senators’ local offices. Add a note of personal thanks for their support of the Parental Rights Amendment if they are cosponsors. If they’re not, add a gentle, subtle note – something “soft” enough not to spoil the card’s purpose – along these lines: “We look forward to your support of the Parental Rights Amendment in 2010.” Don’t beat them up in the name of Christmas, but gently let them know what is important to you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROUPS RALLY FOR PARENTAL RIGHTS ON CAPITOL HILL
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE // December 4, 2009 // Washington, D.C. – Leaders from eight organizations, congressional staffers, and families traveled from as far as Sacramento, California, to rally against the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) on Friday, November 20.
“The fact that the US is not party to this treaty, really irks the UN,” Steven Groves, a Heritage Foundation fellow, told attendees. “We’re not going to join any treaty just because they think we’re scofflaws. Who would we be standing with? North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Sudan… and what are the human rights records of these countries?”
On the same day UNICEF, Amnesty International and others celebrated the 20th Anniversary of the UN Assembly’s adoption of the controversial treaty, Somalia announced their plans for ratification. Analysts say the Somali government has little authority and its rulings are largely unenforceable (BBC News), and the move to ratify may be targeted pressure on the US Senate. The Obama administration has expressed a strong desire for ratification, UNICEF executive director, Ann Veneman, told a news briefing in Geneva (Associated Press) the day before Somalia’s announcement.
U.S. Rep. Trent Franks (AZ-2), a cosponsor of the parental rights amendment, H.J. Res. 42, urged passage of the legislation to solve the treaty’s threat to parental rights and American sovereignty.
“We’ve been obsessed with all of the challenges [we face in this country] externally,” Franks said. “But it’s the attack on the inside that sometimes we miss.”
The rally was introduced by William Estrada, Esq., Federal Relations Director for Home School Legal Defense Association, followed by statements from Americans for Tax Reform, American Family Rights Association, National Black Home Educators, Stop Child Predators, the National Organization of Conservative Women, Eagle Forum, and senior staffers from the offices of U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (MI), and Sen. Jim DeMint (SC), lead sponsors of the parental rights amendment in the House and Senate respectively.
Rebekah Pizana
National Coalition Director
540-645-9475
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preserve Parents' Rights Now and For Future Generations
H.J. Res. 42 Parents’ Rights Constitutional Amendment as introduced by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (MI-02)
Section 1
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.
Section 2
Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
Section 3
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.
TOTAL NUMBER OF CONGRESSMEN ON BOARD - 128
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 NOVEMBER 2009
Press Contact: Rebekah Pizana
National Coalition Director
540.645.9475
Rebekah@parentalrights.org
SUPREME COURT TO BIND FLORIDA TO INTERNATIONAL LAW?
Just two days prior to the U.S. Supreme Court hearings on life sentences for youth, Michael Farris, J.D., will appear on Fox News Channel’s Huckabee’s Opinion to discuss the issue.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE // November 3, 2009 // Washington, D.C. – The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider two of the most prominent cases of the year this coming Monday. Constitutional lawyer Michael Farris will appear on Gov. Mike Huckabee’s Fox News show on Saturday, November 7, at 8 p.m. ET to discuss whether the Supreme Court should allow the U.N.’s controversial Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) to resolve the issue.
The two cases on appeal, Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida, 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 CRC to Florida law as a matter of binding “Customary International Law.”
On September 21, Farris submitted an opposing brief on behalf of 16 Congressmen which argues that this use of international law is contrary to both the facts and the law.
The members of Congress who appeared on this amicus brief are Rep. Thaddeus McCotter and Rep. Doug Lamborn, co-chairs of the House Sovereignty Caucus, and Reps. Pete Hoekstra, Phil Gingery, John Fleming, Cynthia Lummis, Trent Franks, Dan Burton, Todd Akin, Gus Bilirakis, Robert Latta, Mark Souder, Jim Jordan, John Boozman, Todd Tiahrt, and Rob Bishop.
Farris and available House members will be present for credentialed press on the steps of the Supreme Court immediately following the hearings at 12:15pm on November 9.
Farris is president of ParentalRights.org, an organization which seeks to prevent U.S. ratification of the CRC and to protect the fundamental liberty of fit parents to direct the upbringing of their children, through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Rebekah Pizana
National Coalition Director
ParentalRights.org
540.645.9475
Rebekah@parentalrights.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parents’ Rights Amendment Reaches 120 Co-Sponsors
Press Contact: Rebekah Pizana,rebekah@parentalrights.org, 540.645.9475
“Grassroots constituents came to Capitol Hill and voiced their concerns about the threat from government and foreign interference into the parent-child relationship,” Hoekstra said. “I encourage supporters of the amendment to keep up the momentum because Congress is clearly listening.”
The Parents’ Rights Amendment (H.J.Res.42) would state explicitly in the U.S. Constitution that parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit, while protecting children against abuse and neglect. Threats to the parent-child relationship include potential Senate ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and the erosion of fundamental parents’ rights in federal courts.
“This milestone demonstrates that the American people are serious when they say that they want the government to stay out of those areas that rightly belong to the family,” said Michael Farris, J.D., president of Parentalrights.org. “The people will continue to speak until two-thirds of the members of both chambers of Congress are on board.”
More information on the Parents’ Rights Amendment can be viewed at www.parentalrights.org and
ATTACKING THE FAMILY UNIT
The family is the primary political unit. It is no surprise, then, that the forces of big government and centralized power seek to destabilize and weaken the family. Advocates of big government know that a weakened family will be more dependent on their big government. Furthermore, a weakened family will be less likely to stand up and fight against this big government.
There are many ways in which they attack families and the legitimate role of parents (we'll discuss this more as time goes on). One of the more novel and chilling approaches is to use international treaties to force legal restrictions on the rights of parents. Such is the case of the benignly entitled, "UN Convention on the Rights of Children." In the name of protecting children, this treaty would severely limit the rights of competent parents to raise their children as they see fit. Again, their real aim is to insert government control into the family in order to weaken the family and increase their own power.
The following paragraph was written by Michael Ramey, Director of Communications & Research for ParentalRights.Org. Please read and go to their website to learn more.
"Would you like the same government that runs your country to run your household? We didn’t think so. But a shifting Supreme Court and the intrusion of international law are eroding the rights of innocent American parents to raise their own kids. Whatever your beliefs, as a fit parent you have a right to pass them on to your children. Help us preserve that right with the Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Get informed – and get involved –at ParentalRights.org."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALIFORNIA
Congressional Contacts
Urge your Senators to support S.J. Res. 16 and oppose ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child:
| Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) | Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) |
Urge your U.S. Representative to support H.J. Res. 42, the Parental Rights Amendment. (Those marked with a * are already cosponsors.)
ParentalRights.org Contact
Email your ParentalRights.org Regional Coordinator, Jonathan Horton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ANOTHER LANDMINE IS WAITING
-- ALLEN HEMPHILL
If you think the Clinton Immigration Reform kerfuffle caused a stink, you will need a gas mask when the subject of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child finally surfaces.
It came up during the Clinton years – he actually signed it (1995) – but the Senate never did anything with it.
But if you remember, the Kyoto Treaty was signed by Clinton and roundly defeated in the Senate but we are about to get overwhelmed by Kyoto II because the Senate has been “outed” as the liberals they are, and previously they were hiding under cover to win the last presidential election.
So now, IF the President is not too bloodied by the National Health Care Insurance debate and other bills, you can look for a new push for the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
This U.N. Treaty has been around for years, and only Somalia and the United States have not ratified it.
Conservatives have several objections to the bill:
- It undermines the sovereignty of the United States
- It undermines the authority of the parent
Opponents to the bill do not want an international court determining how much discipline a parent can administer, or how many “rights” a child has in the home, or whether a child can, by law, select their own religion.
The treaty suffers from the same problem of all UN treaties – the proponents even admit that the treaty is “complicated” and we have seen what happens to declarative sentences in our own Constitution that are NOT complicated. We have learned that laws do not mean what they obviously do in plain English, but rather what some federal judge says they mean in his mind.
How much worse, a foreign judge in a foreign land.
Other nations are less fastidious in their concern about ratifying the bill simply because they can more easily ignore the preaching of UN officials, while the US has Media bullhorn which will amplify the message and an internationalist support cadre of liberals to beat the drums.
The good news is that the Obama administration may be too weakened by the Medical fight, the BTU Tax plan disguised as a Cap and Trade bill, and a coming Amnesty Bill of illegal aliens to actually take up a Rights of the Child bill.
With any luck the Obama administration will lose all three bills and never even consider another fight. The trend lines of personal approval and on bill approval are both dropping like a rock.
Time is on our side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANOTHER LANDMINE IS WAITING
-- ALLEN HEMPHILL
If you think the Clinton Immigration Reform kerfuffle caused a stink, you will need a gas mask when the subject of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child finally surfaces.
It came up during the Clinton years – he actually signed it (1995) – but the Senate never did anything with it.
But if you remember, the Kyoto Treaty was signed by Clinton and roundly defeated in the Senate but we are about to get overwhelmed by Kyoto II because the Senate has been “outed” as the liberals they are, and previously they were hiding under cover to win the last presidential election.
So now, IF the President is not too bloodied by the National Health Care Insurance debate and other bills, you can look for a new push for the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
This U.N. Treaty has been around for years, and only Somalia and the United States have not ratified it.
Conservatives have several objections to the bill:
- It undermines the sovereignty of the United States
- It undermines the authority of the parent
Opponents to the bill do not want an international court determining how much discipline a parent can administer, or how many “rights” a child has in the home, or whether a child can, by law, select their own religion.
The treaty suffers from the same problem of all UN treaties – the proponents even admit that the treaty is “complicated” and we have seen what happens to declarative sentences in our own Constitution that are NOT complicated. We have learned that laws do not mean what they obviously do in plain English, but rather what some federal judge says they mean in his mind.
How much worse, a foreign judge in a foreign land.
Other nations are less fastidious in their concern about ratifying the bill simply because they can more easily ignore the preaching of UN officials, while the US has Media bullhorn which will amplify the message and an internationalist support cadre of liberals to beat the drums.
The good news is that the Obama administration may be too weakened by the Medical fight, the BTU Tax plan disguised as a Cap and Trade bill, and a coming Amnesty Bill of illegal aliens to actually take up a Rights of the Child bill.
With any luck the Obama administration will lose all three bills and never even consider another fight. The trend lines of personal approval and on bill approval are both dropping like a rock.
Time is on our side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THANK YOU
Since Congressman Bilbray responded positively to his constituents' pressure to sign on as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 42, the House resolution in opposition to the "U.N. Convention on The Rights of The Child," this action can be acknowledged by calling his DC office at 202-225-0508 or in Solana Beach at 858-350-1150. Everyone appreciates a "thank you"... even our politicians!
FLASH... FLASH: NCC just this minute (3:27 p.m. on 7/27/09) got off the phone with Congressman Bilbray staffer Gary Kline. Due to pressure from his constituency, Congressman Bilbray will be calling Representative Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) to sign on as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 42, the resolution in opposition to the "U.N. Convention on The Rights of The Child." For those of you who called Congressman Bilbray's office to chide him about his reluctance to sign on to this extremely important measure, you have a victory for the 50th District as well as tangible proof that "We the People" hold the power and that together, "We the People" can move mountains.
FLASH: NCC spoke with Congressman Bilbray's office in DC this morning (Thursday, 7/23/09) about him NOT being on board as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 42, a resolution in opposition to the U.N. Convention on The Rights of The Child. The staffer (Jeff) told NCC that, as a "strict constructionist," Rep. Bilbray was opposed to the treaty. If Rep. Bilbray IS a strict constructionist, the staffer was asked to remind Rep. Bilbray that, should the U.S. become a signatory to the treaty, it would fly in the face of our Constitution and undermine U.S. sovereignty. A letter from the congressman stating his position was requested along with our urging that he join the ranks of the resolution's cosponsors.