Reader,
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 www.parentalrights.org today to sign up and support the passage of the Parental Rights Amendment.
Watching the stars,
Centaur
"The time is right." -- Glenstorm
Monday, July 20, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Debunking the Issue: Children's Rights a Nightmare
Reader,
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,
Centaur
"I watch the stars, for it is mine to watch, Badger, as it is your's to remember." -- Glenstorm
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,
Centaur
"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
Reader,
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 http://www.parentalrights.org/ today,
Centaur
"The time is right." -- Glenstorm
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 http://www.parentalrights.org/ today,
Centaur
"The time is right." -- Glenstorm
Monday, July 13, 2009
Alert: This Is No Scare Tactic
Reader,
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,
Centaur
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,
Centaur
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
US Military Recruiting and Parental Rights Threatened
Reader,
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 www.parentalrights.org.
Stand firm,
Centaur
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 www.parentalrights.org.
Stand firm,
Centaur
Monday, July 6, 2009
Michael Jackson and Parental Rights
Reader,
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 www.parentalrights.org, and look into other posts from this blog.
Seek the truth, find it, and defend it to the death,
Centaur
"The enemy comes, my king. What are your orders?" -- Oreius
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 www.parentalrights.org, and look into other posts from this blog.
Seek the truth, find it, and defend it to the death,
Centaur
"The enemy comes, my king. What are your orders?" -- Oreius
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)