NarnianInsurgency

The Truth about Abstinence Education

2010-10-27T11:32:00.002-04:00

Reader,

I found this article in my research for the set of Centaur Scrolls articles I'm working on right now which shows the results of over 20 studies on abstinence education. There are hundreds of abstinence education programs across the country, and this research paper discusses a number of them, giving both national and specific results on abstinence education. From it you should see the effectiveness and utility to society that comes from such forms of education.

Centaur

The Centaur Scrolls: Same-Sex Marriage and the Family

2010-10-26T17:00:00.000-04:00

Reader,

I’ve discussed parental rights at length on this blog, but there is one side of parenting which I have refrained from discussing: what the proper setup for parenting should be. For those of you who know me, you know that I support traditional marriage, and that I also believe that the Parental Rights Amendment, though it does not define “parent,” should be used to help us return to a proper understanding of marriage. So I will pose to you the question: “Is traditional marriage necessary?” What are the consequences of not upholding traditional marriage?

There is a danger to those who enter a same-sex relationship. According to the research conducted by Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes with the US Department of Justice, same-sex cohabitants are at a significantly greater risk of domestic violence and abuse from their partner than their heterosexual counterparts. They note that “among women, 39.2% of the same-sex cohabitants and 21.7 of the opposite-sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabiting partner at some time in their lifetime.” For men, “15.4% of same-sex cohabiting men reported being raped, physically assaulted and/or stalked by a male partner,” while only “10.8% reported such violence by a female partner.”

These numbers are not just unique to the United States; other countries are experiencing the same phenomenon. According to a study conducted by the General Social Survey in Canada, same-sex partners were twice as likely as their heterosexual counterparts to be the victims of spousal violence. Same-sex marriage is not conducive to a good home environment.

The United Kingdom, which is also highly accepting of LGBT individuals, reports even higher rates of domestic violence (1 in 3 partners). Is this a lifestyle we want to promote? It should be quite obvious that same-sex marriage and traditional marriage are not equally viable options; there is a world of difference between the two.

In the next article, I want to investigate further this idea of domestic violence.

Until then, I invite you to continue to

Watch the stars,

Centaur

The Centaur Scrolls: Sexual Freedom and Its Dangers, Part III

2010-10-26T15:39:00.000-04:00

Reader,

In the late 1800s and the early 1900s, the United States restricted the ability of children to work, and made education available and mandatory for children under the age of sixteen. The act brought hope to Europeans, who saw America as the land of opportunity where education and social improvement was possible. And no one, I believe, will challenge that this was a positive improvement in our society.

Education today, however, has dramatically changed in nature. Instead of being the tool for improving their integration into our society, today’s curriculum is being guided by an agenda which attacks the very foundation of our society: the family. Research suggests that our children are being trained to live as independent, individualistic machines, programmed to march in lockstep with the dictates of foreign entities in the name of “globalization” and “being a world citizen.” Sexual education programs are one of the ways in which this agenda is accomplished.

What do I mean by “sex education”? First, let us not speak of programs around the world which protect Muslim girls from sexual slavery in a harem, or programs in Africa which warn girls and boys about the dangers of sexual slavery and the like. These situations do not assist us in bringing clarity to the situation. I want to confine our discussion to the curriculum used in the United States to teach middle-, high-, and in some cases elementary-aged children about reproductive services, and how unhealthy these “services” really are.

Providing useful information to the next generation is not a crime. But this proposition requires us to answer two fundamental questions: 1) Who should teach children about sexual health, and 2) What should they be taught? For thousands of years, parents have fulfilled the teaching aspect of these propositions. Yet in recent years, there has been a trend away from parental guidance toward school “professionals” to teach sexuality. What is the difference? Parents offer the information out of love, while professionals offer it out of interest.

What do I mean by this? Parents have the incentive to offer the soundest advice to their children, because these are their children. While health professionals in schools are certainly not conniving, evil creatures who seek to poison, steal, kill, and destroy, they have an agenda behind what they teach. And that has consequences.

One of the gravest consequences is that important sexual health information is noticeably absent from the curriculum. It almost goes without saying that sex education encourages earlier sexual activity. Current science is discovering that when children learn about sex at earlier ages, they tend to become sexually active earlier. This becomes a problem when children are taught about sex without being told important health facts, such as the increased vulnerability of girls to HPV and HIV before their bodies have fully matured. Sex education supporters are hurting young people; they are doing them no favor.

These courses often stand opposed to the will of parents because sex ed encourages irresponsible behavior through the use of technology. Even though abstinence, the most prescribed form of education by parents, has a significantly better success rating at avoiding harmful diseases, unwanted pregnancies, and future health problems, schools present abstinence as only one of many acceptable choices. A ninth-grade textbook tells students, “Testing your ability to function sexually and to give pleasure to another person may be less threatening in early teens with people of your own sex,” and that “You may come to the conclusion that growing up means rejecting the values of your parents.” And sex education proponents wonder why people like me are upset, :)

My row with this textbook is not so much the words on the page (though I do take issue with them), so much as what is not said on the page. Dr. Miriam Grossman’s research in the field, released recently, indicates that homosexual relations—-or any form of sexual relations during your early teens, for that matter—-are not “less threatening” from a health standpoint, and individuals who engage in these activities have a higher chance of developing cancer and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

Furthermore, students were encouraged not to take this book home, but to leave it in their lockers. Why? Because the teachers knew that parents would not approve. If this information is really best for the student and backed by clinical evidence proven in the field, why are they hiding it? Why didn’t the school officials talk about this with parents at a teacher-parent meeting to make sure that the parents were educated? Because the research to back it up doesn’t exist.

Some may object, “But can’t our children opt out of sex education programs in their curriculum?” While schools may give that option, courts have split on whether or not parental permission is required for such teaching to occur. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in Fields v. Palmdale School District in 2005 that “once parents make the choice as to which school their children will attend . . . their fundamental right to control the education of their children is, at the least, substantially diminished,” and that “While parents may have a fundamental right to decide whether to send their child to a public school, they do not have a fundamental right generally to direct how a public school teaches their child.”

Opposing sex education is not “pulling the wool over your child’s eyes,” but rather an age-old principle of allowing parents—who know their child best—to determine when they learn about a very important part of life. Parents need to maintain their right in this area of our society without interference from the government, “professionals,” or others who would strive to take their place.

Watching the stars,

Centaur

The Centaur Scrolls: Sexual Freedom and Its Dangers, Part II

2010-10-25T16:56:00.000-04:00

Reader,

The following article will address the misconception that sex education and the “sexual freedom” which it fosters by examining this article from the Guardian.

In the United Kingdom, the External Steering Group released a report stating that the wellbeing of a child improved through sex and relationship education (SRE) taught at school. Mr. Andrew Copson, writing in the Guardian, amazingly turned to Article 13 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child as the basis for why children should receive such education.

It is important to note that Mr. Copson ties this right to the CRC. First, this indicates a direct tie to the document which I have been fighting for a while now. Second and more importantly, the CRC only applies to those under the age of eighteen (except in Scotland, where it applies until the age of 21). This is the age group that Mr. Copson is targeting. Keep this in mind.

Mr. Andrew Copson and other sex ed supporters are doing these children no favor. Mr. Copson states that “young people want this education, they need it, it is their right to have it, and if we withhold it from them on grounds of our own ideologies, we will only be doing harm.” Amazingly, those who claim to “place the child . . . at the center of our thinking” as he does in his article in the Guardian, are not fighting for children: they are merely fighting for their ideology.

The true advocate for the child is the parent. Not only do children of all ages (even through their teen years) generally trust their parents and respect their opinion (there's an article here), parents are infinitely more qualified to make decisions than a bureaucrat behind a desk thousands of miles away. The sexual freedom that Mr. Copson argues for, as future articles will show, is harmful to their personal health and wellbeing, especially at the age that Mr. Copson supports such intercourse and education. Do your research, Mr. Copson.

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

Centaur

The Centaur Scrolls: Sexual Freedom and Its Dangers

2010-10-25T11:56:00.000-04:00

Reader,

I started working on a project about four weeks ago (since before my last post) on the dangers of sexual freedom, especially among young people, and why parents should be involved in helping their children through these difficult decisions. This research, however, led to a number of other documents and stories which expanded the scope of the project so much that I have seriously considered writing a book about them. For the now, I will be writing a series of articles on a number of different subjects, so keep your eyes out.

To whet your appetite, look at this article written by Mr. K Edgardh, reprinted by NCBI. The article mentions the sexual freedom of the Swedes: sex education since the 1950s, abortion on demand since 1975, age of consent at 15, easy access to contraceptives, and "during the past 20 years, approximately 70% of all teenage pregnancies have been terminated by an abortion," with about 90% of those abortions at the request of a 15- or 16-year-old.

The article goes on to show how these risky behaviors are affecting the rest of society, and the personal health of those that engage in it. This is where America is heading: if we don't rein in the mindset of "children should be able to determine what is in their best interest without Mom and Dad's approval," they will be hurt--badly.

More on the way,

Centaur

Who Determines What Your Children Eat?

2010-09-28T16:50:00.001-04:00

Reader,

I found a really cool article about how family meals--and family involvement in planning and preparing meals--helps children stay healthy and avoid dangerous behaviors. I found this very interesting, and wanted to pass it along to you.

To briefly summarize, parents have an amazing impact on how their children eat. Thus their outlook on food, their choice of diet, etc. will affect their children. It also mentions, however, how sharing family meals decreases substantially the chance of using illicit drugs, gang activity, and smoking. I've mentioned this before (you can read it here), so feel free to brush up on that article for more information. But all of this raises the question, "If we want to provide the best environment for our children, how should we be eating?"

Do we need to cut out all hamburgers? No, I don't think so. But emphasizing the importance of also eating healthy foods as part of a balanced, healthy diet should also be present. And that's not asking too much, is it?

Let's set a good example for them, shall we?

Centaur

What Is Your Doctor Asking Your Child?

2010-09-27T19:20:00.000-04:00

Reader,

When your child goes to the doctor, there's usually a time when you are asked to step out of the room. At some medical institutions, a questionnaire of some sort is then given to your child.

I want to say upfront that these questionnaires are not inherently evil. They were not (I hope) designed by someone who hates the family and wants to see the privacy and realm of the American family destroyed. That said, there are some aspects of these questionnaires which make me wary.

Here's a good example: a survey from Utah Valley Pediatrics, which is used across the country (a friend of mine in Pennsylvania showed it to me). The purpose of the surveys, according to its creators, is to help to address problems with domestic violence, low self-esteem, ADHD, etc. They have a number of surveys and guides for parents also available at their website.

What worries me about this questionnaire, designed for children ages 14 and up, is that it asks questions related to personal health, hygiene, and psychological development, but also intrudes into other areas which are not strictly the realm of doctors--in fact, there is little a doctor could do to help in some of these areas.

For example, why do they ask, "Are your grades this year worse than last year?" While I can understand wanting to feel for low self-esteem, there are other places where they do that effectively. Why is this so necessary?

They ask questions like, "Do you or anyone you live with have a gun, rifle, or other firearm," and ask in the same question, "Are you worried about violence or your safety?" Again, I can see a feasible example of where this could be important, but why include the question regarding gun possession, as if there was an automatic connection between the two?

I am afraid that questionnaires like this, administered to children generally instead of upon suspicion of abuse or the like, are being used in a way that conflicts with parental rights. This must change.

Centaur

Threat of the CRC Article

2010-09-04T14:43:00.000-04:00

Reader,

Check out this article from FamilySecurityMatters.Org. It's a very good analysis of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), including talking points from Phyllis Schafly of Eagle Forum.

Centaur

The Centaur Scrolls: Parental Rights and International Law

2010-09-03T10:09:00.001-04:00

Reader,

I’ve often mentioned international law on this blog, but I want to spend a little more time discussing some of its finer points. This article will be rather long, somewhat tedious (unless you enjoy this stuff, in which case I say, more power to you), and very dry. But it is important to fully understand the threats facing parental rights today.

International agreements and treaties threaten to tell us as Americans how we should rule our country. While many see treaties as harmless documents purporting altruism and goodwill, the truth is that with each treaty comes an obligation to enforce it in our nation. Dr. Michael P. Farris, who holds a J.D. from Gonzaga University, and is pursuing an LLM in international law from the University of London, writes that “under the most basic rule of international law, every nation that becomes a party to a treaty is obligated to perform the duties that it assumes under the terms of the treaty. Moreover, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, every treaty is superior to all internal law—including the nation’s constitution—with one important exception.” We will address the exception in a moment. But first, there is a critical element of international law which must be understood in order to aptly understand this exception.

When America supports a treaty, we are noting supporting a fixed document. When we sign a treaty, we agree to uphold not only the text and meaning of the treaty when we signed it, but also any additional amendments and new meanings which may follow. Treaties today are not strict documents agreed to by other nations, but conventions—groups of individuals who determine the meaning and extent of the treaty—which routinely expand in their scope and demands over the course of time.

While international agreements have a role—and an important role—in our world, this should not include taking away the ability of state lawmakers to make decisions on family law. When we sign a treaty, we give a portion of our legislative power to a group of foreigners who have probably never studied our constitutional law, possibly never visited our shores, and most certainly have not studied our state child protection laws. The child protection laws on the books in the fifty states are exceptional at providing protection for children. Signing a treaty, rightly understood, is a huge concession of state legislative power to a foreign entity.

So what is the exception? A nation may sign a treaty with any number of Reservations, Understandings, or Declarations (RUDs), which may exempt, clarify the interpretation of the article from the perspective of the signatory state, and affirm important principles which may apply to the treaty in question. The difficulty with RUDs, however, is twofold.

First, nations are consistently pressured to remove RUDs at the expense of local legislators. Once the treaty is signed, a 2/3 majority of a legislative body is not required to approve of a rescinding order for an RUD; all that is required is the executive’s signature. Thus, the ability to make laws transfers from the legislative to the executive.

The second dilemma is that RUDs are not always recognized in international law. The International Court of Justice is not required to honor an RUD. According to Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, “A State may, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, formulate a reservation unless . . . the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.” Prof. Louis Henkin, in the American Journal of International Law, notes that since all reservations are designed as opt-out statements for specific clauses of a treaty, all reservations, at least to some extent, are “incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty,” since “the object and purpose of the human rights conventions, it would seem, are to promote respect for human rights by having countries—mutually—assume legal obligations to respect and ensure recognized rights in accordance with international standards” (Louis Henkin, U.S. Ratification of Human Rights Conventions: The Ghost of Senator Bricker, The American Journal of International Law, Vol 89 No 2, 343-344 (Apr. 1995)). While we certainly should respect and ensure recognized rights, an international agreement which can change from year to year without legislative approval is not the way to accomplish this aim. That is the role of our elected representatives.

So what is the solution? How do we both respect the rights of states to set child protection laws, while meeting the domestic threats to parental rights? The answer is an amendment to the US Constitution. According to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, the Constitution stands on equal footing with treaties. In the realm of international law, however, a provision in the Constitution which expressly touches on a subject of customary international law is considered to be overriding and preeminent. In effect, the Amendment would serve as the ultimate reservation on any treaty regarding parental rights.

Centaur

Scotland: Free Expression on the Internet

2010-09-03T10:01:00.002-04:00

Reader,

Here's an article I found today on WorldNet Daily; it's a shocking article, although we here at the Insurgency have seen it coming for quite some time. In Scotland, the internet filters in Scotland on school grounds are being lifted, so that now children can view sexually explicit material on the internet while at school.

But this is not all: the article continues:

"It was uncovered a few months ago that Scottish children as young as 11 were being taken on outings to various "health" clinics where they were being given instruction in abortion, contraception and homosexuality by other students as young as 14."

Now, religious conviction regarding marriage and family planning aside, why are eleven-year-olds being taught this information? And why are fourteen-year-olds involved in the teaching? Something is wrong here!

I wish that I could say that this is all, but the article continues:

"Health officials in the Southampton area also recently created Charlie Condom, a character who promotes condoms to 13-year-olds."

Why use cartoon characters? Because they appeal to young audiences.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that I'm not being followed; something is wrong here. The internationalist agenda is targeting a young audience with a message, primarily because they know that they cannot win the older generations who know the truth. So they turn to education.

Is this what we want in our country? Will we only be reactionary, or will we take an active role in defending our country? Visit www.parentalrights.org today, and get involved in protecting our nation now.

Centaur

The Centaur Scrolls: The Legal Argument for Parental Rights, Part IV

2010-09-03T09:48:00.000-04:00

Reader,

This post will tell of the blow that swiftly and deftly sliced the ancient pillars which protected parental rights in our legal system. I’m no “tree hugger,” but the cutting of these ancient towers down brought me sorrow.

In the year 2000, the traditional defense of parental rights disappeared. In Troxel v. Granville, the Supreme Court demonstrated that it was completely confused on the standard of protection for parental rights. Three points display the confusion well.

First, the Court was dramatically fragmented in its decision. In no less than six different opinions, the Court turned to almost every possible standard for measuring parental rights under the sun. No more than four justices agreed on any one decision, making it a plurality decision.

Second, the long train of parental rights protection which we have previously discussed was noted, mentioned, but not followed by five of the six opinions. Only Justice Clarence Thomas turned to Meyer et al. in making his decision.

How did this happen? We don’t know. But we are already seeing its effects.

The indecision of the court has led to lower court decisions which threaten the longstanding tradition of protecting parental rights. In Blair v. Badenhope, 77 S.W.3d 137 (2002), the Tennessee Supreme Court refused to use the strict scrutiny test for its decision on denying a parent custody of his child. Not only did they refuse to use the strict scrutiny test, they didn’t even mention it! Where did this freedom come from? The Court refused to use it in Troxel.

In 2005, the Maryland Supreme Court also refused to use strict scrutiny for parental rights, even though they cite Troxel where it defends parental rights as a fundamental right. What this indicates is that even if parental rights are viewed as fundamental, they may not receive the legal protection due a fundamental right. The protection we have enjoyed for so long is fading fast. Case in point: we cannot rely on the courts for the protection and preservation of parental rights.

So what is the solution? How do we both respect the rights of states to set child protection laws, while meeting the domestic threats to parental rights? The answer is an amendment to the US Constitution. Judges within our nation are under oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, meaning that they must consult a Parental Rights Amendment as a preliminary and primary resource for their analysis. The Amendment’s text would solve the confusion of the Supreme Court in Troxel, and return us to the proper standard for protection found in Yoder, Pierce, Meyer, Prince, and Sherbert among others. The rights of parents are protected, while the rights of the government to intervene in cases of child abuse and child neglect are still upheld.

Q.E.D.,

Centaur

The Centaur Scrolls: The Legal Argument for Parental Rights, Part III

2010-09-02T16:45:00.000-04:00

Reader,

In a previous post, I demonstrated the past precedent for parental rights, up until 1972. There are a number of other useful cases (Prince v. Massachusetts, Quilloin v. Walcott, and Santosky v. Kramer among others) that were mentioned subsequently, but Meyer, Pierce, and Yoder summarize the issue succinctly.

What I didn’t mention in those cases, however, was the standard of review for rights that are fundamental in nature, such as parental rights. I want to take some time now to do that.

In Wisconsin v. Yoder, Justice Burger draws on the principle which has provided the protection for parental rights over the centuries: the standard of protection for fundamental rights. Citing back to Sherbert v. Verner in 1963, Prince v. Massachusetts in 1944, and other cases, Justice Burger writes that only “those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served” are compelling enough to justify limiting a fundamental right.

What does this phrase, “[government] interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served,” mean?

First, it is very specific. In order for the government to have a “compelling governmental interest of the highest order,” the government must prove that there is a situation which threatens an important government priority. This “compelling governmental interest” is not defined as “a whim of the government,” or “a passing fancy in domestic policy.” A “compelling governmental interest” must be a fundamental function of government essential to its role as governor.

A compelling interest “not otherwise served” is an interest which can only be accomplished by limiting the right. This is important: if there is another means of accomplishing the task at hand, the government is obligated to pursue that alternate option instead of limiting the fundamental right. This was the standard for restricting parental rights laid out in Yoder.

A case study is helpful in understanding this otherwise vague and abstract theory. In the case of parental rights, child abuse and child neglect have routinely been upheld as compelling interests of the highest order (protecting citizens) not otherwise served (the only way to protect the victim is to remove him/her from the home environment, and specifically from the abusive parent). All that is required for law enforcement to rightly limit parental rights is to have proof of abuse—the usual requirement for removal of a child from his home.

We uphold state child protection laws with this standard already; the only thing that changes under the Amendment are cases involving the prosecution of parents in which no evidence of child abuse exists, and those parents shouldn’t be tried for abuse in the first place.

The important thing to realize about strict scrutiny test is that by 1972, parental rights were very well-protected. They looked as if they would never need further defense, since they were adequately defended by both the Supreme Court and state lawmakers. The next article will tell you how all of that changed.

Centaur

The Centaur Scrolls: The Legal Argument for Parental Rights, Part II

2010-09-02T09:19:00.001-04:00

Reader,

In the last scroll I wrote to you about the precedent of the Court up through its 1972 decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder. Now I want to take you from 1972 up until the turn of the century, so that you will catch a glimpse of just how often the Court had protected parental rights (since we will not examine every case that they ruled in favor of parental rights). This will set us up nicely for the shocking truth in the next article, regarding the dramatic and abrupt turn away from protecting parental rights in Troxel v. Granville.

In 1978, the Supreme Court in Quilloin v. Walcott upheld its decision in Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), where they stated that “It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents.” Both Prince and Quilloin tied back to Meyer and Pierce, which were discussed in the last scroll. The Quilloin decision followed on the heels of Smith v. Organization of Foster Families in 1977, where the Court stated that “the liberty interest in family privacy has its source, and its contours are ordinarily to be sought, not in state law, but in intrinsic human rights.”

The 1980s saw even greater protection for parental rights. Citing back to Stanley v. Illinois, in Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services in 1981, the Court held that “this Court's decisions have by now made plain . . . that a parent's desire for and right to ‘the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children’ is an important interest that ‘undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.’” In 1982, Justice Blackmun described parental rights as constituting a “fundamental liberty interest” in Santosky v. Kramer, and that these rights have a “critical need for procedural protections” because of this liberty interest. And again, both Lassiter and Santosky ties back to Meyer and Pierce.

In M.L.B. v. SL.J. in 1996, the Court also defended the rights of parents, stating that “choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’” tying back to Boddie v. Connecticut in 1971. In all of these cases, parental rights were protected as fundamental rights.

Now, I know that there were a lot of cases suddenly thrust upon you, so this is what I want you to take away: there is a longstanding, highly respected history for the protection of parental rights dating back to two central cases: Meyer and Pierce. When the Supreme Court (or any lower court) faces a question regarding how much protection should be given to parental rights, there is a long tradition of protection which should not be ignored. For over seventy years, the Court was very clear on the standard for parental rights were: it’s a fundamental right, deserving strict scrutiny (which we will discuss later).

Why did I take all of this time laying out the issue? There are myriad cases which were not addressed in this or the preceding article – why do we write so much about it? Because everything changed in the year 2000, and no one knows why. But that is a discussion for another day.

Centaur

The Centaur Scrolls: The Legal Argument for Parental Rights, Part I

2010-08-30T11:49:00.000-04:00

Reader,

The following set of articles will build the legal case for passing an amendment to the US Constitution to protect parental rights. Much has already been said about why the Parental Rights Amendment for the preservation of our country’s heritage and traditions (for more information on it, visit www.parentalrights.org, and find out how you can get involved). But I want to take time now to discuss the legal background and ramifications of passing—and not passing—the Parental Rights Amendment.

The rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children have been protected by state and federal law for centuries, finding protection in state statutory laws, state constitutions, family court rulings, and the Supreme Court of the United States. But in recent years, there has been a trend in restricting the rights of parents without sufficient justification and evidence for proving that the parents are not acting in the best interest of the child. Over the next few articles, we will examine the threat to parental rights in two realms: domestic and foreign. Here, however, I want to focus on the legal precedent which has been set regarding parental rights.

Parents have traditionally been given the benefit of the doubt in raising their children. In Meyer v. Nebraska in 1923, the Court upheld the rights of parents to choose subjects of study for their child. Citing back to cases decided in 1884 and beyond, Justice McReynolds wrote that “it is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life,” and that “[the teacher’s] right thus to teach and the right of parents to engage him so to instruct their children . . . are within the liberty of the [First] Amendment.”

In 1925, the Court expanded on what was entailed in this “natural duty.” In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Justice McReynolds held that “the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” Notice that this is not just a grant of power to parents. There is an obligation which comes with the “natural duty,” here recognized as a “high duty,” of parents: they must prepare the child for additional obligations. The right of parents to raise their children has a forward focus: it prepares the next generation to participate in our democracy, our society, and their future.

Justice Burger’s decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder in 1972 mentions this passage from Pierce, where he wrote: “The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.” He uses this opportunity, however, to clarify what these “additional obligations” are in Pierce: “the duty to prepare the child for ‘additional obligations,’ referred to by the Court, must be read to include the inculcation of moral standards, religious beliefs, and elements of good citizenship.” That’s what we are protecting when we protect parental rights.

Notice: parental rights are always tied to a significant benefit to society. Parents raise their children so that they will be better equipped for later on in life. While there are exceptions to this rule, this is the norm--and the vast majority of cases support this. If you disagree, fine: but realize that this is how the system works, and that parents are reliable in the main. And that is now “established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.”

More to come,

Centaur

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

The Centaur Scrolls: Parents v. The Gangs and Cults

2010-08-27T16:04:00.001-04:00

Gang activity is exceedingly harmful to youth. Once a young person enters the gang ring, there are few opportunities to leave it. The gang leader becomes a father to those within the gang, providing protection from rival gangs, a sense of belonging, and a feeling of importance and increased self-esteem. Adolescents who enter gangs tend to have other socio-economic factors which drive them toward gang involvement, but a breakdown in the parent-child relationship is a critical reason to join—everyone needs to feel loved and wanted.

Parental involvement and monitoring in a child’s life has been widely recognized as an integral factor in preventing gang involvement. Dr. Phelan Wyrick, the Gang Program Coordinator for the (OJJDP), and Dr. James Howell, the Adjunct Researcher for the National Youth Gang Center, recognize the parent-child relationship as “likely to have the greatest impact” in dealing with children involved in gangs.

Wyrick and Howell also advocate the use of after-school programs and probation periods to assist in rehabilitation, but they specifically note the power and importance of preserving and improving the parent-child relationship as key to success. Citing four academic studies taken over the past fifteen years, Wyrick and Howell state that “poor family management, including poor parental supervision (monitoring) and control of children, has been shown to be a strong predictor of gang membership.” Parents must take the lead in raising their children; the strength of that relationship is integral to ensuring the best interest of the child.

One commentator claims that “parents play a pivotal role in keeping young people out of gangs,” and that “parents can protect their children from gang activity through taking positive actions, such as monitoring their children's activities, fostering close relationships with them, and using positive discipline strategies.” What parents think, say, and demonstrate to adolescents is a powerful message with a profound impact. While we generally think that parents lose their influence over their children during their teen years, research indicates that the opposite is true. Parents have a profound impact on their children’s lives, guiding and directing their growth.

Closely tied to this issue is another destructive community which easily entraps adolescents: cults. One of the tactics cult leaders use to gain control over their followers is to alienate cult members from their parents and family members. This creates an isolation which drives members toward the cult leader as their new “father.” Some cults will split up families within the cult, forcing children to live with other parents, and even at times forcing spouses to split and live with other people, in order to centralize power within the cult leader. This has a devastating effect on the psyche and personal growth of the child.

But the damage doesn’t end there: families coming from cults have difficulties in their interaction with each other. One commentator notes that “post-cult marital pairs often view each other in the way they viewed the cult leader,” and that conflict within the family may be dealt with by “projecting uncomfortable or unacceptable feelings onto their partners.” The danger of treating your partner like the cult leader is that suspicion of motives and manipulation becomes commonplace within the marriage, making it significantly more difficult for spouses to work out their problems without putting on a façade with their partner. Family interaction is destroyed.

Life is highly regulated by the cult leader—so much so that “married couples may feel that it is best to hide their positive feelings while in the cult, because true affection between members can be perceived as a threat to the power of the cult leader.” Even the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit is regulated by the cult leader. The cult leader’s manipulation and example permeate all of life, regulating every personal interaction of the cult members in order to preserve his power. Families are completely destroyed.

Organizations that rescue individuals from cults highly recommend that parents become actively involved in helping their children recognize the dangers and appeals of cultic practices. While parental actions may not be perfect in keeping young people from joining cultic groups, it does significantly decrease the risk of entering such practices. There is a reason why cult leaders attempt to appear to their followers like a parent: the position of a parent in the life of a young person is powerful, and its power should be protected and preserved in the hands of the right people—his loving parents.

Preserving the parent-child relationship without government intervention is critical to attaining success in a number of societal ills regarding children. In recognition of this fact, the Parental Rights Amendment was proposed to forever protect the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. By supporting the rights of parents to raise their children in a responsible way, we can fight the social evils caused by groups which attempt to replace the love of parents with a group leader.

Centaur

The Centaur Scrolls: Parental Rights Improve Public Health

2010-08-27T11:53:00.000-04:00

Reader,

Much has been said about the Parental Rights Amendment: it protects the rights of good parents to raise their children, it preserves our national sovereignty in the realm of family law, it defends one of the most fundamental and core values of the American heritage. What is often not covered, however, is how parental involvement improves public health. Parental guidance and involvement have effectively reduced underage drinking, teens driving under the influence, underage smoking, and substance abuse more than any other factor. Moreover, it has also been discovered that positive parental guidance in the realm of sexuality has a proven track record of improving public health and reducing the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases.

(For information about the study, click here (it can also be found here, and through ProQuest, subscription required). My sincerest thanks to those who conducted the study; all information in this article was taken from the studies and research covered in the article above, unless cited otherwise.)

I recognize that this may be considered an almost inappropriate topic of discussion: we tend to skirt this issue, leaving it unaddressed unless we confront it directly with legislation. Yet the discussion must be had in order to truly understand and appreciate the importance of parental guidance to our society. Adolescents and youths alike are much less likely to engage in sexual activity if their parents are actively involved in limiting what they view, who they see, and where they go. By defending parental involvement, we improve public health.

Melina Bersamin and her associates at the Prevention Research Center in Berkeley, CA, in their article, “Parenting Practices and Adolescent Sexual Behavior: A Longitudinal Study,” have compiled the most extensive study ever conducted on the influence of parental involvement and instruction on adolescent behavior, integrating research from 61 studies and scholarly works spanning twenty years of analysis. The findings of their study are truly amazing in their universal and resounding support for parental rights as a means of increasing public health and reducing the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

Citing several studies, Bersamin notes that “perceived parental attitudes toward premarital sex and actual parental attitudes toward sexuality are strong predictors of adolescent sexual behavior.” In other studies this was confirmed in longitudinal analysis: parental disapproval, and particularly maternal disapproval of premarital sexual activity, significantly reduced the chance of premarital sex in adolescents from year to year. Other studies also found that “effective communication styles and positive parental relationships also are associated with fewer pregnancies.” By encouraging parental involvement and protecting parental rights, we can reduce other problems which confront our government today, in addition to increasing public health and making life for these young people easier and better.

Parent-imposed limitations on television viewing and time unaccounted for with friends dramatically reduced the risk of receiving STDs, such as human papillomavirus (HPV), gonorrhea, and HIV/AIDS. According to a 2002 study conducted by Cohen, Farley, Taylor, Martin, and Shuster, “high school students who were unsupervised less than 5 hours a week (high supervision) were less likely to have had sexual intercourse and had fewer lifetime sexual partners than students who were unsupervised more than 5 hours a week.” If adolescents do not have parental involvement and guidance, they suffer. We need to protect parental rights.

National statistics support these findings. According to the studies, “80% of youth reported that they were influenced some or a lot by "what parents have told them" and 79% reported being influenced some or a lot by "what parents might think" (Kaiser Family Foundation and Seventeen Magazine, 2000). More than 90% of these teens agreed that among the benefits of waiting to have sex is enjoying the respect of parents.” Children are greatly impacted by what their parents think, and the knowledge which parents have of the dangers of open sexual activity does pervade the conversation. By encouraging parental involvement, we can dramatically increase public health and provide a better future for our children.

By “parental supervision” in this study the researchers mean “interactions with children about television. The interaction can take place before, during, or after viewing.” The results were clear: “Parental television mediation strategies were also predictive of changes in adolescents' sexual behavior. Specifically, parental limitation of television viewing was negatively associated with both sexual behaviors. Parental coviewing was inversely related to vaginal intercourse initiation only.” In other words, limiting what your children watch helps reduce the chance of premarital sexual activity, and thus reduce the chance of receiving an STD.

Because we universally see teen rebellion around us, we tend to assume that the influence of parents over their children wanes with time. According to the study, however, this is far from the truth. On the contrary, the opinion of parents on subjects including drugs, alcohol, and premarital sex plays a significant role in the decision-making paradigm of the child, even into and through his or her teen years. Bersamin goes as far as to say that parents have “considerable influence” over their children’s sexual behavior during their teen years.

What does this tell us? When parents are involved and actively make their stance on premarital sex known, youth are less likely to be sexually active and are less likely to contract STDs. The studies particularly drew attention to television co-viewing and discussion before, during, and after the viewing. These two factors, taken together, are the sole element that cannot be reproduced or replicated in any other setting than the family unit. Parental involvement in the upbringing of children is absolutely essential because it is considerably effective.

It is interesting to note the dramatic difference between these studies and what we see in the Netherlands. Dutch children actively engage in sexuality, substance abuse, and alcohol. The World Population Foundation found in a 2006 study that almost 30% of boys and girls fifteen years of age are sexually active, and of those 30%, 92% of boys and 97% of girls have used some form of contraception. The numbers were higher for those above fifteen years of age.

But the story does not end with sexual activity. In an interview conducted by Kathryn Westcott of the BBC News Network, Laura Vos, a Dutch girl of sixteen when the interview was conducted in 2007, reveals just how free that nation is: “In this country, it's very free, you can do anything you want. . . . 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.”

If children do not think that it is important to tell their parents, is the feeling mutual? Do parents not care about whether or not their children are sexually active, drinking, smoking, or doping? Ysbrand, a young man of eighteen when the interview took place, sheds light on the situation through his story. According to Ysbrand, he was a drinker and smoker “for some time,” and presumably his parents knew of his habits. But, as he describes it, “They've never liked it, but they realize that they were young once. They are just waiting for me to give it up in my own time.” His parents do not take an active roll in helping him, even though his drinking and smoking habits are crippling his chances at a long, healthy life.

Is this a systemic problem, or is Ysbrand’s family an isolated case? According to Paul Vangeert, the Professor of Developmental Psychology at the University of Groningen, this mindset is commonplace. He states that “because parents are more relaxed, the dynamics of the problems are less severe than in countries where they are seen as more of a serious issue.”

Illicit drugs are being used by young people just beyond school grounds. Drinking and smoking are common, and no one is warning them of the threat to their future and present health from these habits. Why? Because “it’s not that interesting for us to provoke our parents with it.” This is the root cause: parents are not involved. This is the great difference between America today and the Netherlands: American parents want to protect their children from destructive habits. American parents are concerned about whether their children smoke, drink, use drugs, or are sexually active.

Or are we?

Are we willing to stand up and fight to protect parental rights? If we want to protect our children, we need to empower parents. Visit www.parentalrights.org for more information on how you can get involved in protecting the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.

Centaur

Government-Engineered children?

2010-08-17T12:49:00.000-04:00

Reader,

I read the following today; it is a work written by Mr. Dan Moxley, a Virginia resident and father who recognizes the importance of parental rights, entitled, "Government-Engineered Children: Save Parental Rights." I loved his thoughts so much, I wanted to send them on to you.

Centaur

Government-Engineered Children?
Save Parental Rights
Dan Moxley

Since its adoption by the U.N. in 1989, the “Convention on the Rights of the Child” has been ratified by 193 of its 194 member nations. Even Somalia, with its broken government and war-torn state, signed on earlier this year alleging it did so to protect its children. The only member nation not “compassionate” enough to have done so is the United States.

Virginia’s Senator Mark Warner represented the convention to a concerned inquirer affirming that it protects a child’s “right to a name and nationality, freedom of speech and thought, access to health care and education, and freedom from exploitation, torture, and abuse.” We will demonstrate that this tug-at-the-heart-strings representation is nothing more than a manipulation tactic of the left.
Not surprisingly, the U.S. has suffered the scrutiny of other U.N. member nations, as well as domestic antagonists. Intense pressure is being applied to force the U.S. to recognize that adoption of this convention is the only appropriate response. Why has the U.S. not fallen in line with the other 193 U.N. member nations by submitting itself to this standard? Has the U.S alone been perceptive enough to understand what every other U.N. member nation has overlooked?

Not exactly. Of the countries that ratified this convention — more than 87 percent by the end of 1994 — few faced Constitutional hurdles similar to those of the U.S. Their constitutions were structured such that their governments were able to yield sovereignty and parental freedoms to the U.N. with relative ease. The delayed implementation of the U.N. convention in this country is substantially the result of limitations integral to our Constitution. To this extent, all wisdom is attributable to the founders.

To the credit of some contemporary legislators, their awareness of various dangers has prevented the U.N. convention from gaining U.S. sanction. One danger, evident only since the mid-1990s, is the ability of the U.N. to issue interpretations, or “general comments,” on the convention. Since, as it affirms of itself, “the convention, like all human rights instruments, must be regarded as a living instrument, whose interpretation develops over time,” and since the U.N. convention does not permit “any reservation incompatible with (its) object and purpose,” these new interpretations cannot be ignored. Once established by the U.N committee, they are legally binding on all ratifying nations. The U.S. would be no exception. This would be like agreeing to buy someone’s home and later finding out the previous owner’s legally-binding interpretations include unlimited weekend getaways at your new residence. You had better plan on being close friends.

The convention’s ability to be altered and yet binding, objectionable as it is, has not been the only objection in the U.S. There are two issues considered to be equally important. The first is: the U.N. convention as it stands would require and enable the federal government to develop a massive bureaucracy that would eclipse even the one anticipated with the new federal health care system. Every U.S. citizen would be subject to U.N. laws and world government. While one can debate what would occur under the U.N. convention, there can be no sensible debate about what could occur. Not only would ratification result in a comprehensive yielding of our sovereignty to the U.N., but it would prove the single greatest devise on the political horizon employable to complete annihilation of “states rights.”

The other substantial reason the U.S. has not supported this U.N. convention is due to the direct, dramatic impact it would have on the American family. Purporting to establish and secure the rights of children, it actually takes the rights of American parents to rear their own children and gives them to a panel of 18 would-be sages in Geneva, Switzerland. The rights that would be shifted to the U.N.’s oversight, if only according to present interpretations, are all-encompassing: the child would be able to “receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers … through any … media of the child’s choice,” and this “whether their parents or guardians consent.” Children will “have access to confidential medical counseling and advice” including “family planning education and services,” and this “without parental consent.” They will have freedom from corporal correction, “however light,” freedom of religion and freedom of association. (Notice the esteem this compassionate convention ascribes to parents).

While the U.N. currently frowns on your daughter marrying at 12 years of age, you will not be able to demand that she leave her Satan-worshipping 18-year-old boyfriend and return home. If you try to restrain any right in any fashion, your child will have the right to appeal to a government worker. If you persist, the federal government will be bound to replace you with a more cooperative guardian – it is cooperation, not character, that matters to the U.N. (They have decided that they will engineer character).

Does this sound like the convention Sen. Warner is promoting? Need I say that his representation bears all the marks of intentional deception? Represent it as something no reasonable person would reject; withhold all information that no reasonable person would accept.

The U.S. alone has stood against the pressures of ratification for more than two decades, but as we have been promised by the current administration, things may be about to change. Susan Rice, present ambassador to the U.N., has promised the Senate will adopt the U.N. convention this term. There have always been parties attempting to impose it on this country, but the current imbalance in legislative power – in favor of liberal democrats — poses the greatest potential risk to date.

Motivated in large part by the current threat, an organization has arisen to lead the effort to establish permanent protection for families. Parental Rights (found on the web at www.parentalrights.org) is seeking to garner support in the House, in the Senate, and in the states to secure an amendment to the Constitution. Contrary to left-wing extremist propaganda, the proposed amendment seeks only to make explicit the rights that have long been recognized by the states. Such an amendment would not only seal the fate of the U.N. convention, but it could also make it more difficult for judges who, in violation of their oath of office, make decisions regarding family law that are more representative of U.N. convention interests than those of the U.S. Constitution. At present, the proposed amendment has gained significant support — 139 co-sponsors in the House and seven co-sponsors in the Senate.
Others have also joined the fight: Numerous states have passed parental rights legislation, urging Congress to pass the parental rights amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Here in Virginia, the resolution passed the House of Delegates on Feb. 15 by a vote of 64 to 31. One day later, the full Senate waived a reading of the resolution and sent it to the rules sub-committee to determine whether it was worthy of serious consideration by the full Senate — it never again emerged. Knowing that Senate approval would indicate Virginia’s support of appropriate parental rights, the Virginia Senate dismissed it without even meeting formally for deliberation.

Since the passage of the parental rights amendment would effectively nullify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, and it would retain appropriate authority for the states as well as for parents, why would any legislator reject it? There are few possibilities: Either they are ignorant of the dangers, or they favor a massive federal government that will confiscate every conceivable right from the family. Presently, we have state delegates, including our own James Schuler, who voted against the proposed amendment, as well as a Senate, the majority of which believes such an issue is not worthy of their time. Other Virginia representatives oppose parental rights at the federal level, as demonstrated by their unwillingness to co-sponsor the amendment, including various Representatives and Senators Mark Warner and Jim Webb. Our representatives are responsible to protect, not surrender, our rights as parents. Failure to endorse this amendment to the U.S. Constitution suggests that what is good for our children is better understood by government than by the people – the parents. Those who refuse to support the amendment demonstrate they have no intention of being public servants; that they are more interested in being career politicians than preserving our freedom. It is time that We the People replace these con men with freedom loving statesmen.

All concerned citizens need to contact their representatives and demand proper representation. Don’t be deceived by their depiction of the matter – review the material yourself at www.parentalrights.org or elsewhere on the web. Determine to vote for representatives who will strive to protect the rights of the good people of Virginia.

International Law Enforcers?

2010-08-17T09:34:00.000-04:00

Dear Reader,

I was reading through the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child's Concluding Observations on Article 8 of the Optional Protocol for the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) for Tunisia in 2009, and came across the most startling passage. After mentioning how a new commission must be created within the nation, the purpose of this new commission is outlined in Article 10:

"This body should be provided with the necessary human and financial resources that would enable it to establish a child rights unit to adequately monitor and promote the implementation of the Convention and its Optional Protocols, including this Optional Protocol."

Now, proponents of international law--and CRC proponents in particular--have often claimed that the CRC and other pieces of international law are harmless; it has no teeth, no enforcement. Um, really? While law enforcement powers are not mentioned by name in this passage, the unit gains investigation powers:

"should be mandated, inter alia, to receive and investigate complaints from children alleging that their rights, including those enshrined in the Optional Protocol, have been violated."

Is this the "harmless" treaty everyone speaks about? A commission which is only accountable to an international body, not elected by Americans, is given the power to investigate (a law enforcement function, notice) cases regarding any claim of abridging parental rights. Presumably, your constitutional rights under the 4th and 5th Amendments must be upheld during this investigation, but again, that is not stipulated in the treaty. So, we don't know.

If we want to run a grave risk of losing face, losing sovereignty, or losing our sacred honor, we can pursue ratification of the CRC. But if we want to stay with the protections which we currently provide to children--which, by the way, are among the most comprehensive and effective child protection laws in the world--we run none of these risks. Your choice.

Still in the fight,

Centaur

Interesting Article: Parental Rights and Sex Education Programs

2010-08-16T14:24:00.000-04:00

Reader,

I will warn you: don't show this article to your kids. My blog is safe, but not this link. Ye be warned.

I read an article today which was written by a doctor who routinely works and counsels young teens who need to be treated for sexual diseases or receive procedures related to sexual health. Her thoughts and concerns are absolutely astounding.

Her conclusion from her work in the field is that sex-ed classes are not providing a number of important facts about reproductive health to students. Information regarding the enhanced ability of the human body to defend against STDs and STIs when the individual reaches physical maturity, the psychological and emotional effects of sexual activity as adolescents, etc. are not provided in classes. These pieces of information are necessary for making an informed decision, and are routinely left out of sex ed classes.

If we want to protect our children, why don't we leave education up to those who have fulfilled the role of teachers from ages past: the parents? If you are a parent and your child is in a school, your parental rights are in danger (I'm finishing the Scroll on school sex education and the general threat to parental rights in terms of public health; so stay tuned for that). Join with ParentalRights.org, and sign the petition to protect your rights as a parent.

Semper Fi Parentis,

Centaur

Interesting Article on Parental Rights

2010-08-12T09:51:00.000-04:00

Dear Reader,

In a discussion with an acquaintance about parental rights, I was directed to the following article by Mr. Kerry Morgan, J.D., which I found very interesting. I understand where he is coming from, but, with all respect, I think he misses the point of the Parental Rights Amendment which is marching through the US Congress.

He makes the argument:

"But the federal amendment also empowers both the United States and every state government to infringe upon this “fundamental” parental right. If the government can demonstrate “that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served” the parent’s fundamental right must yield....Protection of parental rights ought to be accomplished on a state to state basis."

Now, I understand his concern: any grant of authority for the government to restrict a fundamental right must be weighed carefully. But the misunderstanding arises from the fact that the words used in the Amendment have a very specific meaning, tied to very specific circumstances, with a very high burden of proof.

The wording for Section Two of the Amendment (which is the wording that he takes issue with) is taken from Wisconsin v. Yoder, which the Supreme Court decided in 1972. In Yoder, the Supreme Court upheld parental rights as fundamental, tying back to decisions made almost 50 years earlier, and a tradition which has been recognized as integral to our culture and critical to our society for centuries. According to the Court, however, fundamental rights are not "weak" as Mr. Morgan would suggest; instead of just proving that the government interest is reasonable, the government must meet the highest standard of proof in the legal realm.

The Court cited back to Sherbert v. Verner, decided in 1967, where the Court famously laid out the three-part "Lemon" test for restricting a fundamental right (it was articulated before Sherbert in Lemon v. Kurtzman, and thus is sometimes referred to as the "Lemon Test"). The test includes:
1. That the government's interest be of the highest order. This is not defined as merely what the government thinks important, but an interest essential and integral to the very existence and role of government (protection of citizens, for example),
2. That this interest cannot be otherwise served. If there is another way of accomplishing this compelling interest without restricting the right, we should pursue that course of action, and
3. That the means of accomplishing this interest be narrowly tailored to place as little restriction on the right than is necessary to accomplish that interest.

What, then, would be required to prove that the government's "interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served"? A common example from family law is helpful to understanding how the test would be applied to parental rights.

In the case of child abuse and child neglect, the government has an interest of the highest order: protecting its citizens. The only way to protect these citizens, however, is to remove them from the abusive environment (restricting parental rights to custody). But this interest does not authorize them to barge into any house upon little to no evidence of child abuse, since that would unduly infringe on parental rights. Thus the Parental Rights Amendment would protect parents who are falsely accused of child abuse, while still allowing law enforcement to protect those who are truly in danger.

Notice how well-protected parental rights are: the burden of proof is on the government to show that their intervention is absolutely necessary. This is not a "weak" right.

His argument for state laws is also interesting. He mentions the threat of "an abusive Congress" in the article, but fails to demonstrate how a state law--or even state constitutional amendment--would protect the citizens of the state from said abusive Congress. The only way to keep Congress, the Courts, or any government entity--even international entities--from infringing on parental rights is to protect it in the Constitution.

If you want to learn more about ParentalRights.org and want to get involved, visit their website at www.ParentalRights.org, and get involved in your community today.

Join the fight,

Centaur

"The time is right."--Glenstorm

The Centaur Scrolls: The Importance of the Family

2010-07-29T11:00:00.000-04:00

You may remember advertisements with celebrities including Malcolm Jamal Warner and Phylicia Rashad which advertised “sharing more than a meal, at the family table.” This campaign, which began from a survey sponsored by TV Land and Nick at Nite, emphasized the importance of families spending time together to eat a meal, build memories, and draw closer together as a family.

Is this an antiquated idea? Does it really matter if families spend time together? Is a strong family unit a desirable for its members and society as a whole? I want to use this article to speak to parents, children, siblings, and spouses about the importance of quality time together as families from a national and personal perspective. Instead of exposing the negative effects of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) here—the opportunities of which to do this on this subject are legion—I want to restrict my discussion to simply why a strong family unit which cares about family time is important to us as Americans and individuals within a family. Most of what I say is already substantiated on this blog, so there will be few links here. Browse the Insurgency if you’re looking for more information.

First, there are many personal benefits to spending time together. It has often been said that “the family that eats/plays/prays together, stays together.” This statement is perhaps more true than any of us will ever know. Family is a place where people want to belong: if we do not spend time together, we have no sense of belonging. Our movies and society tend to idolize the wanderer, the one without a home. But let’s face it: we hate that life. We want a place that we can call ours, and a group of people that we can belong to and, in some sense, own as our own.

Beyond the personal benefit and need for family, a strong family unit also builds a strong sense of security for children. Most cases of adult violence, substance abuse, and criminal acts of various kinds are related to having an unstable, insecure childhood. Broken families result in broken lives farther down the line. By keeping families strong today, we build the American society of tomorrow.

Time together with Mom and Dad also keeps kids out of trouble. One of the major planks of a number of campaigns against underage drinking, underage smoking, illicit sexual activity, substance abuse, and gang and cult activity is to know where your child is, who they hang out with, and what they are doing. One of the best ways to accomplish this is to spend time together. You know precisely where they are, what they are doing, and who is with them. Spending time with your child may not seem that important at the time, but statistics indicate that the impact of family time is vast in the life of both the young child and the teen.

Family time can also give us a sense of direction and mission. For those of us who work a consistent job with a “same-old, same-old” routine, we need a sense of purpose and direction in our lives. Prioritizing our families, and particularly our time together as a family, is one way of doing that.

Finally, strong family units provide us with a strong foundation for our nation. Across the globe, we see the fall of parental involvement in their children’s lives followed by the fall of society. As societies remove parents from children, they also see a rise in crime, a rise in teen violence, a rise in sexual activity among minors, and increased substance abuse. Fighting for the family is also a way of fighting for society.

If you really want to turn America around, I would highly recommend that you start by evaluating your family’s position. We start with our own problems, and then move on to solve the foreign problems around us. I will highly encourage you to get involved with www.parentalrights.org and see how you can join the fight for families today. But I will also encourage you to spend time today with your spouse, children, parents, siblings, or whoever composes your family unit. These relationships are too precious to lose: will you defend them today?

In the action,

Centaur

(All photos courtesy of: Woman’s Day Online, “12 Ways to Bring Your Family Closer,” accessed: July 1, 2010)

The Centaur Scrolls: Parental Rights and Religious Freedom

2010-07-28T14:09:00.000-04:00

Reader,

Scripture admonishes us to “train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6). Parents in particular are commanded throughout the Old and New Testaments to take the lead in teaching their children about the faith, and foster spiritual growth (Ephesians 6:4, Deuteronomy 6:7, etc.). Scripture calls the righteous instruction of parents “a garland to grace your head and a chain to adorn your neck” (Proverbs 1:9).

Parents bringing their children up in the faith is the most effective way of building a strong faith in another person, since the loving care and dedication of parents shows the love of God to children in a personal way. Yet in America today we increasingly see the desire in our culture to restrict the ability of parents to freely teach their children about the Gospel or share their faith openly. What is the cause, and how do we turn the course of our nation around?

Modern man disdains family religious instruction in part because it is more powerful than the instruction they can give in a classroom, television show, or three minute song on the radio. Family instruction is constantly given to children from a young age: it is difficult to rival. It is because they recognize the role of the family in religious instruction that we have renewed attacks against parental rights in the legal, social, and academic communities.

In Washington state, for example, a child was removed from his home because he was receiving “too much church”--here defined as a Sunday morning worship service, a Sunday evening worship service, and a Wednesday night prayer meeting. The church was not part of a “fringe denomination,” presenting no danger to the child or anyone else in their services. Rather, because the child was being taken to church often by his parents, state social workers removed him from his home. A local judge upheld the decision to remove the child, and would not restore custody to the parents until they promised to only take him to one service a week. The threat is real: the Enemy wants us to stop teaching our children the Word of God.

Furthering the damage to religious freedom, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was created in 1989. Article 14 of the CRC states that “States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” Yet this statement is clarified: “States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents . . . to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.” This sounds good, doesn’t it? Parents and legal guardians—grandparents, foster parents, etc.—should provide direction in religious instruction. What’s wrong with it?

The difficulty is the final portion of this sentence: “...in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.” The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which interprets the meaning of the CRC, has determined that the “evolving capacities of the child” require parents over time to lessen the amount of religious instruction which they give their children. What is more, the teenage years are the years when young people need parental guidance most, as they are confronted by many difficult decisions coupled with peer pressure. Parental rights—and religious freedom—are not respected by the CRC: it is a clever ruse.

The intent of the CRC writers is clear: they want to remove parents from the equation of religious instruction, because then they win. Article 13 of the CRC is the Free Expression Clause, which protects the rights of children to disseminate and access information “regardless of frontiers.” The only exceptions made to this ruling are if the information is harmful to another person or if it compromises national security. In other words, children should be free to explore our world and seek and share information with little supervision or other protective measures. In nations like the Netherlands and Sweden, this has led to the revoking of internet filtering software and widespread access to pornographic and violent material, in the name of “freedom of expression” and “access to information.” That’s the message children receive.

In Sweden, sexual solicitation over the internet was legalized, because teenage girls had the right to free expression--oh, and parents couldn’t keep them from accessing the internet because of their rights to freedom of expression and association. In Scotland, billboards and signs like this one appeared across the nation:

The creators of this sign were not seeking tolerance--they are attacking theism. A quick visit to any of the three websites in the bottom right corner of the sign will assure you that this is true. Humanism-Scotland.org specifically turns to Articles 13 and 14 of the CRC as the basis for their ability to place this signs on buses across the United Kingdom to raise money for humanist and atheist activism groups. It’s not about religious freedom: it’s about religious relativism.

In our nation, we have also witnessed this change. Not only have children been removed from their parents for “too much church,” a girl was placed in a different school setting because her religious convictions demonstrated that she was being sheltered by her parents: they believe that she needed more broad exposure to secular ideas.

In an effort to stem the tide and reclaim lost territory, ParentalRights.org was founded for the purpose of passing The Parental Rights Amendment, a constitutional amendment which would forever protect parental rights in our nation. International agreements such as the CRC, according to the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, yield to the Constitution alone--we need an amendment.

ParentalRights.org is actively fighting the battle in the legal, social, and international realms to stem the tide of atheism and humanism which are creeping into our country today. Will you join the fight and support parental rights today? Visit www.parentalrights.org for details on how you can get involved in your community today.

Watching the stars,

Centaur

"He is no fool who loses what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose." -- Jim Eliot

The Centaur Scrolls: The Parental Rights Amendment and Child Abuse

2010-07-28T13:54:00.000-04:00

One of the most brutal and horrific sins which an adult can commit is child abuse. Using one’s vastly greater physical ability, mental development, or emotional connection with a child to harm or neglect him or her is one of the most disgusting crimes known to man. Research conducted by the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) in 2007 indicates that about 56% of all cases of child abuse across the nation involve a child age three or younger (This link also includes the written questions for the study. They are neutral, balanced questions which do not introduce the bias of the researcher. The study is very good, and should be considered reliable within the natural limitations of crime statistics). Because we universally agree that child abuse and child neglect are heinous crimes, every state has laws on the books which criminalize these actions.

Some have claimed that the Parental Rights Amendment would protect child abusers and child neglectors in the name of “parental rights.” This is not the case, as evidenced by the wording of the Amendment itself, its interpretation by the Supreme Court of the United States, and its general applicability in current family law. The Parental Rights Amendment does not protect child abuse; rather, it fights against it.

In 1925, the Supreme Court held in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), that “the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” This decision, citing back to Meyer v. Nebraska in 1923, reaffirmed not only the importance of parental rights, but also the great responsibility which accompanies parental authority: parents have the high duty to prepare their children for future obligations. Child abuse and child neglect are a clear rejection of the recognition and completion of the “high duty” of parenting.

The Supreme Court later held in Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) that parents with a history of child abuse forfeit their parental rights. In Ritchie, Mr. Ritchie was denied his parental rights to obtain the medical records of his daughter because he had been charged with raping her. Child abuse constitutes a forfeiture of parental rights.

This is because child abuse and child neglect have universally been upheld as constituting a “governmental interest of the highest order,” granting the government a significant compelling interest in the case. What is more, removal of children from abusive home environments has routinely been regarded as an interest “not otherwise served” by the government: there is no other way to protect children from abuse than to remove them from the abusive environment.

This is the language which appears in the Parental Rights Amendment. Section Two of the Amendment reads:

Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

Thus, under the Amendment, there would still be the option of CPS and police intervention in a case of child abuse or neglect. The Amendment would not defend child abusers.

The Amendment protects children from the threats which face them without disregarding the usually trustworthy, loving, caring work of Mom and Dad. According to census data from 2006 (the most recent information we have for national child abuse statistics), there were around 905,000 different instances of child abuse reported in the nation. Census data also indicates that there were 7.3 million children in the United States in 2006. This means that 12.4% of children were victims of child abuse. This also means that at least 87.6% of children were being raised by fit parents. What is more, the percentage number is the low end of the estimate, since children are captured, used, and abused by individuals who are not their parents. Thus the number of abused children is not an accurate number for the number of unfit parents in the United States (but the specific data for this number is not available to us). Thus we conclude that the vast majority of parents in the United States--over 87%--are fit parents. We can trust them.

The level of abuse changes from state to state. In the State of Hawaii, the situation is better for children. According to the most recent studies available for Hawaii child abuse cases (2003), 4,046 children were victims of child abuse. According to census data, there were 298,693 children in the State of Hawaii in 2003. This means that in that year, 1.35% of children were victims of child abuse in the state. Since a portion of these children were abused by adults who were not their parents, the number of “unfit” parents in the state is less than 1.35%. According to crime statistics, the estimated number of incidents involving parents is 3,035 cases, or 1.01% of children. The vast majority of parents--those responsible for raising almost 99% of children in Hawaii--are good, responsible parents fit to direct the upbringing of their children.

What these statistics do not show, however, are the number of parents who are treated as child abusers, even though they are responsible parents. According to another national study by NCANDS, about 61% of child abuse claims are unsubstantiated: there is no evidence that child abuse was actually taking place. Even though they did nothing wrong, these individuals—most of whom were parents—now carry the stigma of having been investigated for child abuse.

In the State of North Carolina, the situation is worse. According to a 2002 study by the North Carolina Department of Human Resources Division of Social Services, 107,157 children were reported as child abuse victims, but only 30,016 of these children were actually confirmed as victims. This means that in 28% of cases, the child was actually abused—leaving 72% of those accused of child abuse innocent of the charges. Where is the protection for these parents? It has already been demonstrated that parents are generally trustworthy in raising their children, so where is the protection for these parents who are falsely accused? Good, responsible parents today are being treated like child abusers by the state—they need protection.

To treat all parents as we treat child abusers and child neglectors is both uncharitable and unjust, being based on erroneous information unsubstantiated by the facts. For millennia, parents have raised their children well: why can we not trust them in the 21st Century? If you believe that parents should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, please support the Parental Rights Amendment, get involved with www.parentalrights.org, and affirm the pivotal and critical role of parents in the development of a child.

Watching the stars,

Centaur

"The time is right." -- Glenstorm

The Best Interest of the Government, not the Child

2010-07-23T11:35:00.001-04:00

Friends,

I came across this trial memorandum written by the Alliance Defense Fund the other day, and what I saw was very disturbing. The case strikes at parent school choice: a mother who had legal custody of her daughter was forced by the government to send her child to an alternative form of schooling, because it was "in the best interest of the child."

Problem: the child preferred the mode of schooling which her Mom chose! The will and desires of the child were not considered -- the judge ruled in favor of the best interests of the government, not the best interest of the child.

Some may argue that the best interest of the child included public education (the judge's decision) and not home education (the mother and daughter's choice). But any argument of socialization which could be made does not stand, because that was not the reasoning that the judge used to reach his conclusion. He made his decision based on this assessment: the girl's religious beliefs were keeping her sheltered, and she needed to expand her way of thinking.

Now, regardless of your thoughts on religion, when a government official steps in and tells a young girl that she needs to expand her horizons by questioning her faith without providing evidence that her faith is 1) unsound, 2) harmful, or even 3) not in her best interest to follow, we have a problem. That's tyranny: the desire to crush the conscience of a young person not because what they have is faulty or unsound, but merely because it is not his personal preference and believe, is straightforward tyranny. When you add that this is the young daughter of a single mother, you have tyranny in its grossest form.

This is why parental rights need to be protected. Governments taking away parental rights are not foreign to our shores; these abuses occur within our nation. Are we willing to take a stand against it? What will you do for parental rights today?

I will highly encourage you to visit www.parentalrights.org and get involved in passing the Parental Rights Amendment today. Join the fight -- we need you.

Watching the stars,

Centaur

The Centaur Scrolls: Parental Involvement Reduces Teen Smoking and Drinking

2010-07-19T16:51:00.000-04:00

Parents have a profound impact on their children’s lives and decision-making paradigm. Many national organizations that combat underage and young adult drinking and smoking integrate and heavily rely on parental involvement and education into their strategies for achieving results, because parents have the greatest incentive to assist the program.

Perhaps the most well-known organization which uses parents to fight underage drinking is Mothers Against Drug Driving (MADD). MADD writes, “Did you know that 74 percent of kids turn to their parents for guidance on drinking? That’s why Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) created this website. It’s packed with tips and expert resources so parents can talk effectively about alcohol with teens and support safer communities.” According to MADD, “caring parents can make a difference,” and they are absolutely correct. MADD provides training courses and informational materials to equip parents with the information they need to best speak to their children about the dangers of drunk driving.

According to a longitudinal study by Redmond Spoth, family factors, such as the child-parent relationship, were heavily influential in whether or not an underage child drank alcohol. His research has also been supported and championed by a number of anti-drunk driving and underage drinking organizations. The evidence is telling: parents have the greatest influence on their children’s drinking habits.

In a similar vein, parents have proven highly effective in combating smoking among young people. According to recent studies by medical specialists, “teens whose parents set the firmest smoking restrictions tend to smoke less than do teens whose parents don't set smoking limits. The same goes for teens who feel close to their parents.” If parents stand against smoking, their children are much less likely to smoke.

The primary pro-parent campaign against smoking is The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (CTFK). Citing national surveys from various independent researchers, the CTFK soberly writes that “each day, more than 3,500 kids try their first cigarette; and each day about 1,000 other kids, under 18 years of age, become new regular, daily smokers. That is more than 350,000 new underage daily smokers each year – and roughly one-third of them will eventually die prematurely from smoking-caused disease.” The answer, they argue, is an integrated strategy of parents teaching their children the dangers of smoking, the false allure of tobacco advertisement techniques, and setting a consistent example for their children. Other organizations, such as http://www.womenshealth.gov/quit-smoking/parents/, also employ these techniques (other related organizations can be found on the Women's Health website hyperlinked above).

According to an article in Medical News Today, this is a relatively new approach, yet it is already yielding results. Karl Hill, director of the University of Washington's Seattle Social Development Project, writes that “Parents may feel that they don't matter to their teens, but this study indicates, they really do,” and that “such factors as not smoking, having good family management skills in setting rules and monitoring behavior, and having a strong emotional relationship with their children matter until the end of adolescence.”

For centuries, the influence and guidance of parents over their children has been proven and respected. More recently, individuals have rediscovered just how effective this component is to an effective strategy for societal reform. Dedication to our children and their wellbeing begins with dedication to the rights of responsible parents to raise their children as they see fit. Because this time-honored principle should be protected and preserved for future generations, the Parental Rights Amendment (HJR 42, SJR 16) has been introduced in the US Congress. To learn more about the cause, visit www.parentalrights.org. The best course for helping our youth is to protect children by empowering parents: get involved today.

Seek the truth, find it, and defend it to the death -- sometimes it is a matter of life or death,

Centaur

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

The Centaur Scrolls: Parental Rights and School Choice

2010-06-29T09:24:00.000-04:00

Parents across the nation have possessed the right to direct the upbringing of their children for centuries. One of the critical and essential rights included under parental rights is the ability to determine where their children are educated. Whether parents choose to place their children in public, private, parochial, charter, special needs, or home schools, the choice has always been placed in the hands of parents. Why? School Choice New York, a pro-school choice group, poses the question this way: “Who knows a child best? The parents! Children deserve the right to attend a school that serves their needs.”

There are three reasons for parental involvement in school choice. First, children need parental involvement for their own best interest. The Justice Foundation notes that “parental rights are fundamental to the family and a healthy culture. If no child is to be left behind, then no parent should be left out.” In the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979—the act which created the US Department of Education, the US Congress specifically noted that “parents have the primary responsibility for the education of their children,” and that “states, localities, and private institutions have the primary responsibility for supporting that parental role.” Parents have this “primary responsibility” because in the main they know best how to provide for their children, and should generally be trusted to make those decisions.

Especially during their formative years, children need to have the guidance of their parents. By virtue of living for a much longer time than their children, parents have useful experiences to guard their children from danger and drive them toward a better life. As children move into their teens, the guidance of their parents over the past decade builds trust between parent and child to both allow the younger to grow and explore their world while still relying on the wise counsel of the elder. Parental guidance, especially in education, is serving the best interest of the child.

Charter schools, among other alternatives to public education, have consistently proven themselves to be comparable, if not better, than their public counterparts. Studies also indicate that parental involvement tends to lead to higher academic achievement by their children, since Mom and Dad are interested in what they are learning. Children also benefit from greater self-esteem and parent-child relationships when parents are involved in their education, and parents benefit from better knowing the education which their children are receiving. The child’s best interest must include the rights of parents to be actively involved in the learning and selection process of education.

Second, parents can best determine whether their children have special education needs requiring a special learning environment to maximize learning. Joseph Blast and Herbert Walberg note that US education experts who work for the government “tend to assign students to large, something-for-everyone neighborhood schools (to capture economies of scale) based on where parents live (to keep transportation costs low), with exceptions allowed only for disruptive students or to achieve politically imposed racial integration goals.” Blast and Walberg lament that “While mechanistically “fair” and “efficient,” it is difficult to imagine an assignment scheme less likely to assign students to schools suited to their particular learning styles, interests, or special needs.” Parents, on the other hand, consider the particular needs of the child.

Furthermore, parent school choice provides a proven incentive for school improvement. Alex Gibson and Sheena Asthana describe parental choice in education as “the most effective engine for school improvement,” and has “emerged, and still stands, as the principal raison d’etre for education markets” (Alex Gibson and Sheena Asthana, “Local Markets and the Polarization of Public-Sector Schools in England and Wales,” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2000, 306). In England before the 1988 Education Reform Act, parents moved to districts which had good schools so that their children would be well educated, since you had to attend the school in your district (Ibid, 309). Districts differed, and thus schools also differed widely. It further meant, however, that those who could not afford to move to another district were forced to use the school in their district, even if the education there was significantly below par (Ibid). Parent school choice turned everything around, allowing parents to opt their children out of failing schools into better schools in the area. When parents choose, children win.

Finally, some parents find it necessary to choose alternate avenues for education when they find that objectionable material will be taught to their children in a school setting. Regardless of our views on sex education or homosexuality, some school districts have included homosexuality in required curriculum as early as five years of age. No five-year-old needs to know these sorts of things; they have no concept of what is being discussed, and it is not a bad thing that they have no concept of what is occurring. Certain subjects are best saved for later years, and parents in some cases prefer that their children be kept from such education in a classroom. There are other ways for children to learn about such topics—a safe, clean conversation with Mom and Dad, for example.

In some countries, parents have been fined, imprisoned, and had their children removed from their homes because parents sought to exercise the right to choose which school their child attended. In Germany, the Romeike family faced all three of these penalties because they sought alternate education from the public school in their district. A video is included in the link above, detailing the story of the Romeike family’s story in Germany. The interview also includes a discussion of the legal ramifications on American soil by Dr. Michael Farris and Mr. Michael Donnelly, the attorney for the Romeikes. The New York Times reports that Mr. Romeike removed his children from the public school because “the unruly behavior of students that was allowed by many teachers had kept his children from learning. The stories in German readers, in which devils, witches and disobedient children are often portrayed as heroes, set bad examples” for his children as well. Sadly, “the nearby private and religious schools," Mr. Romeike said, "were just as bad or even worse.” The Romeike family sought asylum in Denmark in 2008, later traveling to Canada and were finally granted asylum in Tennessee in January 2010. Parents shouldn’t need to flee their country in order to pursue the best form of education for their children—we need to take active measures to adequately protect these rights.

The primacy of parent choice in education is essential because “the family is the first cell of society, the first church, first government, first school, first hospital, first economy, and the first mediating institution of society.” In 1907, James Oliphant, wrote an article entitled, “Parental Rights and Public Education,” which was published in the International Journal of Ethics. He asserts that the strong desire to protect the rights of parental involvement is based on “a belief, based upon observation and experience, that social stability is primarily founded on family life, and that every weakening of the bond between parents and their children must have its influence on wider relations” (James Oliphant, “Parental Rights and Public Education,” International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 205-217 (January 1907), 208). This article preceded all Supreme Court decisions enumerating parental rights, and all discussion of its importance in the legal realm: we have known the power and influence of parental involvement on social stability for over a century—and arguably across the centuries from time out of mind. Parental rights need to be adequately protected for the sake of the children.

Join the fight,

Centaur

The Centaur Scrolls: The Financial Burden of the CRC

2010-06-29T08:51:00.001-04:00

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is more that just a goodwill statement on the need to protect and provide for children across the world: ratifying the CRC also leaves substantial financial obligations on the member-state. Regardless of the size and economic stability of the nation, the Committee on the Rights of the Child (the Committee) consistently requires more and more government spending on child welfare programs.

From the reports issued by the Committee, only substantial portions of the national budget and/or GDP are accepted as pleasing sacrifices. In their concluding remarks to Mongolia, the Committee states that it “recognizes the efforts made by the State party to increase the social budget, particularly in education, which represents up to 20 percent of the national budget,” yet it recommends that the state “increase resources for children including under the Human Development Fund governing resources from extractive activities.” Apparently, 20 percent of the national budget is not enough.

In other reports, the Committee hints at percentages of GDP, not just the national budget. In the report for Ecuador, “the Committee welcomes the constitutional provision to allocate at least 5% and 6% of GDP to health and education, respectively,” while still asking that there be additional support for child welfare and education programs. While America may not be required to spend 5% ($710 billion) and 6% ($852 billion) respectively on child health and education (for a combined total of $1.56 trillion), this level of national spending has certainly not been considered enough to please the Committee. Tajikistan was commanded to “increase substantially” the proportion of their GDP; they are currently devoting 3-4% to child health and welfare.

But the worst demands from the Committee have been against the poorest countries of the world; those who cannot afford to pay, and generally tend to have the worst problems. Albania, Europe’s poorest country, has been pressured to provide additional funding of child programs despite a heavily damaged economy. Albania is one of the prime provider nation-states for human trafficking, especially for sexual slaves, because women in the country need work and are easily persuaded into the business. While the Committee applauded the to-date unsuccessful efforts of the Albanian government to reduce the number of women and children involved in sexual and human trafficking, they still required Albania to increase spending on child welfare programs such as child councils which promote free discussion while taking away valuable resources from other problems, including the sexual trafficking of women to Italy.

We find similar mandates imposed on Zimbabwe (Africa’s poorest country), Cambodia (Southeast Asia’s poorest country), and Bolivia (South America’s poorest country): there is no sympathy for weak, depressed economies. What is more, the Committee openly recognizes that high unemployment and a poor economy exist in the nation, and that this is impeding implementation of the CRC. Yet while they recognize the severely damaged state of the economy, they offer no assistance, and instead add to the demands of increased funding.

Bolivia is a particularly sad case. The poorest country in South America, Bolivia lacks both the ability to adequately enforce its current laws, let alone the demands of international agencies and governing bodies. In their recommendations, the Committee demanded that Bolivia spend its financial resources on “strengthen[ing] children’s participation in councils, forums, children’s parliaments and the like,” and “regularly review the extent to which children’s views are taken into consideration, including their impact on relevant policies and programmes” in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention. While laudable, these desires are placed on the same level as the need to combat drug trafficking, sexual slavery, and child labor. The state party lacks financial resources enough to meet current needs—how are they expected to meet new demands which are not nearly the same caliber of importance as current concerns?

What is more, the Committee demands that member-states prioritize this spending over other areas of the economy and budget: “The Committee recommends that the State party review budgetary allocations and pay particular attention to the full implementation of article 4 of the Convention by prioritizing budgetary allocations to ensure implementation of the economic, social and cultural rights of children. . . .” It is not enough to fund child welfare programs; they must be prioritized over national defense, tax breaks for businesses, and other programs which do not “ensure implementation of the economic, social, and cultural rights of children.” From what we have seen from Albania and other countries, “ensure implementation” necessitates fiscally irresponsible behavior—there is always more that can be done to solve a problem, leaving no logical stopping point for government spending.

The United Nations offers partial financial assistance (courtesy of the American taxpayer and other individuals from wealthy nations who support the United Nations) to member-states who are not able to fully implement the demands of the Committee due to monetary restraints. As Americans, however, we recognize the dangers in accepting financial aid from the government: it comes with strings attached. While we all definitely believe in providing for children and meeting their economic and cultural needs, should a foreign governing entity mandate how we spend our money? More than that, should they be able to mandate how we prioritize the spending of our money?

On April 17, 2001, the Committee on the Rights of the Child released “General Comment No. 1: The Aims of Education,” which outlines how prominent education spending should be in member-states. According to Article 28 of the General Comment, proper compliance with the demands of the committee “will require human and financial resources which should be available to the maximum extent possible.” What is meant by “to the maximum extent possible”? According to Article 28 of the General Comment, “the maximum extent possible” extends above and beyond the abilities of the economy: the Committee writes that “resource constraints cannot provide a justification for a State party’s failure to take any, or enough, of the measures that are required.”

What would they demand of us if we join? While the United States is not in the position to increase government spending, we would most certainly be required to increase national spending at a time when fiscal responsibility is in question. While the Committee has no direct jurisdiction over our national or state governments, because the CRC would be the “supreme law of the land” under Article VI of the US Constitution, the demands which it makes are tantamount to demands made by our constitution.

Furthermore, according to Article 45(d) of the Convention, the clarifications of the Committee on any article of the CRC are equivalent to the CRC itself as interpretations of its meaning and application, and thus affect state and national legislatures if we uphold our sacred honor. If by ratifying the Convention we give our word to uphold it, which should be the case if we sign our names to the document through ratification, then we either stand to significantly increase national spending or we lose our sacred honor. Neither is a pleasant option.

The Committee has further demanded that member-states increase the size of government in protecting and providing for children, expanding child welfare programs along with the need for added financial support. In the report given to Burkina Faso, the Committee recommended “that priority be given to the establishment [of] a social security system and the provision of increased material assistance and support to economically disadvantaged children. . . .” While not all social security systems are akin to the American system, the material point is that there is a motion for a new, large government agency to assist with child assistance.

As Americans who believe in fiscal responsibility, we must recognize the dangers attached to ratifying the CRC. This is not just a goodwill statement which affirms our dedication to protecting children: it is a commitment to increased government spending on child and social programs which extend beyond the intended scope of our government. The United States has ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (OPSC), as well as Optional Protocol on Children in Armed Conflict (OPAC), which are the primary abuses cited as reasons for ratifying the CRC. Ratification would impose added burdens on our liberties and economy while providing no additional benefit.

We also know that the United Nations has supported the Health Care Bill passed by the US Congress. Nile Gardiner notes in his article in the Telegraph that “The UN, probably the most corrupt and ineffective multilateral body on the face of the earth, which devotes much of its time trying to undermine American global power, has officially given its blessing to Barack Obama’s hugely controversial and unpopular legislation.” Margaret Chan, Director of the World Health Organization, applauded American legislators for their “unprecedented achievement.” Extensive government deficit spending on social welfare programs, it would seem, is “an unprecedented achievement” in the eyes of the United Nations.

In this same speech, she also mentioned how this bill showed US sympathy for the intent behind the Millenium Declaration passed in 2000, which stressed the importance of globalization and exorbitant government spending on foreign aid. She quotes the Declaration, where it says: “The central challenge we face today is to ensure that globalization becomes a positive force for all the world’s people. Those who suffer or benefit least deserve help from those who benefit most.” While everyone believes that a young child should not be left to die because he lacks health care, wealth distribution is by no means the most fiscally responsible way of achieving this goal. Furthermore, the United Nations is not known for its accountability and efficiency in money management.

But even more dangerous was her statement on the intent of the Declaration as it is carried out in practice: “The Declaration called on donors to harmonize their actions and make funding more predictable and sustainable. They were also asked to channel aid in support of national priorities and in ways that strengthen existing infrastructures and capacities, rather than circumventing them by building parallel structures and services.” Not only should taxpayer money be consistently funneled into this system, it should be devoted to government social welfare programs instead of “parallel structures and services,” namely, non-government health care providers who compete in a capitalistic economy.

If this is what we want, ratify the CRC. If you, like me, are appalled at the thought of foreigners breathing down our necks and making decisions for us on domestic policy and the complete mismanagement of resources and monetary supplies in the name of "helping children" without proving results, I am asking you to join me in fighting back.

The Parental Rights Amendment stands as a permanent solution to the problem: not only will it make ratification of the CRC impossible, it will also fight the expanding influence of international law through activist judges within our nation. Visit www.parentalrights.org for more information, and get involved in the war today.

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

Centaur

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

The Centaur Scrolls: The CRC's "Freedom of Expression"

2010-06-22T10:44:00.001-04:00

We all respect and love the freedom of expression enjoyed by US citizens under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Most international agreements dealing with civil or political rights also recognize this as a necessary right for free nations (Sylvie Langlaude, ON HOW TO BUILD A POSITIVE UNDERSTANDING OF THE CHILD'S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, 10 HUMRLR 33, at 33). Children and minors gain the freedom of expression in international law primarily from Article 13 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (hereafter CRC), which defines “freedom of expression” as the “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.”

The CRC provides only two exceptions to this freedom: the expression must respect the rights and reputation of others, and it must not endanger national security, public security, or public health. Apart from that, at least as far as the CRC is concerned, the right has no other restrictions. If this document is signed and ratified by the United States, it will create a problem for local—and national—policymakers, and a nightmare for local law enforcement.

CRC supporters and enthusiasts have attempted to paint the CRC as a tool which has brought children out of darkness and into the light. The truth is that the free expression clause of the CRC alone has caused irreparable damage physically and academically in member-states who purport its doctrines to their youth. In Scotland, the school systems are having problems with children using “text message language” on academic assignments. According to Judith Gillespie of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, the text message phenomenon of our day has led to a “marked decline” in grammar proficiency. She concludes that “there has been a trend in recent years to emphasize spoken English rather than written language and so pupils think orally and write phonetically. The problem is that there is now a feeling in some schools that pupils’ freedom of expression should not be inhibited, so anything goes. But ‘texting’ must not be allowed to become acceptable written English – it will further erode the language.” Text messaging first appeared in the United Kingdom in 1994; within 15 years, it has become a serious problem for the education system.

Not all accusations against the spread of “free expression,” however, are so mild. The free expression of the child has also been used in Scotland by atheistic organizations to target children who were raised in religious homes, inciting them to reject their parents’ faith not because of lack of merit, but merely because it is an act of free expression. The focus of these groups is not to encourage a meaningful exchange in the marketplace of ideas; it is designed only to entice youths to revolt against their parents’ beliefs for the sake of revolution, not to benefit the child. Campaigns will often include posters which “display some of the labels routinely applied to children that imply beliefs such as Protestant and Sikh mixed with labels that people would never apply to young children such as Marxist, Anarchist, or Libertarian” – this is not the sign of a campaign devoted to helping children discover truth: it only incites to destruction.

Sweden created a law against sexual solicitation in 1999. The law did not stipulate that an individual could not engage in prostitution; it is illegal to buy, but not to sell. The difficulty with this policy, however, is that it allows young people—even children as young as thirteen or fourteen—to sexually solicit themselves online by placing personal, suggestive pictures on the internet without penalty. This has led several groups, including ECPAT International, to release help guides to assist parents in protecting their children from harming themselves.

In the Netherlands, the situation is much worse: children actively engage in sexuality, substance abuse, and alcohol as a means of expressing themselves and “being cool.” Kathryn Westcott, a reporter with the BBC News Network, interviewed Laura Vos, a 16-year-old girl in the Netherlands on the views of Dutch children on alcohol use, sex, and drugs. Her response was shocking: “In this country, it's very free, you can do anything you want. . . . 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.” This insight highlights the difference between their society and America today: American parents are concerned about whether their children smoke, drink, dope, or are sexually active.

According to a study conducted by the World Population Foundation in 2006, almost 30% of boys and girls fifteen years of age in the Netherlands are sexually active, and of those 30%, 92% of boys and 97% of girls have used some form of contraception. Illicit drugs are being used by young people just beyond school grounds. Drinking and smoking are common, and no one is warning them of the threat to their future and present health from these habits. Why is this happening? Because “it’s not that interesting for us to provoke our parents with it.” That is the mindset, and that is the heart of the problem: parents are not involved.

In the Netherlands “free expression” has also included child and adult pornography, both voluntary and commercial. Jan Schuijer and Benjamin Rossen, writing in the Institute for Psychological Therapies (IPT) Journal, note that child pornography has been slowly legalized and legitimized in Dutch society. In the Dutch Supreme Court case Chick-arrest, Hoge Raad (1971), the Court determined that child pornography was only considered “obscene” and “offensive” under Article 240 if “an important majority of the population” agreed (Chick-arrest, Hoge Raad (Supreme Court) 17 November 1970, NJ 1971, 373). Schuijer and Rossen emphasize that “the result was that judges could no longer rely on their intuition to determine if an image was offensive. Furthermore, the opinions of the ‘large majority’ were rapidly becoming more permissive. The effect of this decision was effective elimination of the prohibition on pornography.” By 1984, it was completely legal to distribute child pornography openly, and by that time youths on stage and in movies were able to openly shed their clothes without penalty. That was “free expression.”

Actions such as these have not been prevented by the CRC’s Freedom of Expression Clause. While organizations have petitioned that the CRC be used to provide child safety on the internet, no attempts have been made to combat the use of “free expression” as a reason for placing explicit photos on the internet. I contend that nothing has been done because this is the logical extension of the reasoning present in the CRC’s free expression clause. When CRC activists promote “free expression” they mean precisely that: complete, unhindered access to any and all information available, and the ability to express oneself in any medium without sanctions.

The personal and societal impacts of this philosophy are legion: complete freedom for children in their formative years leads them to experiment with dangerous substances, including tobacco, illicit drugs, and alcohol, during years of critical brain and body development. The impacts of these substances present a hazard to the quality of life which they will enjoy in the future. Because we care about their lives, we limit their freedom of expression.

Anti-smoking and anti-drug campaigns don’t turn to international agreements for effective enforcement and prevention; they call for parental involvement. The desire to protect children is strongest not among government bureaucrats or foreigners working for intergovernmental organizations, but among parents who have loved, nurtured, and invested in their children. The Parental Rights Amendment protects the rights of good parents to be actively involved in their children’s lives in order to protect their children. With these rights coming under fire in recent court decisions, it is absolutely critical that we protect them from erosion and dismissal.

Feminists for Free Expression (hereafter FFE) note that government regulation, internet filtering software, and other impersonal forces cannot adequately protect children. To answer the following question on their website, “If it is technically so difficult to regulate the Internet, how can we protect our children from objectionable material?” FFE beautifully responds, “The only sure way of doing it is through parental guidance, helped by rapidly proliferating new technology.” FFE is not opposed to using helpful tools, and neither am I; we contend, however, that the critical element to success in any endeavor is parental involvement. FFE sums it up well: “FFE not only supports, but encourages parents to guide the reading, viewing, and listening of their children, and to discuss with their children the many ideas they encounter. . . . FFE believes most Americans would prefer to do this themselves rather than let a government committee decide what their children read, watch, and think.” For FFE, refusing to guide the upbringing of your child is the root cause of child neglect, since “parents who neglect this aspect of their kids' lives may neglect them in other ways. It is this neglect that needs addressing.”

It is not that we do not love children enough to grant them liberty; we love them enough to use our wisdom and experience to chart a better, safer path for them. Parental involvement is the most effective tool for influencing children’s lives, because they have a vested interest in success which companies, organizations, governments, and international bodies lack: this is their child.

Cartoon courtesy of http://ifea.net/news.html

The Centaur Scrolls: The CRC's Inability to Reduce Child Trafficking

2010-06-22T10:29:00.001-04:00

According to 2008 estimates by the US State Department, there are over 1.2 million new children trafficked each year, with an additional 1 million children trafficked for the purpose of sexual slavery. Numerous attempts have been made to stem the rise of kidnapping, sexual abuse, child soldiery, and slavery. The United Nations attempted to protect children by adopting the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (hereafter CRC). While the CRC has its strong points, it has only proven effective at stripping member states of national sovereignty, while proving to be inadequate and inept in solving the problems it set out to address.

CRC-member states are universally seeing a rise in the number of children involved in organized crime and various forms of slavery. In South Africa, “children are recruited to run errands, spy on potential and actual ‘clients,’ and gain access to areas and quarters which are difficult for or closed to adults.” In April 2009, the United Kingdom reported a 90 percent increase in child trafficking: 957 cases from April to December of 2008. The British authorities also note that “it is likely that only a fraction of the victims are actually caught”—the numbers are far higher than what was reported.

The Italian and Sicilian Mafia have aggressively pursued child operatives for a number of missions, ranging from theft and subterfuge to assassination and pornography. Italy signed the CRC on January 26, 1990; it was one of the first signatory states. Eight years later, 8,000 Albanian girls were trafficked through Italy as prostitutes, with the number of new prostitutes from Albania alone reaching almost 1,000 by the year 2000. Albanian girls are also among the youngest girls trafficked internationally, with over 80 percent of them under the age of eighteen. By 2009, the number of new women being trafficked from Nigeria to Italy alone was 1,782. It is not surprising that Italy has been described as “a trafficking stronghold.”

In 2000 there were also between 10,000 and 12,000 children actively involved in organized crime in Italy, with the number of cases of juvenile crime reaching almost 70,000 cases. Of these crimes, there were 2,600 cases of violent robbery, almost 20,000 cases of automobile theft, over 500 cases of serious assault, and almost 1,700 cases involving the use of illicit drugs. And remember, these are only the cases which were caught in 2000; the real number is much higher.

The Sicilian Mafia has been using Roma Gypsy children under the age of 14 as hired blades and weapons manufacturers for over a decade, because they “are too young to be tried as criminals.” The Chief of Police in Caltanissetta, Sicily, noted that children are usually used “in support roles, acting as lookouts and collecting weapons,” but also noted that “the age at which youths start to kill has reduced significantly.” Children 11 years and younger are routinely trained by the Sicilian Mafia to kill—and kill without remorse.

Why is child crime rising? Chris Hume, Director of Practice and Performance with the Youth Justice Board in the United Kingdom, notes that it is “obvious” that these crimes would not occur if parents and the home environment were stronger. International agreements which lack enforcement are not Mr. Hume’s solution—he bemoans the lack of parental involvement. The answer to rising child crime is not the high rhetoric without any enforcement, found in the CRC. Men and women across the globe recognize the critical role of the family unit in protecting children and providing for their future.

In Benin, we find similar stories. Children who were forced to live with extended relatives instead of their parents because of financial reasons point to the severing of familial bonds as the reason for easy child trafficking and various forms of domestic abuse. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, young girls are routinely used as sex slaves at night and combatants in tribal wars during the day. Why? Because the family is absent: they have no one to protect them or instruct them on how to live a better life.

David Nowell, President of Hope Unlimited for Children, has worked for decades in Brazil to reconstruct the family. In his article, “U.S. Should Take a Pass on UN Child Rights Act,” Mr. Nowell notes that his organization “exists to some degree because of the damage caused by the UNCRC since it was ratified [by Brazil] in the early 1990s.” He notes how millions of children have found themselves on the streets in Brazil because of the dissolution of the family, leading children to engage in illicit and harmful activities. According to Nowell, “Children now have the legal right to become truants, join gangs and abuse alcohol. In no small measure due to the trauma visited upon Brazil by this convention, the country's streets are now home to millions of children. Childhood drug dealing and prostitution are rampant.” He further discusses how the child prison system has become overcrowded due to the CRC—which is supposed to help children. Instead of assisting them, the CRC requires organizations like Hope Unlimited to step in and provide necessary care and guidance for children.

The universal nature of the problem requires us to be ready for problems here at home. The best answer is to affirm and defend the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, encouraging their involvement in their child’s social and moral development. The Parental Rights Amendment (HJR 42, SJR 16), will both protect the rights of parents while maintaining the rights of law enforcement to intervene in the case of child abuse and child neglect. Such action provides effective enforcement through parents and preservation of our most critical traditions.

In 1907, James Oliphant, wrote an article entitled, “Parental Rights and Public Education,” in the International Journal of Ethics. He wrote, as far back as 1907, that the desire to protect parental rights is based on “a belief, based upon observation and experience, that social stability is primarily founded on family life, and that every weakening of the bond between parents and their children must have its influence on wider relations” (James Oliphant, “Parental Rights and Public Education,” International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 205-217 (January 1907), 208). This article preceded all Supreme Court decisions enumerating parental rights, and all discussion of its importance in the legal realm: we have known the power and influence of parental involvement on social stability for over a century—and arguably across the centuries from time out of mind. Parental rights need to be adequately protected for the sake of the children. Visit www.parentalrights.org today and get involved in truly protecting children, by empowering their parents.

The Centaur Scrolls: Introduction

2010-06-22T10:25:00.000-04:00

Reader,

The Centaur Papers are a number of articles which I have written to address the many concerns of the CRC. As they are finished, they will be posted here.

I often say, "Seek the truth, find it, and defend it to the death" -- that is no joke, and it is not just a nice saying. Over the past year or so since I started this blog, I have been seeking the truth, and now that I have sufficient support to substantiate a number of larger claims, I have compiled them into a number of articles which will prove the worth and beauty of the Parental Rights Amendment as a sufficient means of protecting the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.

Rock on, my friends!
Seek the truth, find it, and defend it to the death,

Centaur

"The time is right." -- Glenstorm

How the CRC Will Destroy Family Sanctity

2010-06-01T16:28:00.000-04:00

Friends,

You need to read this article: it is one of the best articles I have read on the threats of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in a long time. Mr. Aaron Young, in his article entitled, "Exclusive: How the Convention on the Rights of the Child Will Destroy Family Sanctity," aptly assesses the situation facing American families today. His research is solid, and his argument is persuasive.

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

Centaur

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

A Work of Art

2010-03-22T22:00:00.000-04:00

Dear Reader,

This post will differ from past posts; I have used this blog almost exclusively for spreading the news about the Parental Rights Amendment which is working its way through the US Congress (130 co-sponsors! Yeah!!!). I want to return to something else now -- a root to a number of our problems today.

We talk about how government needs fixing, lawyers need straightening, neighbors need to keep the party noise down late at night, we need more sleep, and our bosses need to learn how to lighten up (though my bosses are actually pretty cool guys; I haven't had a cross word from them yet, and I've been on roll for almost three years at one of those jobs and a year at the other job--I think that's pretty cool, :D ). We talk about all of this casually, thinking that something is wrong with the world.

Well, of course, something is wrong with the world--and we had best start with us. I've got my flaws: I forget to brush my teeth, I don't notice that my hair is a mess, I don't recognize when I snub people sometimes, and I don't always hear you when you call my name (being lost in thought isn't quite the same as being out of the office, because I don't have an answering machine to take the message). But even deeper than that, we are all so concerned today about me, me, me, mine, mine, mine, and up, up, up the corporate, social, and, dare I say it, spiritual ladder. Yes, perhaps even in an attempt to climb Jacob's Ladder we step on others, neglecting the needs of our friends, acquaintances, and strangers who labor beside us.

Maybe we're just tired: we've been working hard, we've been so focused on "getting ahead" and "making it" that we are so burned out now to care about those around us. Everything is set on getting to that final destination--which always ends up being only a gas station to fill up to get to the next place. When does it end? When do we start to care?

Maybe right now: you'be been patient enough to read through to this point (or you cheated and skimmed to this point, in which case: shame on you, ;D ), and so I will bet the house that you have enough time to look around the room/office/wherever you are, see a person you know (or don't know), and be grateful that that person exists, and exists in proximity to you. Say "Hi!" Make a new friend or catch up with an old one--do something which is truly progressive today. Make a difference.

You don't need to have a position which shakes our world to leave a mark on this earth. You don't have to be someone of importance to have an impact. Only God knows how much you and I have done for others, so keep it up, even if it seems like you are dreadfully alone.

I bout with depression just like the next guy: I don't have this down, I feel alone and useless at times, and I tend to close up to others when I am like that -- "Don't touch me! I want to be alone!" syndrome -- where what is best for us is what we fight most vehemently. But that is not who we were meant to be: we were made to be a person amidst persons, an everlasting being amidst everlasting beings in the sight of the Eternal Being.

A life well-lived is not full of stuff (shout out to my fellow Spartans across the world!), money, or even dare I say laughs and giggles. All of these things pass away, and are gone in no time. A life well-lived presses on toward the goal while helping others along the way, because who wants to cross the finish line alone? First is a lonely place except in team sports--when friends win the prize together, then the party is on! :D

A life well-lived demands much of us, but boy is it a work of art. It's something to smile at, because it isn't just gratification. It has left its mark by taking others along with it. Montgomery Gentry (see, country music has its good qualities) puts it well: "That's something to be proud of / That's a life you can hang your hat on" -- loving and living is an adventure worth having, and sharing.

Get up, get out, give a shout out, and make a difference -- who knows, you might like it, :D

Centaur

A NEW CONTENDER

2010-01-12T20:17:00.000-05:00

Friends,

I stumbled upon the most interesting (and frankly quite disgusting) blog today: the blogger goes by the name of Psy (the Greek alphabetical character), who appears to have devoted his blog to a discussion of psychology, psycho therapy, and touting the greatness of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the terrible nature of the Parental Rights Amendment. What is terrible about the site, however, is why he is opposed to the PRA among other things: he is flagrantly anti-Methodist. You can find his blog here, at http://pillsworld.blogspot.com/.

Now, I am not a Methodist, but I see no reason why being--what's the word I want to use, oh, I got it, the one everyone uses for Christians--bigoted against people of faith and the PRA would serve as solid, credible evidence for anything. Charitably, he has done some research. But what he has done reflects terribly on the depth of his understanding of the issue. He does not examine the claims made by proponents of the PRA, nor does he cite where any of the evidence brought forward by pro-PRA suppporters is in error. He makes blanket assertions, and expects them to stand.

But that's not all--there's more! Go to the site in the next ten minutes and you will discover...THERE IS NO WAY TO POST ON HIS BLOG!!! I welcome challengers to the arena of public ideas, especially on issues as close to me as the PRA, but if you enter the fight, you should be open to criticism and answering questions. I am challenging the owner of http://pillsworld.blogspot.com/ to a bout in the realm of ideas, with points scored for evidence and support. If he can hear this, post.

Centaur

"For Narnia, and for Aslan!" -- High King Peter of Narnia

Debunking the Issue: Youth and Violence

2009-08-31T14:11:00.000-04:00

Reader,

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,

Centaur

"The time is right." -- Glenstorm

Debunking the Issue: International Law in American Courts

2009-07-20T09:38:00.000-04:00

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

Debunking the Issue: Children's Rights a Nightmare

2009-07-17T09:55:00.000-04:00

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

Alert: CRC Harms Children

2009-07-14T14:14:00.000-04:00

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

Alert: This Is No Scare Tactic

2009-07-13T16:53:00.000-04:00

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

US Military Recruiting and Parental Rights Threatened

2009-07-07T17:09:00.000-04:00

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

Michael Jackson and Parental Rights

2009-07-06T19:25:00.000-04:00

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

Debunking the Issue: Ending Discrimination and Protecting Our Future

2009-06-30T14:28:00.000-04:00

Reader,

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,
Centaur

"The time is right." -- Glenstorm

Debunking the Issue: Discrimination and the Antedote

2009-06-30T14:05:00.001-04:00

Reader,

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 http://www.parentalrights.org/, 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,
Centaur

"The time is right." -- Glenstorm

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

2009-06-30T13:35:00.000-04:00

Reader,

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,
Centaur

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

James Sensenbrenner: Hard-Core

2009-06-30T12:27:00.000-04:00

Reader,

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,

Centaur

"The hour has struck." -- Glenstorm

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

2009-06-25T11:40:00.000-04:00

Reader,

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 ParentalRights.org 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!
Sincerely,
Michael Farris

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

Congratulations!
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 http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/.
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

KEEP IT UP!!! PRESS ON!!!
Watching the stars,
Centaur

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

Debunking the Issue: The Vatican Reservations

2009-06-24T14:29:00.001-04:00

Reader,

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 LifeSiteNews.com.

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,
Centaur

"The hour has struck." -- Glenstorm

Debunking the Issue: Immigration Concerns are True

2009-06-24T11:40:00.001-04:00

Reader,

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,
Centaur

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

Debunking the Issue: The Unhealthy UNCRC

2009-06-24T11:21:00.001-04:00

Reader,

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,
Centaur

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

Harry Mitchell: Young Blood

2009-06-23T16:08:00.000-04:00

Reader,

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 www.parentalrights.org 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,
Centaur

Mike Ross: Breath of Fresh Air

2009-06-23T15:53:00.000-04:00

Reader,

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,
Centaur

"The hour has struck." -- Glenstorm

Jim Marshall: Requesting Reinforcements

2009-06-22T15:34:00.000-04:00

Reader,

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,
Centaur

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

Artur Davis: Final Legacy

2009-06-22T14:05:00.000-04:00

Reader,

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,
Centaur

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

John Tanner: The Time Is Right

2009-06-18T11:41:00.000-04:00

Reader,

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,
Centaur

"The time is right." -- Glenstorm

Allen Boyd: Follow Suit?

2009-06-18T10:57:00.000-04:00

Reader,

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 parentalrights.org. 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,
Centaur

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

John Conyers: Found a Founder!

2009-06-17T16:05:00.000-04:00

Reader,

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 Parentalrights.org for even more information. These five sites (and parentalrights.org) 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,
Centaur

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

Dan Boren: Born for the Call

2009-06-17T14:33:00.000-04:00

Reader,

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,
Centaur

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

Sweden: A Picture Worth a Thousand Words

2009-06-17T11:29:00.000-04:00

Reader,

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 parentalrights.org to join the fight.

Watching the stars,
Centaur

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

Collin Peterson: A Guard to Guard Our Country

2009-06-16T14:40:00.001-04:00

Reader,

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 parentalrights.org 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,
Centaur

"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

Heath Shuler: Champion in the Wings?

2009-06-12T13:09:00.000-04:00

Reader,

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,

Centaur
"The time is right." - Glenstorm

Protecting Children: The Child's Will

2009-06-11T13:48:00.001-04:00

Reader,

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 NJ.com. 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 parentalrights.org.

Watching the stars,
Centaur

"We promise you our swords." - Glenstorm

What's Wrong with Protecting Children?

2009-06-11T13:06:00.000-04:00

Reader,

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 parentalrights.org, 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,
Centaur

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

The Parental Rights Amendment

2009-03-02T21:53:00.001-05:00

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 parentalrights.org, 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.

But why does it care so much to me? MAINLY THIS: I INTEND SOMEDAY TO HAVE A FAMILY, TO BE A FATHER; THEY WILL TAKE THAT FROM ME. AND I WILL NOT SURRENDER THAT DREAM TO EIGHTEEN INDIVIDUALS IN GENEVA.

Willing to make that sacrifice, whatever it may be,

Centaur

Thoughts from My Sister

2009-02-09T22:04:00.000-05:00

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,

Centaur

"Will they follow me?" -- King Peter

"To the death." -- Oreius

Rules Re: Posting on this Blog

2009-01-26T23:00:00.000-05:00

Dear Reader,

The following are the rules about posting on this blog:
1. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain: I WILL remove ANY posts which use any form of profanity, cussing, coarse joking, or any word which I deem of questionable constructive quality to this blog. Ye be warned.

2. While yes, I am a warrior, heart and soul, I ask that all conversations on this blog be civil: I will not tolerate scathing remarks or personal attacks against anyone, including those in opposition to God's truth.

3. I will, under no circumstance, ask for your personal information, and I expect the same from everyone else: this is not to be used as a place to meet new boyfriends/girlfriends, etc.

4. I am not an obsessive blogger: I will probably not check this on a consistent basis. So if I don't respond immediately, that is why. I apologize in advance.

Serve Him more every day,
Centaur

Greetings from Hiding

2009-01-26T22:52:00.000-05:00

Dear Reader,

This is the personal blog of Centaur, a Christian conservative in the United States who is not ashamed to support:

-The complete inerrancy of the Bible, which is the Word of God given to man by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
-The physical, bodily resurrection of Christ from the grave,
-The eternal deity of God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
-The creation of the world in seven literal, 24-hour days,
-The young age of the earth (approx. 12,009 years old now),
-The preeminent right of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and moral character and training of their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord,
-The sanctity of human life, which begins at conception,
-The right of individuals to be secure in their homes from the intrusion of social workers without warrants,
-The opposition of the spread of international law, especially the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and the International Criminal Court's (ICC) increased jurisdiction over sovereign countries,
-And much more that will take too long to write here. 8-D

There are few of us, but we are strong, and the opposition does not even know we exist in such numbers. If you are one of us, take heart: we are here, and we are waiting. If you are against us, I offer no threats short of this: follow God's commands and seek His face while He may still be found.

Stand firm, friends,
Centaur