On Monday presidential hopeful Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN) in an address to the conservative Family Research Council made very clear her support of parental rights and her opposition to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
“[The CRC] threatens the most basic unit of government that [we] attempt to defend – the family. As president, I will withdraw the signature of the United States from this treaty and every other unratified UN treaty of this type,” Bachman said.
She also added very succinctly, “I was an early co-sponsor of the Parental Rights Amendment and I will assure passage of this as president.”
Like you, we want parental rights to be part of the political discussion going into the 2012 elections, and we get excited whenever a candidate brings it up.
So where are the other candidates in this discussion? We’d like your help to ask them that.
Action Items
1. Please take a moment to email each of the candidates below and ask them where they stand. Tell them you have heard Michelle Bachman’s position, that she supports the Parental Rights Amendment and also supports withdrawing the U.S. signature from the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Ask them what their position is on these two documents and why. And tell them that if they support parental rights, they should say so in their platform and in televised debates.
Gov. Mitt Romney: www.mittromney.com/contact-us
Sen. Rick Santorum: www.ricksantorum.com/contact-
Herman Cain: www.hermancain.com/contact-us
Rep. Newt Gingrich: www.newt.org/contact
Gov. Rick Perry: www.rickperry.org/contact-us/
Rep. Ron Paul: www.ronpaul2012.com/contact-
Gov. Jon Huntsman: jon2012.com/contact
2. Keep contacting Congress and the Senate to sign on as original cosponsors of the Parental Rights Amendment. For updates and contact info, click on your state at parentalrights.org/States.
The Parental Rights Amendment has been on the back burner for far too long, and things are boiling over. With your help, we can move it to the forefront and gain for this issue the attention it deserves. Thank you for standing with us to preserve your parental rights and the future of our nation.
Sincerely,
Michael Ramey
Dir. of Communications & Research
We don't NEED any "parental rights amendment" -- all we need is a return to Constitutional Government!
ReplyDeleteForgive me - but I fail to see the utility in *ANY* amendment at this point when we have a Constitution that already says "these are the 18 things the Fed.gov is entitled to do" and a 10th Amendment which says "Just to make it clear for the SLOW kids, if it ain't on that list then the Fed.gov can't do it" - yet I'd wager 90%+ of what it does is in direct opposition to those limitations!!
WTF is the point in another Amendment which will then be IGNORED?
I also find it PROFOUND that *NO* Amendment actually changed the Constitution! Most Amendments to Laws and/or Contracts are in the form "Article 5 section 4 Pg. 3 line 2 is hereby modified to strike the word 'this' and substitute 'that'" - or "Article 5 section 4 Pg. 3 line 2 is hereby modified to read 'This is the new text we want to insert in place of the old.'"
There's a REASON for this: Because our Founders understood that the SPIRIT of the Constitution must be preserved - and that this is best done by avoiding mucking about with it as much as possible!
Reading my comment, I see I did a poor job of making my point: If the .gov was living within its due Constitutional bounds, there would be no question about "Parental Rights" - in fact, there was no question I can really recall until just the last decade or so!
ReplyDeleteAm I the only one who remembers parents being allowed to watch their child die for want of a blood-transfusion because their "religion" prohibited it? Let them try that NOW!
Personally, I have no problem with stupid people removing their progeny from the gene-pool!
Another point: The Constitution DOES say that any treaty properly ratified by "two-thirds of the Senators present" (Article II Section 2) becomes "the supreme law of the land" (Article VI) - in other words equivalent to (and arguably PART of) The Constitution!
Ergo, if the fear is that some "treaty" would override Constitutional protections -- then that fear is perfectly justified! The PROBLEM is that no Amendment could stop it from happening - at least as I understand the Constitution!
Which brings us - once AGAIN - to the Second Amendment! As Vanderboegh is fond of saying, "When Liberty becomes Tyranny, (WE) STILL GET TO VOTE!
if the fear is that some "treaty" would override Constitutional protections -- then that fear is perfectly justified!
ReplyDeleteExactly & yup, we still get to vote. Check out this comment below from today.
http://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2011/11/as-populist-socialism-rises-class-war.html
whitelocust, SATR
Only answer is for ALL those who believe in the republic to arm themselves, and be ready to slaughter the enemy where he stands, they will rise up and attempt to overthrow the established order, let us rise up when the time comes to meet them on the battlefield. Lets once and for all time put them down, no quarter given, no ceasefire, until the last of the communist insurrectionist is dead. Once done, what nation do we really want? Answer this question open and honestly. Because the ideal vision of true freedom does not allow universal brotherhood and equality, true freedom does not include the freedom to force your ideology of multiculturalism and diversity on the rest of us who don’t want it.
Oppression leads to civil unrest and violence, if you desire to be free from communism, then we on the racialist right desire to be free from your liberal conservative globalist state. Do we not deserve to be free as you do?