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 parentalrights.org, 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