Thursday, April 30, 2009

MSNBC Reports on UNCRC and Parental Rights

Yesterday MSNBC ran an article titled Clash brewing over global Rights of Child pact. In the article they report how ratifying the UNCRC is up for debate again and how "both sides agree that its chances of ratification — while still uncertain — are better under the Obama administration than at any point in the past."

I am certainly glad to see this issue getting media attention and I was pleased with the article. However, there still seems to be no coverage on the impact the supremacy clause in our constitution would have if we ratified this treaty. (See my blog about Hoekstra on O'Reilly to learn more about that.) With that in mind I would like to comment on a few statements made within the article.

"The reality is that no country that is a party to the convention has seen parental rights encroached," said Jonathan Todres, a law professor at Georgia State University who has worked with Gardinier's coalition.
There are two things wrong with this statement, one is that it is not true. Michael Farris gives an instance in which the UNCRC was used to violate a parent's right in Wales.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child is the official UN tribunal granted the authority to interpret and enforce the Children's Convention, which sets forth an exhaustive index of children's rights, many at odds with the rights of parents. The tribunal has held, for instance, that the United Kingdom violated children's rights in Wales by allowing parents to withdraw their children from public school programs without first considering the child's wishes. (Elitism Threatens Parental Rights)

As we can see, in other countries parents have seen this right encroached upon and the UNCRC was specifically used to take that right away.

The other error is, of course, his failure to recognize the supremacy clause in our constitution. I have mentioned it before, and I suppose I will have to keep mentioning it until it gets properly reported. What Jonathan Todres fails to mention is that no other country that has ratified the treaty has a constitutional clause that automatically makes the UNCRC the supreme law of their land. As a law professor, I have to assume he knows that the supremacy clause exists, and therefore knows that his own argument is flawed. I am saddened that he attempts to fool Americans by making such a statement. He has to realize the supremacy clause means ratification would impact our country like no other.

Todres goes on to say:

The treaty "has the potential to be a great tool for parents," Todres said. "It's something the parents could use to say, 'My child has the right to freedom of religion and the state cannot encroach on that. My child has education rights, health care rights, and the state cannot ignore that.'"

We already have a great tool for parents to use in America and it is called our Constitution. I do not need a UN treaty to fight for my child's right. You should note that he mentions certain rights here that are not specifically guaranteed in our constitution. If Todres wants Americans to have a tool that says health care is a "right" then he needs to work on amending our current constitution or passing laws within our own country that will grant his wishes. That is how laws that govern civil life in this country should be made. They should be made by the legislators we elect to represent us, not a board of international delegates who do not live or reside in the country they rule. That is the kind of tyranny we fought against in the Revolutionary war. We should not look to the UN to write and in some cases over-write our laws for us, we have our own methods for protecting children in this country.

One of the biggest arguments against the Parental Rights Amendment is that most people do not like to amend our constitution. It is such a great document that people are leary to mess with it. I certainly agree. What they fail to understand is that if we ratify the UNCRC we are pretty much doing the same thing, only we are doing so without the tough approval process amendments require. The only way to stop this threat is to amend our constitution to say that no treaty will supersede our fundamental rights.

I am very encouraged that the issue is getting media attention. Please read the full article
Clash brewing over global Rights of Child pact at MSNBC. To learn more about the proposed Parental Rights Amendment and help protect us from the threat of the UNCRC visit or

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

California Father Bicycling For Parental Rights

It seems a father in California has found a creative way to spread the word about the Parental Rights Amendment. On May 2nd he will begin his journey by holding a rally in front of his US Representative's office. From there he will peddle his bicycle 420 miles across the state of California, gathering signatures for the Parental Rights Amendment and 5 days later he will end his journey at the steps of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s office.

Read full article at and see how passionate this man is about the Parental Rights Amendment and find ways you can help.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Michael Farris to Appear on Huckabee Show This Weekend

I just received this update from HSLDA. Michael Farris will be on the Huckabee show on the Fox News Network this weekend. Be sure to watch and tell others about it so they can learn more about protecting parental rights!

The show will air Saturday evening (4/25) at 8 P.M. ET,
and on Sunday (4/26) at 2 A.M., 8 P.M., 11 P.M. on the Fox News Channel


Please pray for Dr. Michael Farris, HSLDA chairman and co-founder, who
has been rescheduled to appear on the Huckabee show April 25-26. The
Fox News Channel interview by former Gov. Mike Huckabee will address
Dr. Farris' efforts to shelter the American family from the imposition
of international law through the Parental Rights Amendment, recently
introduced in Congress. The interview takes place Saturday at 2:30
P.M. in New York City and airs Saturday evening (4/25) at 8 P.M. ET,
and on Sunday (4/26) at 2 A.M., 8 P.M., 11 P.M.

With yet another opportunity for Mike to stand up for truth, and for
American families, on a national stage, we thank God and ask you to
please tune in and pray that this vital issue gets the fair, accurate,
and far-reaching coverage it warrants.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Washington Times: Treaty Abolishes Rights of Parents

The Washington Times posted an editorial on the UNCRC (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) titled Rosemond: Treaty Abolishes Rights of Parents. In the article Rosemond explains how we should not just be worried about the nationalization of banks, but how ratifying this treaty would nationalize child rearing turning parenting into "governmenting." I think he nails the risks of this treaty pretty accurately when he said, "The language, often recklessly vague, clearly establishes the state as the final authority where raising children is concerned. As such, the document could more accurately be called the United Nations Convention on the Abolition of Parents' Rights."

He like many others urges you to go to to find out more about the UNCRC, and to sign the petition calling for the Parental Rights Amendment. I encourage you to read the entire article which can be found at the link below.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Hoekstra, Farris Encouraged by Grassroots Support for Constitutional Amendment

Christian reports that Hoekstra, Farris Encouraged by Grassroots Support for Constitutional Amendment and shares a joint statement recently released by both Farris and Hoekstra. In the article they talk about how the grassroots movement is growing and how encouraged they have been that congressional involvement is double what they had originally hoped for. As they say, "with continued support there is really no telling how fast we can drive this initiative."

Visit to read the article from Christian

Further information on the Parents' Rights Amendment go to

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Hoekstra on America's Newsroom with Megyn Kelly

Here is another interview of Representative Hoekstra by Megyn Kelly on America's Newsroom April 15, 2009. He makes great points about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and why we should not sign that treaty. He reminds us what treaties were originally designed to do and how there is no need or benefit to us by signing this treaty. It's only purpose would be to give other people the power to define what is in the best interest of YOUR children.

Hoekstra on O'Reilly and What He Didn't Say

Here is Hoekstra on the O'Reilly factor. He talks a little bit about the Parental Rights Amendment but I feel he missed a huge opportunity to explain why this is so essential. Yes, 193 countries have signed on to the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child, but there is a big difference between those 193 countries and the United States of America. When those countries sign treaties they do not become binding on those countries until they enact laws that make it the law of their land. For the most part their signature is simply a gesture that expresses their agreement with the goals of the amendment, but it does not hand over their sovereignty to the UN.

In the case of the United States it would be totally different because article six of the US Constitution has what is referred to as the supremacy clause and states that any treaty we sign becomes the supreme law of the land. It reads as follows (bold and italics are mine):

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

So, if the Unites States signs this treaty it would get the same status as the constitution itself and it would take precedent over any law in our land that did not meet the standards set by an international board of directors! That is why the United States has failed to ratify this treaty and it is why we never should.

There are good parts to this treaty but US law already addresses those issues with our current laws. We do not allow people to trade children, enslave them or abuse them. We do not NEED this treaty to help us protect the children of this country. The United States is far better at treating children than most of the countries who have signed this treaty but refuse to actually follow it. Again, they have the capacity to ignore the treaty because in their system of government treaties do not become the supreme law of their land.

While there are some good aspects to the treaty there are parts of it that are not necessarily looking out for the best interest of children. After all, it is adults who are on the panel in the UN that get to decide what they believe is in the best interest of children. The goal of some of the articles in this document is to control what children are allowed to be taught and how children are to be raised and disciplined. It is NOT the job of an international board OR the United States government to determine what is and is best for MY child, or your child or any child. Parents, not the government, should be making decisions regarding the way their children are raised. If we give that up to the US government, to the UN, or to anyone else then we have given up our freedom, and I am not ready or willing to do that. The Parental Rights Amendment will guarantee that international law will NEVER supersede the rights of law abiding Americans to raise their children.

Parental Rights Amendment Introduced

I received this in email from I wanted to pass it on to all of you!


The introduction of the Parental Rights Amendment in the U.S. Congress (H.J. Res. 42) was announced at a press conference yesterday afternoon. Below is the body of president Michael Farris's powerful speech from that event. If your Congressman or Senator is not already onboard, we urge you to copy and paste that message into an email or letter to send to them, along with your own personal message. (Check the sponsors list; find contact info.) This message clearly articulates the need for the Amendment; it is imperative that we get it into the hands of all of America's lawmakers.

Statement of Michael Farris
President of
March 31, 2009

On behalf of and the rapidly growing number of allied organizations, I want to thank Senator Jim DeMint, Congressman Pete Hoekstra, and my own Congressman Frank Wolf for their leadership on this important issue.

There are two basic reasons that the Constitution has been amended throughout our history. Sometimes the need is to preserve our law and traditions from potential threats and erosion of our rights. The Bill of Rights serves as the chief example of amendments designed to preserve the existing rights of the people.

At other times, it is absolutely necessary to change the existing law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were clearly necessary to end the evils of slavery and establish the principle of equal protection for all Americans.

The Parental Rights Amendment follows the pattern of the Bill of Rights—the goal of this Amendment is to preserve our existing law and traditions against judicial erosion and the ever-growing threat of international law.

Sections 1 and 2 of this Amendment do nothing more than restate the time-honored doctrines of the Supreme Court on parental rights. We are simply changing parental rights from an implied right based on judicial opinions to an express right based upon actual constitutional text.

Section 1 faithfully employs the words and phrasing of the Supreme Court’s decision of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), to declare that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

Section 2 carefully follows the words of the Court in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), to declare that parental rights, while very important, have limits. The government may intervene when the interest is of the highest order and not otherwise served. This section is a correct statement of current law. Today, when the government has proper evidence of child abuse or neglect, it may and should prosecute a parent who is responsible for such behavior.

Section 2 ensures that this principle remains intact. Parental rights are fundamental, but they are not absolute.

Section 3 preserves the current principle that only American laws govern the relationship between parents and children in this country. The use of international law is a rapidly growing trend in our judicial system. One federal district judge in New York has on two separate occasions ruled that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child already binds the United States under the doctrine of customary international law. An Ohio court ruled on an obviously flawed premise that this treaty had already been ratified by the Senate, and therefore ordered parents to stop smoking because it harmed the health of their children.

Section 3 makes it clear that the only law which can be used in American courts regarding American families is the law made in America by our legislatures or the people themselves. The use of international law for domestic purposes is utterly contrary to the idea that this nation is a self-governing Republic.

This section is necessary especially in the context of international law. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, international legal obligations are of superior rank to national law—even if that law is from the national constitution. However, there is an exception. Article 46 of the VCLT says that when the national constitution makes an exception concerning the power to enter treaties, then the national law still triumphs even in the face of an inconsistent treaty obligation.

Section 3 makes it unconstitutional for this nation to enter into a treaty that gives away our sovereignty on the subject of American parents and American children.

This should be a bi-partisan issue. President Obama recently declared, “In the end, there is no program or policy that can substitute for a mother or father.” Every member of Congress who agrees with the President on this principle should be in favor of this Amendment.

Every member of Congress who believes that Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), was correctly decided should be in favor of Section 1.

Every member of Congress who believes that Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), was correctly decided should be in favor of Section 2.

And every member of Congress who believes that only American legislators should make public policy for American families should be in favor of Section 3.

On this last point, a post-election Zogby poll (sponsored by WorldNetDaily) makes it clear that virtually every sector of the American public agrees with this last proposition.
When asked if they wanted American judges to use American law alone or to also consider international law in making decisions, by an overwhelming margin, the American public rejected the idea of using international law for these purposes.

The majority of Republican voters reject international law.

So do the majority of Democratic voters.

Those who voted for McCain reject international law.

A majority of those who voted for Obama reject it as well.

Union members reject international law.

NRA members reject international law.

Every region of the nation rejects international law.

Every age group rejects international law.

Every racial group rejects international law.

This is a bipartisan issue in America among voters, and I truly hope and believe that it will become a bipartisan issue on the Hill. The gap between the values of Capitol Hill and the values of the American people has grown too large on too many issues. This is the very best place to show the American public that we all can work together for shared values.
Both political parties say they are for family values. And this will demonstrate meaningful support for the family.

This Amendment preserves two essential values: the value that good families, not government, have the right to make decisions for children; and that America, not the UN or any other nation, gets to make our public policy to govern the critical relationship between parents and children.