Monday, August 31, 2009

Debunking the Issue: Youth and Violence


I stumbled across this article, which is actually almost two years old now -- published September 20, 2007. It mentions what the Swiss have attempted to do to minimize the bombarding of Swiss youth with violent images at young ages.

A Swiss organization, The Swiss Pro Juventute Foundation (hereafter SPJF), began a campaign to minimize the violence seen by youth at young ages, specifically targeting the internet, video gaming, and television/movie avenues. Movies and games would be re-rated to determine age limits on viewing audiences.

While I agree with the idea that we should protect children from callousing them toward violence (though I admit that I am not a pacifist, I do believe that war and death is never a glorious thing), I take issue with how they went about defending their cause. They appealed to the Swiss Constitution, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Why would they do this? Why would they have to use both to determine that this policy is in the best interest of Switzerland?

Jolanda Bertozzi of SPJF notes that "the convention says that children have a right to access to media appropriate for their age, but they also have the right to be protected from inappropriate content or content that is too demanding." How does this work? According to Article 13 of the CRC, children have "the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds . . . either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice." Where do we see "media appropriate for their age" in this article? There are restrictions, but the CRC is clear on what these restrictions are on media access for children: "The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or (b) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals."

Where is the age restriction found in the CRC? Is it placed under the "morals" section, which is also present in Article 14 on religious freedom? If this is the case, who decides what these "morals" are? They say they protect children, but in the case of violent images the government is deciding what these "morals" are. So, does it really protect children's rights? Is it really "for the children," or is it for expansion of government? Charitably, it is hard (at best...meaning, at its very best) to see how this actually protects children.

The CRC is not designed to protect children: government is given authority to act in the family unit, and the areas which would fall within their jurisdiction (child trafficking, substance abuse, violence, etc.) they have failed miserably at. Check out this article from May 2009: the Swiss are still dealing with problems on violent media access. UN Conventions do nothing to change the situation.

But our law would assist our nation. This is why the Parental Rights Amendment would be a better solution. Instead of focusing on an international vocal assention to what should be the case, we can enforce our laws in our nation, and protect the values which Americans have cherished for almost 220 years.

Stand with us,
Defend the truth,


"The time is right." -- Glenstorm

Monday, July 20, 2009

Debunking the Issue: International Law in American Courts


Judge Jack Weinstein, a federal district court judge from New York, used the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in a decision regarding parental rights. As a reminder, the US has not ratified the UNCRC; this is critical to the decision made and language used by Judge Weinstein.

Judge Weinstein admits that "a treaty has been sometimes said to have force of law only if ratified" (Beharry v. Reno, 183 F.Supp. 2d 584 (E.D.N.Y. 2002), at 593). He adds that "courts, however, often use non-ratified treaties as aids in statutory construction" (Beharry v. Reno, at 593). His intent here is to justify his use of a non-ratified treaty as an "aid" in statutory construction.

The problem arises, however, in his neglect of jurisprudence and precedent, which ought to be his primary statutory construction tool. Instead of an aid, he uses the UNCRC as his primary tool, casting aside the precedent which came before him. Under the guise of "customary international law," Weinstein declares that "United States courts may not ignore the precepts of customary international law" - a clever way to integrate the UNCRC even though it is a non-ratified treaty (Beharry v. Reno, at 597). This becomes exacerbated later in the decision, when he writes, "United States courts should interpret legislation in harmony with international law and norms wherever possible" (Beharry v. Reno, at 598).

But where does he get the idea that the UNCRC in particular is part of customary international law? To an extent, he doesn't - he writes that "the CRC has been adopted by every organized government in the world except the United States. This overwhelming acceptance is strong reason to hold that some CRC provisions have attained the status of customary international law" (Beharry v. Reno, at 600). Yet the only portions which he quotes in this and the following section which can be considered traditional (instead of novel) are portions protecting the rights of the family from arbitrary invasion. If any part of the UNCRC is considered "customary international law," it is not the portions which are used today to remove children from their homes, restrict home education, or restrict religious instruction.

This case, which was decided on January 8, 2002, has been overturned, but the threat still remains: international law is attempting to gain jurisdiction in our country. The only solution to this problem is passing an amendment to the Constitution specifically enshrining the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children in the supreme law of the land. The Parental Rights Amendment would provide such protection, and give Americans the solid ground needed to stand amid the swell of international law. Visit today to sign up and support the passage of the Parental Rights Amendment.

Watching the stars,

"The time is right." -- Glenstorm

Friday, July 17, 2009

Debunking the Issue: Children's Rights a Nightmare


I read this article, which may shed some more light (no pun intended) on the discussion of "children's rights." The article is entitled, "317 Cars Burned Ahead of Bastille Day," written in France 24 on July 14, 2009. It documents the destruction of private property that occurs every year just before/on Bastille Day (July 14) in France. Youth across the nation annually burn cars and attack police to protest the lack of integration of minorities and high unemployment.

Is there a problem with protesting the exclusion of minorities? No - but how we protest is important. The Civil Rights Movement under Dr. King was very successful, because it made friends, instead of destroying personal property and harming law enforcement. What we have here is a group of individuals - young people, my generation - who have been granted the "right" by the UN to act as they see fit, do what they wish, without regard to personal property rights (which everyone since the foundation of the world has respected, including Communist countries, though their ideological creeds would disagree), means of presenting the message, or plan for actual change. These attacks add up only to venting anger and destruction of property. No actual change will come from it (as has been shown from the past 4 years).

Transport you to the United States. If the Senate ratifies the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), minors will be told that they have the right to express themselves freely in any medium without parental restraint. I watch the stars, for it is mine to watch, and I can tell you right now that what I see is appalling. I see cars, homes, and shops burning in Harlem, I see destruction of property in Chicago, Detroit - every major city. I see the removal of children from good parents who believe that Jesus is Lord, solely because the government believes that this is not "in the child's best interest."

What can we learn from the French? Two-fold: 1) If our desire for liberty drives us to lawlessness, we will be destroyed, just as the Revolution was, and 2) If our desire for "children's rights," "humanitarianism," and "global agreement" leads us to surrender our liberty, we can expect the natural results: terror, destruction, and decadence. It is what we have seen in the Netherlands (look up other articles on this blog for more information), Sweden (also articles on this blog with more documentation), and many other European countries who have implemented the UNCRC to the full.

It is time for us to stop sitting on our couches with remote in hand, turning a blind eye and deaf ear to what is coming. We must own the truth, seek it out, and defend it to the death.

Watching the stars,

"I watch the stars, for it is mine to watch, Badger, as it is your's to remember." -- Glenstorm

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Alert: CRC Harms Children


I came across an article from the BBC which further supports the argument that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is harmful to children. The article was written by Kathryn Wescott on February 14, 2007, entitled, "Why are Dutch children so Happy?" Check it out: it is an eye-opener.

Kathryn begins by sharing that the Netherlands was rated the #1 country in providing the greatest "child well-being." Apparently, parents spend a great deal of time with their children, and all of society is centered around children, "especially young children," Wescott writes. What is not shown by the report, however, are the negative side effects of all of this "attention."

The child-centered society of the Netherlands produces the natural consequence in their society: children rule. Wescott turns to the opinion of Prof. Paul Vangeert, the Professor of Developmental Psychology at the University of Groningen. He writes:

"[The children's] wishes become so strong that parents have to work very hard to give them what they want. Sometimes, there can be a lack of balance between the happiness of the child and that of the parent."

Ysbrand, a Dutch college student, notes the difference between life as a child and life as an adult: "Now I'm left to look after myself . . . . My parents say that I need to care for myself and to be independent. It's hard. I don't have much money as a student, and to go out is expensive." At the age of 18, Ysbrand is finally beginning to understand the effects of this child-centered mindset.

But it gets worse: there is a mortal danger to minors in these countries because they are so "free." Ysbrand notes in his own childhood that "while he has been drinking and smoking for some time, his parents have never really seen it as a big issue." Laura Vos, a 16-year-old girl, notes:

"In this country, it's very free, you can do anything you want," she told the BBC's Newsnight programme. "You can smoke at 16, you can buy pot in the store next to the school. You can do what you like and because it's not illegal, it's not that interesting for us to provoke our parents with it."

Where does all of this freedom come from? Policies which take parental guidance out of the picture. This is why we need the Parental Rights Amendment. This is not just a scare tactic: there is actual harm to our children and our society, and it is imminent today. We must defend the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children - we must stand up for parental rights today.

Take your place today,
Sign up at today,


"The time is right." -- Glenstorm

Monday, July 13, 2009

Alert: This Is No Scare Tactic


Over the past two weeks, one particular argument which opponents of the Parental Rights Amendment have been using has stuck out to me, and I want to address it here. The opposition says, "This is not a real threat; this is just a scare tactic to get us to do something. Don't bother."

First, I would ask them if they have read this blog (which I doubt they have done): the evidence heavily supports the impending threat, even from the mouth of the opposition itself. They intend to pass the UNCRC, and soon. Examine any recent post on this blog and you will see how the issues raised by the CRC affect how we live, what we do, and how we think practically day-by-day.

Second, while they understand the impact of the argument, they lack understanding on its imminence. The facts are there: seek the truth, and defend it. I cannot think of a single right which we now hold which will not be trampled by the CRC and the advance of international law. Where will we be without the right to self-defense through firearms? Criminals will not follow this law - that is what makes them criminals. We will lose the right to free speech and free religion for the "right" of tolerance and mediocrity. No more free thinking; enter UN-value-teaching curriculum.

BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT IS THIS: We cannot retreat from this battle to our couches and televisions. The storm is coming - and it will not stop for our comfort. Meriadoc Brandybuck from The Lord of the Rings summed it up well: "The fires of Isengard will spread, and the forests of Brandywine and Tuckburough will burn, and all that was good and green in this world will be gone. There won't be a Shire, Pippin." If we fall back, if we retreat, we will lose everything we hold dear.

We have no choice: we must fight.
Examine the evidence, find the truth, defend it,


Tuesday, July 7, 2009

US Military Recruiting and Parental Rights Threatened


I read a story today which greatly concerned me. It talks about how two California cities, Eureka and Arcata, which passed ordinances forbidding military recruiters from approaching anyone under the age of 18. The US Military is claiming that such ordinances violate the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, and that they have the right to approach teens for recruiting before age 18.

The major concerns I have regarding these city ordinances are three-fold, and very significant:

1) Such ordinances would significantly decrease the number of individuals recruited by the military, which would significantly increase the chances of a draft. Interestingly, in an effort to prevent these "children" (which would be young men and women 16-18 years of age) from entering the military (which the cities hold is bad for them and not in their best interest), they increase the chance of a draft, which would be far more universal than current recruiting practices.

2) This breaches the Constitution - the military has a good argument, and it is sound under constitutional law.

3) Most important to this debate, however, is the fact that the city ordinance restricts parents and young adults from making decisions which have traditionally been their arena alone. This is unacceptable.

Join us in the fight for parental rights by visiting

Stand firm,

Monday, July 6, 2009

Michael Jackson and Parental Rights


The following post differs from my usual posts, in that I am still formulating my personal view, based on research, regarding some of the issues from this question: "Does Michael Jackson's ex-wife have parental rights to her children which supercede the rights of Michael's mother?" The answer to the question is not easily found, since both sides have good points. I offer my humble opinion.

I look to articles like this one and this one for guidance on the issue, since context is king, and they provide that. A few preliminary things should be established:

1. Debbie Rowe apparently "signed away her parental rights to the children after the divorce, but in 2006 an appeals court reestablished her parental status." (Found here)

2. Debbie has not been an influential part of their lives - in fact, hardly a part of their lives - over the past ten years.

But instead of asking the question, "Does she have claim" -- since she obviously does have a claim (the real question would be how much claim), I want to focus on this question: "Since Michael had a will, why aren't we following it?" According to ABC News, "Jackson's will, which is expected to be filed in a California court this week, could reveal his last wishes for his children. But those wishes would not be legally binding and only "a factor" in a custody hearing, California attorney Gloria Allred told "Good Morning America" today."

Why is the will of the father - the one member who undoubtedly has claim - not present in the conversation/proceedings? Why are we rejecting Michael's will as outlined in his will (that is, after all, why we call it a "will" in the first place)? Put aside any thoughts (for the now) of him being a child abuser: shouldn't we at least hear his opinion, let alone follow it?

Centaur, why are you bringing this up, you ask. Well, think about the big picture: if a court can decide (or a family decide) that a national - and international - icon's will does not need to be respected, but rather they can decide what is in the children's best interest, what safety do any of us have? Why should we expect any greater honor? This issue is much bigger than "What will happen to these three kids" - it chips away at the very foundation of our society: parental rights. Without them, the solid, tried-and-true foundation of our society - the family - is completely torn apart.

This is why, no matter whether you "support Michael," or "support Katherine Jackson," or "support Debbie Rowe," you need to support the Parental Rights Amendment. Learn more about it at, and look into other posts from this blog.

Seek the truth, find it, and defend it to the death,


"The enemy comes, my king. What are your orders?" -- Oreius

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Debunking the Issue: Ending Discrimination and Protecting Our Future


The reaches of race-based discrimination in removing children from their homes are far beyond what I first thought they were. In my research I came across this article (view it here), which rounds off my research well. The article is titled, "Black Children Overrepresented in Foster Care," by Robin Pyle.

The first article in this series talks about injustice in the system. The second focuses on the effects on parents. This article focuses on future ramifications from a system which denies parents their fundamental right to raise their children. What will happen?

1. Pyle writes that black children who are removed from their homes are "at a higher risk of leaving the system without being adopted because of skin color," leading to greater "chances of going to jail, becoming homeless, becoming addicted to drugs and not going to college," which he claims "would be much higher than the average population regardless of skin color."

END POINT: Race discrimination which violates parental rights harms our society in the future.

2. Pyle cites Cari DeSantis, executive vice president for public affairs at Casey Family Programs, who notes that "the issue is cause for concern because studies show families of color are no more likely to abuse their children than white families" - which means that the overrepresentation of black children in the system is not due to poverty/abuse/neglect alone. Something is wrong with the system, and the children realize this. For more information, here's a study by the GAO (found here) which further develops this analysis, and the other findings mentioned in this series.

3. For my final point, I want to turn to another article (found here), which documents the story of a young man named Paul Allen who grew up (from age 3 to age 18) in the foster care system. Why does this happen to children like him? In some cases because of abuse, neglect, drugs, bad home environment, etc. - but not in every case.

The beauty of the Parental Rights Amendment is that it would not protect parents who are involved in drugs/illegal substances, or who create a bad home environment for children. The protection afforded to parents would protect good parents - not just any parent. Our society is crying out for change - we need the Parental Rights Amendment.

Stand with me, friends,
Watching the stars,

"The time is right." -- Glenstorm

Debunking the Issue: Discrimination and the Antedote


The following comes from an article from the Huffington Post (view it here), entitled "Too Poor to Parent" (people love that title...I should use it too, :-D ), by Gaylynn Burroughs, written 1 year ago today (June 30, 2008). She writes about how poor parents are often faced with questions on what to do when accidental injury (falling off of beds, etc.) occur in the home. If they go to the hospital, CPS may think that it was not accidental, and accuse the parents - or parent - of neglect, and remove their children. Parents also face problems with school officials, who might report viewable injuries or the lack of an extensive wardrobe as a basis for neglect of necessities/care. She follows this with sobering analysis; she writes:

"African-American parents are more likely to lose their children to foster care than other any other ethnic group. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, Blacks make up 34 percent of the foster-care population, but only 15 percent of U.S. children. Studies have also shown that Blacks, unlike other minority groups, are overrepresented within the foster care system in every state of the nation."

If these statistics are correct, this means that black children are twice as likely to end up in a foster home. Some of this, she adds, is due to poverty, but "poverty cannot explain everything." She also adds that "This disparity remains evident even when African-American families and White families share relevant characteristics" - something is up.

Burroughs cites race-based discrimination as a factor: Even within the child welfare system, "Studies also show that Black families, both parents and children, involved in the child-welfare system receive fewer services than White families." Something is wrong - and parents are losing their rights to raise their children because of this flaw in our domestic law. But the discrepancy makes sense when we take the system on-its-face:

"Our legal system asks family court judges to make far-reaching decisions concerning the safety and welfare of children based on information presented in fifteen- to twenty-minute court appearances. Incompetent evidence is routinely admitted in child protective proceedings, and judges must often rely on the testimony of caseworkers who may be poorly trained or culturally uninformed, or who have had only limited contact with the families in question."

Judges may not even be biased; the evidence is not clearly portrayed, nor is it always checked for truth/accuracy. More than just a change in state law is required.

The solution? The Parental Rights Amendment - find more information on it at, or comment on my blog, and I'd be more than happy to share more of what I have learned with you.

Watching the stars,

"The time is right." -- Glenstorm

Debunking the Issue: Ending Discrimination Begins with the Parental Rights Amendment


I dedicate this post to the US Black Caucus, arguably one of the most - if not the most - powerful caucuses in our nation. The following is research which I have shared in earlier posts (specifically look at the post: "John Conyers: Found a Founder!"), but I believe warrant their own post. The stories and research are tragic - and deserve to be heard.

The first can be found here, titled, "Too Poor to Parent," by Feministe. The article starts:

"Low-income women — and black women in particular — have their children taken away far more often than white women. Black children are twice as likely as white children to enter foster care."

But when CPS workers give the reason for removing these children from their homes, the answer is not neglect/poverty (which it usually is - poor families are 2 times more likely to lose their children to CPS workers): the social workers claim that they have failed to provide basic necessities (food, shelter, clothing, etc.) because they are single mothers with a low income. Feministe makes a good point:

"But I’m not buying the line that being poor makes one unsuitable for parenthood. What does make one unsuitable is abuse or neglect — and those don’t depend on how much money you have....Children are not objects of privilege that only the rich are entitled to."

She has a point - a very serious point. How do we end this? The Parental Rights Amendment - by ensuring that parents are granted the benefit of the doubt when it comes to parenting, the government would be required to meet a much higher standard in order to take these children from their parents.

Watching the stars,

"I watch the skies, Badger, for it is mine to watch, as it is your's to remember." -- Glenstorm

James Sensenbrenner: Hard-Core


On Friday, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R, AL-06) and three others (Olson, TX-22; Boustany, LA-07; Walden, OR-02) signed on to the Parental Rights Amendment (PRA), bringing the number to 105! Over the past two weeks, we have gained 8 co-sponsors, which is PHENOMENAL!!! I would like to take this time, as is my practice, to thank these representatives for standing up for the rights of parents across the country - we honor your willingness to be a champion for these rights, not a bystander in the fight for protecting children.

This led me to think (as is also my practice) as to who else would be open to joining the PRA: James Sensenbrenner (R, WI-05). Sensenbrenner is an important representative for the Amendment, because he sits on the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, etc. A few things about him that should convince him that the PRA is necessary:

1. He is pro-gun, receiving an "A" from the NRA. His pro-gun stance bleeds over to his opposition to the US funding UN gun regulation, which would (in his opinion) be hypocrisy for Americans who support the Second Amendment. I've made several posts so far which explain how pro-gun representatives should be on-board with the PRA, but in short the very survival of personal gun ownership is on the line. With international law curriculum criticizing gun ownership and calling for the removal of guns from personal dwellings, children are being taught that it is in their best interest for their parents not to have guns. The UNCRC would purport this view: the only way to stop it once-and-for-all is to pass the Parental Rights Amendment.

2. He is pro-American sovereignty. He favors securing our borders and also firmly supports immigrants gaining citizenship in a timely manner. He honors and reveres the flag, and is in favor of a Constitutional amendment to protect the flag. He places the needs, decisions, and sovereignty of the US before that of the UN, favoring the time-honored ideal that Americans should make laws for Americans, period. We don't need the UN telling us how to run our country...and Mr. Sensenbrenner, we most certainly do not need the UN telling us how to raise our children. Congr. Sensenbrenner, please join us in defending on of the foundational institutions of our country: the family unit.

3. He favors the traditional family structure, and also supports the traditional role of parents as guides and guardians for their children through his support of parental notification in the case of an abortion involving a minor. Mr. Sensenbrenner: please continue to support the rights of parents to direct and guide the upbringing of their children. This is our most desperate hour.

Please stand with us, and honor the strong principles which you believe in and stand on,
Watching the stars,


"The hour has struck." -- Glenstorm

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Phone Blitz: That's How It's Done!!!


I'm pumped after what I saw yesterday! I was involved in a phone/email blitz to tell senators and the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, that giving our sovereignty to a UN Committee in Geneva was unacceptable. I received an email from alerting me to what I should do (which is copied below):

Dear Friend of Parental Rights,
Monday in a Harlem middle school, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told a group of 120 students that administration officials are actively discussing “when and how it might be possible to join” (that is, ratify) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). As before, she also communicated what a disgrace it is that the U.S. would stand with only Somalia against such a widely-accepted treaty.
This is the first direct public statement by the Obama administration that it will seek ratification of the UN CRC.
In my 30 years of political involvement, I have learned to recognize this as what is called a “trial balloon.” Like in World War I trench warfare, our opponents have “sent up a balloon” to see if it will draw fire. If things remain quiet, they will proceed with their plans to push for ratification of the CRC in the U.S. Senate.
To discourage them from doing so, we need to make sure that our voices are heard with unmistakable clarity. We must let the Obama administration know that we oppose this anti-family, anti-American treaty.
Here’s what we need you all to do:
1. Call the White House comments line at 202-456-1111. Tell them you heard the administration wants to ratify the CRC, and you strongly oppose this giving away of U.S. sovereignty to the UN. Also keep in mind that this treaty gives the government jurisdiction to override any decision made by any parent if the government thinks that a better decision can be made—even if there is no proof of any harm.
2. Call Ambassador Susan Rice’s office at the United Nations. Tell her that you want her to represent the United States to the world rather than trying to get the United States to go along with international law initiated by the UN. Her office number is 212-415-4000.
3. Contact your Senators and urge them to oppose ratification of this treaty. (Find your Senators’ contact information by typing your zip code into the box here.) Ask them also to defeat it once and for all by cosponsoring SJRes 16 – the Parental Rights Amendment.
It is very important that we speak up right now. Please call before you close this email!
Michael Farris

SO, naturally, I answered - and so did TENS OF THOUSANDS of others!!! This is the response, catalogued in another email from, and also verified here:

The office of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice has gotten the message! The first phone line we sent out has been completely shut down, and the voice mail system for all of their lines has been crashed.
This means you can't likely get through, so what do you do?
You no longer need to call the U.S. office at the U.N. Instead, please contact the White House comment line at 202-456-1111. It may be busy - we have kept it busy all day -- but keep trying. It is only open from 9 to 5, so time is limited. However, you can also send them a message online at
Also, contact your Senators. Find their contact info. by typing your zip code in the box here. Their offices also close at 5 (EDT), so try to get to them quickly - or call tomorrow!
Please click here for more up-to-date information on this campaign before calling our office.
Thank you so much, and keep up the great work!
Michael Ramey

Watching the stars,

"Will they follow me?" -- High King Peter
"To the death." -- Oreius

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Debunking the Issue: The Vatican Reservations


I came across this article which explains the Pope's support - apparent support - for the UNCRC. It is a well-written article: lots of documentation, lots of evidence, and quotations from original sources. The article was written by John-Henry Westen, and published at

Westen documents the meaning behind the Pope's statement that there is "an urgent need" for the UNCRC "to be implemented in full." The statement came after many reservations (found here) were made on the UNCRC by the Vatican on issues including life, family planning, education, sex education, and preservation of the rights of parents. The statement has come to mean that the Pope totally supports the UNCRC, which is not true.

The fact that the Vatican supported this with reservations on many points requires us as Americans to step back and take ratification very seriously. We cannot ratify this with reservations; our Constitution's Supremacy Clause requires us to support this treaty in full, or break faith and honor. For traditional Americans, we are men and women of our word: we will not sign a child's rights treaty which we do not intend to follow.

The question is then raised, "Why would we need to ratify it, anyway?" I raised this question in the last post, but will bring it up again: "Do we need to ratify the UNCRC to protect children?" We have state laws which provide for child abuse and child neglect. We have international treaties which show our commitment to human rights; why do we need another one if it "does nothing"? If it has no teeth, why do we expect it to do anything? If it can do things, why do we want to do it through the CRC instead of through our laws?

Friends, this fight is perhaps the greatest fight of our lifetime: join it, and protect children by empowering parents.

Watching the stars,

"The hour has struck." -- Glenstorm

Debunking the Issue: Immigration Concerns are True


This is an article that came out about a week ago in USAToday (but written by the Associated Press), talking about a child protest against the deportation of their parents due to illegal immigration laws. The children, citizens of the US by birth, argue that if their parents are deported, they will probably also be deported, therefore their constitutional rights are being violated.

I am still doing research on which of their rights is being violated (since even the right to property can be removed with due process of law), but this brings up an important point: if the UNCRC is ratified, we face a serious immigration problem. If the child of an illegal immigrant were to protest his rights as a child under the UNCRC, he would not be able to be returned, since what is in his best interest is staying in the place he has always known (see the post on my blog of a similar instance involving the Goldman family). Since children also have the "right to a mother and father" according to the UNCRC, his/her parents cannot be deported, either. We would have no means of removing them from our country.

My concern stems predominantly from the effect on legal immigration, and how many would seek to cheat the system by having a child in the United States instead of following regular immigration laws/procedures. When you add the concern of a threat to our national security - not being able to deport anyone who has a child in the US - we have a serious problem.

What is our response? We defend children by empowering parents, not by breaking the law. If parents are held responsible as guardians and guides for their children, the decision to legally immigrate would be much more appealing.

Friends, when it all comes down, legitimizing illegal actions is simply wrong, let alone dangerous: we need an amendment which will protect us from such a flagrant violation of national security.

Watching the stars,

"Our council at the Dancing Lawn must be a council of war." -- Glenstorm

Debunking the Issue: The Unhealthy UNCRC


Check out this article I found: it reveals an amazing truth about the UNCRC and the impact it has on the health of a country. It can be found here.

Basic synopsis: countries which sign the UNCRC rise and fall in overall health based on how much effort they put into bettering the health of their country ( *sarcasm* Huh, I didn't see THAT one coming...). What does this mean? Signing the UNCRC does not assist in making a country healthier; it is just another piece of paper which holds sway over your domestic policy decisions.

In some developed countries, overall health has fallen. Think back to the Netherlands (you can find information in my other post on this blog regarding the Dutch), and how there was an increase in the drug trade into the Netherlands because children have the "freedom to associate" with anyone without parental knowledge or consent.

Think about Sweden (also found in a post on this blog) and how its extreme "freedom" for children has led to a nation which despises teens, and condones shooting teens which are violent (the fact that teen violence is so rampant and pervasive of their culture cannot be a good thing for overall health; just going to throw that out there).

So, wait a minute, why do we need the UNCRC? It does not improve teen behavior, does not reduce substance abuse...what does it do? I pose this question to all supporters of the UNCRC: Show us why we should sign this, and "jumping on the bandwagon" is NOT a legitimate answer. Just because only the US and Somalia have not signed on does not mean that we should sign it - we aren't every other country in the world, we are America. We demand valid reasons.

Watching the stars,

"I watch the skies, Badger, for it is mine to watch, as it is yours to remember." -- Glenstorm

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Harry Mitchell: Young Blood


Harry Mitchell (D, AZ-05), is only 47 years of age, yet he impresses me so much with overall his commitment to traditional values concurrent with the Parental Rights Amendment. To find out how to get involved in the fight for parental rights, signing our email activist list, and joining the cause, visit for more information.

Congr. Mitchell has a mixed record on certain issues, but his mixed positions do not indicate that he could not be a supporter of the Parental Rights Amendment. On the contrary, they demonstrate how men and women of different backgrounds and ideologies can come together behind a common cause which they support. A few thoughts:

1. Mr. Mitchell is pro-choice, and also supports embryonic stem cell research. But Mitchell also supports parental notification, indicating his belief in traditional family values regarding family structure and parental guidance.

2. He has a mixed position on gay marriage, both refraining from fully condoning it, and also supporting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would eliminate preferential treatment based on sexual orientation. I believe that, upon independent research and examination, this idea of "employment non-discrimination" has been/is used unfairly, creating reversed discrimination against heterosexuals, but my point here is this: he seems to uphold a traditional view of family roles, particularly of parents, even if his view of how the family should be constituted is somewhat compromised. That is key.

Mr. Mitchell, we need your assistance: you are young, have overwhelming support in your district, and your morals beg for your support for this amendment. Will you be a champion for the cause by signing on to this resolution, or will you remain on the sidelines?

Watching the stars,

Mike Ross: Breath of Fresh Air


Mike Ross (D, AR-04) is a solid man with solid principles which solidly support the Parental Rights Amendment. His support for this amendment would come as a breath of fresh air to the cause. A few thoughts:

1. He is pro-gun, like many of the supporters of the Amendment, and many of those who I have recommended. With an "A+" rating from the NRA, his support would be completely in-line with his convictions regarding the Second Amendment. He stands for our country's honor by protecting and preserving our flag from desecration.

2. He is pro-parental notification, believing that the traditional family structure, including the role of parents as guides for their children, assisting in growth and decision-making in those critical years, is worthy of support and protection. Congr. Ross, we desperately need your help protecting these values; please sign on as a co-sponsor, and become a champion for the cause.

3. Mr. Ross is also in favor of traditional marriage, adhering to traditional American values. His support for the Parental Rights Amendment would form a firm foundation for strong fortifications to protect these values.

Reader, my posts will probably be shorter, so that you will have an easier time reading them. I will still include all of the research I have, and will continue to provide substantive profiles on congressmen, but I want to make this as easy for you to read as possible.

Watching the stars,

"The hour has struck." -- Glenstorm

Monday, June 22, 2009

Jim Marshall: Requesting Reinforcements


I am happy to announce that currently our number of sponsors/co-sponsors in the US House is up to 101! This means that we are over 1/3 of the way to our goal (101/290) in the house. In order to win the other third, I present another member of Congress who would be an excellent addition to our team: Jim Marshall (D, GA-08). A few notes:

1. Congr. Marshall is pro-gun, receiving an "A" from the NRA. He is also against UN gun regulation, demonstrating his commitment to American rights enforced and limited by American law and American lawmakers. I would ask all congressmen to stand with Marshall and others who believe in preserving the decision-making power which we vested them with by keeping it in the hands of American lawmakers and the American people, instead of the hands of foreign members of an international Committee in Geneva, Switzerland.

2. Marshall is in favor of traditional marriage and parental notification. He knows the importance of the traditional family structure, and the need for parental guidance in important decisions which their children face. Supporting the Parental Rights Amendment would be right up his alley.

3. His tough stance on immigration and desire to protect our flag are clear pictures of his desire to protect America and all that it stands for. Mr. Marshall, parental rights stand at the forefront of rights which have made this nation great, for they form the basis for learning the importance of every amendment.

Congr. Marshall, the hand that rocks the cradle rocks the world: please help preserve the rights of Americans to rock those cradles, and save it from international law and its minions. You can assist us in marshalling forces; requesting reinforcements!

Watching the stars,

"The hour has struck. Our council at the Dancing Lawn must be a council of war." -- Glenstorm

Artur Davis: Final Legacy


Artur Davis (D, AL-07) is an amazing man with quite the career ahead of him. Only 41 years of age, and he ran uncontested in his district in 2008, so fully supported by his district that he faces no opposition. Such an accomplishment speaks volumes on how well his constituents support him. Rumor has it that he might run for Senate in 2010.

As I thought about the work that this man has already done in the Black Caucus, I began to think to myself, "What better way to leave office in the House than to support the Parental Rights Amendment?" Would it hurt your chances at the Senate seat? Then I began to take inventory:
- Supporting children by supporting parents does not look undesirable on a ballot
- Protecting our freedoms from foreign powers is admirable for an aspiring Senator
- Supporting the Parental Rights Amendment is not a step against the Democratic Party

So, why should he support the Parental Rights Amendment? Well, they have a lot in common:
1. He is pro-gun, though his ratings from the NRA seem to be sliding over the past few years. He has received anywhere from a "B" to a "C" rating over the past four years for his support of gun rights. He is opposed to funding UN gun regulations abroad, demonstrating both his support for our rights and a belief in American sovereignty from foreign powers.

2. He is pro-life, recognizing the importance and value of all people, and furthermore supports parental notification, standing up for parental guidance in important decisions. He stands against Partial Birth Abortion, and against human cloning; he stands by traditional values.

3. He supports traditional marriage, which I value, since his stance supports traditional American values, and also supports the traditional family structure. Coupled with his support for parental notification, Congr. Davis demonstrates a firm devotion to parental rights. I humbly beseech that he continue his support by signing on as a co-sponsor of the Parental Rights Amendment.

4. Rep. Davis also supports securing our borders, and reforming our immigration policy without granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. He supports the death penalty fairly applied, which demonstrates his support for a strong justice system. The intent in his immigration and death penalty stances is protection of the citizen: Congr. Davis, please continue to protect citizens by protecting parental rights from international law.

Rep. Davis, you have great aspirations, and I wish you well: but what will your final legacy be in the US House? Will it be championing the rights of parents?

Watching the stars,

"I and my sons are ready for war. When is the battle to be joined?" -- Glenstorm

Thursday, June 18, 2009

John Tanner: The Time Is Right


Congr. John Tanner (D, TN-08) is a Tennessean who would make an excellent addition to the coalition supporting the Parental Rights Amendment. His stances on issues, the groups he supports, and his personal convictions all scream support for the PRA:

1. His voting record on life issues is somewhat complicated: he is pro-choice and in favor of embryonic stem cell research, yet he is also against Partial Birth Abortion, and in favor of parental notification. He has received almost equal ratings from both the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and Pro-Choice America (NARAL), because he consistently votes in this manner. Interesting to note, however, is that he ran twice (2004 and 2008) against John Hart, a eugenicist who was disavowed from his own party. Tanner won both times by a significant margin.

Tanner's stance reflects his belief in both the invovlement of parents in their children's lives, the importance of protecting children (whether fully or partially born), and rejecting "social progress" and "better genes" in favor of protecting individual liberties. Congr. Tanner, please support the Parental Rights Amendment, and continue with your consistent voting record for personal liberty and parental involvement.

2. Mr. Tanner loves his country, and takes his position as congressman seriously. He served in the Navy from 1968-72 during the Vietnam era, and also served in the Army Guard from 1974-2000. He also supports a tough immigration policy which includes securing our borders and supporting those who keep vigilant watch for illegal immigrants. He believes in the death penalty, and supports a strong punishment for those who commit heinous crimes. Congr. Tanner, your country needs your help again: please support us and preserve our rights yet again from foreign invaders who seek to undermine our sovereignty.

Mr. Tanner is rumored to have turned down an appointment to the Tennessee senate seat which was vacated by Al Gore, electing instead to continue to represent his district as congressman. His dedication to his district, his continued support of his constituents, and his understanding of his importance in the House astounds me: I respect him deeply for his respect for his position. Congr. Tanner, please continue to support your district by passing the PRA with your name attached.

3. Tanner is pro-gun, and stands opposed to UN gun regulation. He has a strong pro-gun voting record, and has received an "A" from the NRA. His opposition to UN threats to our Second Amendment liberties convinces me of his belief in American sovereignty (military and immigration stances put aside). Defend us again, Mr. Tanner: we need your help.

Watching the Stars,

"The time is right." -- Glenstorm

Allen Boyd: Follow Suit?


I am pleased to announce that in the course of the last ten minutes, I have received notice of two more co-sponsors of the Parental Rights Amendment! Yesterday, Erik Paulsen (R, MN-03) signed on as a co-sponsor, bringing the number to 94. Today, another two congressmen, Bill Posey (R, FL-15) and C.W. Bill Young (R, FL-10), signed on, bringing the number to 96! (For a complete listing of our co-sponsors, click here)

I would like to take this time to thank Congr. Paulsen, Posey, and Young for their fearless stand for parental rights: we are greatly indebted to you for your courage and conviction.

As these two congressmen from Florida joined today, I wondered, "What other congressman might be able to 'follow suit,' so to speak?" My attention fixed on Congr. Allen Boyd (D, FL-02), a newer congressman with much promise for traditional American values and parental rights. A few thoughts follow:

1. He has a mixed record on the pro-life, pro-choice issue: he is in favor of embryonic stem cell research, and has consistently voted against measures which would make harming a developing child a crime. He has supported parental notification measures, however, and also supported the Partial Birth Abortion ban. While he is not a "pro-lifer," he is pro-parental involvement in important decisions which their children make. This is completely in-line with the PRA, and I highly encourage him to continue his consistent voting for parental involvement.

2. He is pro-gun rights, receiving an "A" from the NRA, and stands opposed to UN gun regulation. While receiving a high grade (A+ to B- range are considered "a high grade" in my book) from the NRA is not a requirement for PRA supporters, it certainly does provide common ground. In past posts, I have mentioned how the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) threatens gun rights, by its emphasis on removing guns from homes in order to create a "good environment" for children. All evidence to the contrary, UNCRC proponents argue that this will create a better aura in homes for children. For more information, be sure to visit the other profile posts on this blog, or visit the article at Mr. Boyd, stand up for gun owners across the country, and defend our Second Amendment rights from foreign powers.

3. Congr. Boyd is also a proud protecter of the US flag, voting in favor of an amendment to ban flag desecration. He also supports the death penalty, demonstrating his belief in a strong justice system for heinous crimes. His immigration policies in favor of securing our borders and restricting the flow of illegal immigrants is also noteworthy, since all of these demonstrate a commitment to the values and honor of our country. The UNCRC, and other treaties in international law, threaten our sovereignty by placing the decision-making ability of our domestic policy in the hands of foreigners, who have probably never studied our constitutional law in-depth, who possibly may never have visited our shores, and who certainly have not studied in-depth our state child protection laws. Protect our country, Mr. Boyd, by preserving the family through the Parental Rights Amendment.

4. Mr. Boyd believes in traditional marriage, and supports an amendment to define marriage as one man, and one woman. While this is not a requirement for supporting the PRA, a belief in traditional marriage means that he understands the importance of the family structure. He knows the importance of strong families based in traditional American values of nurturing and growth. This belief, however, is under attack by international law, which would reduce parents to the rank of older siblings telling their younger siblings to go to bed - they may make suggestions, but lack decision-making ability.

Congr. Boyd, please provide us with the protection we need, and join as a co-sponsor to the Parental Rights Amendment. Join the fight as a champion for this amendment; attach your name, and stand firm for what is right and good.

Watching the stars,

"Will they follow me?" -- High King Peter
"To the death." -- Oreius

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

John Conyers: Found a Founder!


John Conyers (D, MI-14), one of the most senior members of the US House of Representatives, has quite the history. A Democrat from Michigan, he was one of the founding members of the Black Caucus, one of the strongest - if not the strongest - caucus in congress. His record is astounding, proving many of the caveats which I have made over the last couple profile posts.

He is not pro-gun, receiving an "F" from the NRA. He did not stand opposed to the UN gun regulations which others in the Party stood opposed to; he is in favor of gun control. He is also pro-choice, and supports both stem cell research and partial birth abortion. He also stands opposed to parental notification. He also supports gay marriage. Yet, for all these differences, he should still support the Parental Rights Amendment.

1. He is the ancient guardian and protector of the Black community, which is severely threatened by international law regarding children's rights. According to the Government Accounting Office, black children are taken out of their homes at over twice the rate of any other racial group, and returned to their families at half the rate. The GAO cannot account for this apart from racial prejudice: it has no tie to economic, social, or health level. For more information, click here, or here, or here, or here, or here. You can also visit for even more information. These five sites (and illustrate that this has not been done in a corner. Find the truth: it is there.

The PRA would protect these families by requiring that the government meet the standards necessary to deny parents their fundamental rights to raise their children. Mr. Conyers, support the PRA, and continue to protect the Black community of this country.

2. Congressman Conyers, as mentioned before, supports gay marriage (and is himself not a homosexual). The PRA would not legalize gay marriage everywhere (it is not that broad in its effect), just as it would not grant heterosexual couples the right to abuse their children. The PRA is not pro-gay rights or pro-straight rights; it is pro-good parents. If parents protect and direct their children well, they are protected by the PRA. Mr. Conyers, support the PRA.

3. Mr. Conyers respects the flag, even though he does not agree with an amendment to prevent flag desecration. This means that he has reverence for a national symbol - and our nation - yet he also believes in an individual's freedom of expression as laid out in Texas v. Johnson. Congressman Conyers also served in the US Army Guard from 1948-1950, and later in Army active duty from 1950-57. Mr. Conyers, our nation's sovereignty, beauty, order, and justice are under attack: we need your help.

Mr. Conyers, you are the second most senior member of the House (only behind your colleauge, John Dingell (D, MI-15), who will be discussed soon): you are widely respected across the aisle and the country. Stand with us, as you did before.

Watching the stars,

"Your men are waiting; what are your orders?" - Oreius

Dan Boren: Born for the Call


Dan Boren (D, OK-02), the only congressman from Oklahoma who has not signed on as a co-sponsor of the Parental Rights Amendment would make a perfect addition to the coalition supporting the PRA. His support would bring the total number of sponsors/co-sponsors to 95. Congressman Boren seems to have been born for this moment:

1. He is a member of the NRA Board of Directors, and co-chair of Congress's Second Amendment Task Force. He supports the rights of individuals to protect their homes and families by exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

2. He is pro-life, and in favor of parental notification, meaning that he understands the value of human life, and more than that, the parents' role and "high duty" (as the Supreme Court put it in Pierce v. Society of Sisters in 1925) to be involved in guiding and directing their children's lives.

3. He supports securing our borders, and minimizing illegal immigration, showing his dedication to protect American interests and American decision-making ability. This is further supported by his opposition to UN gun regulation. He believes in Americans making decisions for Americans, both in competency and expertise.

One of the major reasons why every congressman should be in favor of the Parental Rights Amendment is that it reaffirms the ability - and advantage and necessity - of Americans making American law. As a representative of us, the people, our congressmen have been entrusted with a duty to exercise the authority we have given to them to make wise decisions for our country. By ratifying the UNCRC - or any treaty or international agreement which gives international (foreign) groups or individuals the ability to dictate how we run our domestic policy - our congressmen are giving over the power which we gave them to a group of men and women in Geneva, Switzerland, who have probably never studied our constitutional law in-depth, have possibly never even visited our shores, and most certainly studied our state laws regarding child protection in-depth.

International groups have no clue of what is best for each individual child in America; parents know. Mr. Boren, you have valiantly stood up to Party leadership, lobbying groups, and many other individuals and corporations which I am unaware of because your convictions and beliefs dictate your actions. I implore you to support the Parental Rights Amendment, which stands among the issues which you support; you were born for such a time as this.

Watching the stars,

"Tarva and Alambil have met in the halls of high heaven." - Glenstorm

Sweden: A Picture Worth a Thousand Words


I received this article from The Scarlet Pimpernel, a friend of mine and close associate in the legal research business. It is printed in the Akron Law Review by Jason M. Fuller, and talks about the "No Spanking Laws" in Sweden, and some statistical and cultural analysis on its impacts on the youth and parents of Sweden.

Two years ago, a Swedish father shot at a group of teens who had been harrassing his family since 2005. One was killed. In America, Fuller writes, "the popular reaction would be, 'How can we prevent this from happening again?' In Sweden, however, youth violence and aggression has gotten so out of control that the reaction was, 'Shoot another [one].'"

Why is this the case? Fuller explains: "In 1979, Sweden started an international trend by becoming the first country to ban spanking . . . . Anti-spanking laws are proposed and passed with the hope that they will create a 'cultural spillover' of non-violence, and a society that does not need correction . . . . While such lawmaking may seem harmless, even commendable, the empirical data indicate that a spanking ban is a grave mistake. With spanking bans have come increased rates of child abuse, aggressive parenting, and youth violence. Indeed, criminal records suggest that children raised under a spanking ban are much more likely to be involved in crime than other children."

Fuller adds that "this makes sense. To function well in society, children need to learn that misbehavior has negative consequences . . . . On average, spanking seems to reduce aggression, defiance, and antisocial behavior better than mental punishments like timeout, reasoning, privilege removal, threats, verbal power assertion, ignoring, love withdrawal, or diverting."

Critical to this discussion is Fuller's definition of "spanking," which includes three important points: 1) a discipline method (this is not venting anger), 2) no physical injury (spanking differs from abuse), and 3) intent to modify behavior (it has a constructive element for personal growth).

Over the past several years, we have seen the advancement of anti-spanking laws, even though the evidence is clear that spanking bans are damaging to children and the society as a whole. Sweden today has a generation of parents who grew up without spanking (the ban has been in-place for 30 years as of this year), and cannot solve their problem. International law and agreements like the UNCRC support a spanking ban; will we let it devastate our country?

Protect our country, and visit to join the fight.

Watching the stars,

"I watch the stars, for they are mine to watch." - Glenstorm

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Collin Peterson: A Guard to Guard Our Country


Collin C. Peterson (D, MN-07) is a man who I respect for his service for our country. An Army National Guardsman who served from 1963-9 (during the Vietnam War), and one of the original seven founding members of the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, Peterson is not afraid to face new challenges by sticking to tried-and-true principles. Peterson would make a perfect addition to the co-sponsors of the Parental Rights Amendment.

First, Peterson is pro-gun (not required for supporting the Parental Rights Amendment, but is a reason for him to support it). Rated an "A+" by the National Rifle Association (NRA), Peterson is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. He has the highest rating possible by the NRA, meaning he has a flawless record of voting in favor of gun rights. International law, however, would strictly curtail the right to possess personal firearms, since they are not "in the best interest of the child" and would create a negative aura for child development (for more information, check on this blog for the post on Heath Shuler, or at for other articles). Protecting the right to protect and preserve your family walks hand-in-hand with protecting the right to protect and preserve your family: gun owners should support the Parental Rights Amendment.

Second, Peterson is pro-family. He supports the power of parents to provide direction and guidance for their children, as noted in his votes in favor of parental notification. He also supports traditional family values, being in favor of protecting traditional marriage (not required to support the Parental Rights Amendment, but it does help), and his presence in the Coalition on Adoption. Peterson grasps the importance of the family to society; it is not just a social or economic unit of society. The family has an integral and critical role in society, and parents have a role in that family: to provide direction and guidance for their children.

Third, Peterson is pro-American sovereignty. He supports secure borders and a tough immigration policy, and supports an amendment to prohibit flag desecration. Both of these issues are not necessary to be a supporter of the Parental Rights Amendment, but they both send the same message: our country means more to us than a job, a home, a supermarket, and taxes in April. It holds some level of sacredness and honor which deserves respect and reverence of its own kind. Along with apple pie, baseball, and the flag, parental rights is perhaps the other great quintessential American dream: raising your children well. To protect this right, we must enshrine it in the highest law of our land: the Constitution of the United States.

If someone were to take your apple pie, I have no doubt that you would do anything in your power to preserve what is important to you (your pie), and warn the intruder to keep his distance. This is my charge to you: protect your rights as a parent, even if you are not a parent at present. Fight for it with everything you have; it is worth your effort and more.

Mr. Peterson, you have guarded our country for the past 18 years since you entered office: would you support the Parental Rights Amendment, and be a champion for the cause?

Watching the stars,

"If the Witch is to be defeated...we must hurry to find the battle." -- Aslan
"And join in, I hope, Sir!" -- Largest of the Centaurs

Friday, June 12, 2009

Heath Shuler: Champion in the Wings?


I'm taking a break from writing on current events re: the UNCRC. Instead, I want to mention some congressmen who are currently not co-sponsors of the Parental Rights Amendment (hereafter PRA), and why I believe they could be champions for the rights of parents to raise their children well.

The first congressman is Heath Shuler (D, NC-11), a young man with a good head on his shoulders, and a good heart between them. In his 37 years, he has been a professional athlete (quarterback for Tennessee, and later with the Redskins, Saints, and Raiders), graduated with a degree in psychology from the University of Tennessee, and was involved in real estate before entering office. Add a wife and two young children, and you have a unique, impressive display of talent across the board.

But more than that, Heath Shuler is a man of character and conviction, with integrity above reproach. He appeals to members of both parties, and after winning his first election in 2006 (1 of 2 Democrats to defeat a Republican incumbent in the South that year), he made a massive victory in 2008 (62%-36%). He has earned the respect of his constituents, and I highly respect him.

I do not want to focus on his stances on life, the economy, immigration, gun control, etc. - I want to focus on what he stands for that supports the PRA. An individual does not need to agree with Shuler on everything to support the PRA; these issues are his own, yet are not the only positions which support the amendment.

First, Shuler is pro-life and pro-parents. He understands the importance of the importance of the family, and the parents' place in that family. I specifically admire his stand for parental notification of abortions and prohibiting the transportation of minors across state lines; he upholds the importance of parental guidance. He stands, in many ways, against Party leadership on this point, even though he is the deputy majority whip. I admire him for his fortitude, integrity, and conviction.

Second, the NRA gave him an "A" rating for his stances on gun rights. There are many people who support the PRA who would receive an "F" from the NRA. The importance of Shuler's "A," however, stems from the application of the UNCRC to countries in regards to gun ownership. In an article I found at, they detail the dangers of UN rhetoric regarding guns. The UNCRC is purported to stop the use of child soldiers (which will be coming in a later post). Both PRA and UNCRC supporters would agree that recruiting (which is a broad term; including "forced service," "join to avoid starvation," etc.) is wrong on a number of levels. But the UNCRC goes beyond this: it desires the eradication of guns from the sight of children. Guns are portrayed by proponents as "a threat on the streets of cities worldwide," which goes beyond the picture of "destabilized," or "conflict" regions mentioned in other UN literature. Their goal is clear: remove guns from homes, and leave protection to the police force. While I trust policemen, the time lapse between the attack and the arrival of police creates a problem in rural and urban areas.

Third, Shuler stands for American sovereignty. He stands for securing our borders, increasing our national security, and protecting the homeland. While a more open border, lower security candidate can also support the PRA, Shuler's desire to protect the country is important for our discussion. The language of the UNCRC differs from that of the Hague Treaty mentioned in an earlier post: it takes from the sovereignty of the state and gives it to the Committee on the Rights of the Child in Geneva, Switzerland. A pamphlet from CRC proponents says, "The Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out comprehensive principles and standards to guide all actions and attitudes toward children." This statement clearly demonstrates the desire of the UNCRC to dominate all portions of a child's life, and the Committee's authority to determine what states should do for their children. Signing the treaty is handing over sovereignty to foreigners...if our word means anything to us.

If you think perhaps that this reading is too strong, I would direct your attention to the fact that this quotation was taken from the pamphlet, "No Guns Please, We are Children" - the message is clearly directed and personal ownership and family dynamics.

Congressman Shuler, I highly admire your strong convictions and positions. I only ask, would you be a champion for parental rights? Are you willing to stand up with Congressman Mike McIntyre (D, NC-7) to support this amendment, and protect the right of parents - your rights - to direct the upbringing of your children? I would love your support, but more than that, I want you to be a champion for the cause and sign on as a co-sponsor.

If you do, I'll take the linebacker,
Watching the stars,

"The time is right." - Glenstorm

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Protecting Children: The Child's Will


On June 5, 2009, MSNBC wrote a story about David Goldman, a father in New Jersey who is attempting to regain custody of his son, who is currently in Brazil (in this post, however, I will be quoting from articles from MSNBC, CNN, AOL, and an AP article at I am still confirming all of the facts in the case, but from what I can tell, on June 16, 2004, David drove his wife, Bruna, and their son, Sean, to the airport for a 2-week vacation. After arriving in Brazil, she called him to let him know that she wanted a divorce; she received one in Brazil. After receiving a court order for a custody hearing from a New Jersey court, both American and Brazilian law (and international law) required Bruna and Sean to come to New Jersey. The Brazilian courts waited for a year to decide the issue, and after that time determined that it would be best, considering the time elapse, for Sean to stay where he was.

Four years later, after marrying a lawyer in Brazil, Bruna died in childbirth, leaving Sean, David (the birth father), and Sean's step-father. The question now arises, "What should be done?" Appealing to the Hague Treaties, David claims that the child should be brought to New Jersey for a custody battle, since in the US, his marriage is potentially still legal (the divorce certificate was only from Brazil; it was technically still legitimate in America). Today, after another year of struggle, it sounds like the Brazilian courts believe a custody trial in New Jersey is in order.

Unfortunatley, it's not that simple: a progressive wing of the Brazilian government argues that taking the child from Brazil would be depriving him of an environment of "happiness, love and comprehension." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama have intervened on behalf of Goldman, arguing that the child should be returned. How quickly this issue will be resolved is uncertain at this time.

[WARNING: This is the part where Centaur moves into analysis, not reporting. Everything below is his opinion based on research.]

This issue does raise the question, "To what extent are international treaties followed by other countries, and do they accomplish what they set out to do?" Is "the best interest of the child" (language used in the CRC) to stay in Brazil which he has known for a little more than 50% of his life, or is it in his best interest to return to the US to his father? Which father has more claim (since both apparently have claims)? How should this be resolved?

I don't have enough evidence at present to say where Sean should go, but I have determined this: the jurisdiction of treaties is important. The Hague Treaties do not say that Goldman has a stronger custody claim: rather, it entitles him to a custody hearing. This treaty is intended only to assist coutries in disputes regarding parents separating across international lines. It was designed to prevent abduction/trafficking of children. The goal is not to tell countries what they should do with their citizens, so much as it provides an environment for countries to retain their citizens; the decision-making power is still in the hands of the governments involved.

THe UNCRC, on the other hand, provides that "the best interest of the child" must be met in each case. Who determines that? Unfortunately, not the parents who know the child well, and not even the child (Sean has been having trouble with this situation as well). Who makes the decision? The Committee on the Rights of the Child; several individuals in Switzerland who have probably never studied our Constitutional Law in-depth, who possibly have never visited our shores, and who certainly have not studied our state child protection laws in-depth.

The government currently has the jurisdiction necessary to prevent harm to children, without denying parents the right to direct the upbringing of their own children. The Parental Rights Amendment would solidify this basis, protecting the child by empowering parents. Learn more at

Watching the stars,

"We promise you our swords." - Glenstorm

What's Wrong with Protecting Children?


This is the beginning of a long series of posts dedicated to discussing why every American, regardless of political, social, economic, religious, racial, or experiential (is that a word?) background, should support the Parental Rights Amendment (HJRes. 42). I am not a great keeper of history (although I do my research), but I can think for myself, judge the truth from various accounts, and compare stated/written word to real action.

The proponents of the UNCRC often claim that the US ought to ratify the treaty because it protects children. Truth be told, it's a fine goal: who doesn't want to protect children? Both camps agree: the only difference is who is doing the protecting. Advocates for the CRC believe that governments, working in conjunction with orders from an international committee based in Geneva, Switzerland, should protect children. Advocates for the Parental Rights Amendment believe that we should protect children by empowering parents, and that the government's legitimate role in protecting children comes only if the parents have demonstrated inadequacy in caring for their children.

Up to this point, I believe that both sides would agree that they have been fairly represented; that is my goal. What follows is my personal observation and judgment, which may cause disagreement. I call it like I see it, so if you disagree, I would remind you now of the rules for disagreement regarding this blog (which can be summed up as: "Agree to disagree with all respect and courtesy").

I hold that first, the UNCRC does not actually empower the government: it destroys it. It gives the government the ability to step in and remove the child from the home if they deem the child to be "in danger," which over the past several decades has taken on various meanings. These "imminent dangers," which at times have required emergency removal from homes come from "too much religion" for the child ("too much" was defined in that case as "Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and a Wednesday night prayer service." This church did not participate in dangerous or extreme practices; it was a normal Charismatic church), or the house being "too dirty." For information on these events, I would point you to an interview between Mike Huckabee and Dr. Michael Farris (shown here) and, for more information.

Yet our government is not gaining any real power from this treaty. Our government currently holds the right (I would argue, legitimately) to step in if parents are abusing or neglecting their children. This treaty would force our government to bow to the will of a committee in Geneva, who have probably never studied in-depth our Constitutional law, possibly never visited our shores, and certainly have not studied in-depth our state codes regarding child protection.

CRC proponents (including Joshua Cooper, a major proponent for the CRC in Hawaii) say that the treaty does not actually give the UN power over the US. To an extent they are right: the UN will not invade the US and force the president to do anything. Yet a lack of invasion does not mean they cannot force the US to do their will - if our word means anything to us. Some CRC proponents have said that we can pick and choose what we follow from the treaty, as other nations have done/are doing. Yet our Constitution sets us apart from them: it specifically says that treaties are the supreme law of the land, on-par with the Constitution. We have to follow it, if our word means anything to us.

What's wrong with protecting children? Nothing - so long as children are actually being protected. The CRC claims to fight the use of child soldiers (which is increasing in South America, Africa, and Europe - a post documenting this to follow), child poverty (which is still at record levels; no real progress is being made), and ensuring children their inalienable human rights to food, shelter, and health care. This last point will be discussed in great detail over the next few (months? years? I don't know) posts (there, that works), because there is much to see.

Watching the stars,

"I watch the stars, for they are mine to watch." - Glenstorm

Monday, March 2, 2009

The Parental Rights Amendment

Dear Reader,

I realize that this blog does not have much traffic, so if you are a regular visitor, THANK YOU! I don't update much, but when I do, I really enjoy it. So, over the next couple weeks, expect some posts about the Parental Rights Amendment. Share it with your friends, your family, your neighbor, the guy you see in the supermarket...everyone. Because, honestly, it affects all of them. For more information, go to, and sign the petition there.

So, where to begin. I propose to begin with Objection 1: "Why does this matter at all, Centaur?" Well, first and foremost, because our lives will be radically different if we sign this treaty. Parents are no longer able to direct the upbringing of their children. This includes: 1) being reduced to advisor-status for their children, unable to prevent them from hanging out with sketchy or otherwise undesirable people, posting pictures of themselves on the internet which are indecent or explicit, 2) in the Netherlands, Dutch public schools are adjacent to drug shops, which has increased child substance abuse, because "it's not that interesting" for children to tell their parents about drugs, smoking, or sexual activity, 3) incapable of directing the upbringing of their children through discipline, 4) parents and children before a judge are equals: parents are now only older siblings in a sense, able to advise the younger on what they think is right, AND THE LIST GOES ON.

Life in America as we know it will not be the same: law enforcement and drug trade will become a nightmare; self-restraint, self-control, and parental guidance will become unpopular, shunned, and probably persecuted under this treaty. Narnia as we know it will cease to exist.


Willing to make that sacrifice, whatever it may be,


Monday, February 9, 2009

Thoughts from My Sister

Greetings, friends,

I had the privilege and opportunity this week to hear from my sister, Kentauride, who sent me a paper which she wrote for school regarding the shift in American constitutional law.  Several portions remain with me, and I wish to share them with you now, with a small portion of commentary for reflection.  If you do not enjoy this, well, I am not forcing you to read this blog.

“The central government’s powers are no longer ‘few and defined’ but, as the state government’s powers were intended to be, ‘numerous and indefinite.’  A Constitution of Powers has replaced a Constitution of Rights, both state and private."

It is true that the federal government has become too broad in its power, and so many of us see that.  But how many of us think about the "numerous and indefinite" powers which are supposed to be granted to the states, as John Whitehead argues (whom Kentauride is analyzing)?  Currently, my state congress is attempting to subliminally pass a bill which would legalize civil unions, even though the citizens voted against a referendum similar to this bill with approximately 78.3% opposed.  Why?  Because the states can do so much within their states.

"Much of what is taught in law school today is directly opposed to the teachings of the Bible.  Basically, it is a humanistic system in need of a Christian orientation."

Kentauride is right: this is the core of the problem.  Enough said.

"Vocal Christian law students should be effective witnesses of the truth impacting the systems of law and civil government.  Christians must be prepared to enter the humanistic schools of law and thrust Christian ideas into the system."

Read "me" under "Christian law students" et al.  If your calling is law, politics, or anything which might involve anything regarding governance, you need to read this realistically: are you and I willing to do this?  Are we willing to give it all we have, every day, even now, to serve our King and country?  One last thought:

"When the courts make the law and decide an issue, Christian values and parental rights are in danger.  Formulating the law themselves, the Supreme Court becomes the Constitution."

Unfortunately, this is also true: the Supreme Court becomes the Constitution when the "Evolving Document" theory is supported.  But our attacks also come from beyond our borders.  The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in conjunction with the Attorney General, is working on US ratification of the UNCRC, or UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.  If this passes, all US state and federal laws will be trumped by this convention, not treaty.  It will become the Supreme Law of the Land, on the same ground as the Constitution itself.

Where do we turn?  What do we do?
"If My people, which are called by My Name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." -- 2 Chronicles 7:14

Friends, cry out to our God, for only He can save us.  Then pick up the sword in this political battle, and do whatever He guides your hands to do.

Hold fast,

"Will they follow me?" -- King Peter
"To the death." -- Oreius