Poll Shows Overwhelming Support for Parental Rights

Farris: Poll Shows Overwhelming Support for Parental Rights

Dear Parental Rights Champion,

The highly acclaimed Zogby Poll has just released the results of the first in-depth analysis of our efforts to protect the right of American parents to raise their children free from improper governmental interference. I am thrilled to be able to present to you a summary of the findings from this brand new Zogby Poll.

First, here are some of the highlights from this poll:

The American public stands strongly behind parental rights. America does not want governmental or UN interference in the American family. The public supports a constitutional amendment to protect the rights of all parents.

Those are the headlines. And these findings are true—in varying degrees, of course—for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Support for parental rights comes from all regions of the country, all racial and religious groups, and at every level of income.

Here are the survey questions, in the order they were asked:

Poll Question 1

Do you agree or disagree with parents having the legal option to give their child a modest spanking?

The government elites are adamant in their opposition to traditional parenting practices. Chief on their list is the elimination of even modest spanking. The UN wishes to ban spanking through the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

But the American public thinks otherwise. On Question 1:

58.7% strongly agree
26.4% somewhat agree
6.0% somewhat disagree
6.9% strongly disagree
2.0% not sure

These are political landslide kinds of numbers.

Various subgroups view this parental right slightly differently (see the in-depth breakdown online), but a large majority of all groups agree. Americans are solidly united in support of parental rights to traditional, modest discipline.

Question 2

In general, parents have the constitutional right to make decisions for their children without governmental interference unless there is proof of abuse or neglect. Do you agree or disagree with this view of parental rights?

All American voters

73.6% strongly agree
20.0% somewhat agree
2.6% somewhat disagree
1.6% strongly disagree
2.2% not sure

The goal of the Parental Rights Amendment is to protect this historic understanding of parental rights. This question reveals that America is nearly unanimous in agreeing with this goal – 93.6% in overall agreement, and 4.2% in disagreement.

The sub-groups are available online, but let me include this one sample:

Conservative 98.4% agree 0.9% disagree
Moderate 91.4% agree 4.8% disagree
Liberal 91.6% agree 7.1% disagree

When 98.4% of conservatives and 91.6% of liberals agree on an issue, you know that America is truly united.

Question 3

Would you support or oppose a constitutional amendment to permanently protect parental rights, allowing them to make decisions for their children without government interference, so long as there is no proof of abuse or neglect?

All American voters

45.9% strongly support
17.1% somewhat support
8.5% somewhat oppose
18.3% strongly oppose
10.2% not sure

It is important to note that this question does not make any argument as to why the Amendment is needed. If people were told that the Supreme Court had begun to move away from the traditional standard, the support would almost certainly be much higher. As it is, 63.0% of Americans support the Parental Rights Amendment with 26.8% opposed. Keeping in mind that well over 90% support the goal of the PRA, the opportunity to increase this number above 63% is very strong.

The sub-group views on this question are online here.

Again, a political election that is decided 63% to 26.8% is a called a landslide. America supports the PRA by numbers that represent a landslide even without an explanation of why it is needed.

Question 4

A United Nations treaty on children’s rights is currently being considered by the United States government. If this treaty made international law, it would trump some existing state laws on parents and children. Do you support or oppose this treaty?

All American voters

3.4% strongly support
8.2% somewhat support
9.9% somewhat oppose
44.5% strongly oppose
34.1% not sure

This question reveals a great amount of uncertainty, but for those that had an opinion, 5 Americans oppose the UNCRC for every 1 American that supports it. The question may have been confusing, because the next question clarifies the treaty just a bit and the results are very clear indeed.

Question 5

If you knew that the United Nations treaty on children’s rights would give government broad discretion to overrule parents and decide what it thinks is best for a child, would you support or oppose this treaty, or does it make no difference to your opinion?

1.5% strongly support
4.9% somewhat support
11.6% somewhat oppose
66.7% strongly oppose
4.5% no difference
10.9% not sure

With a single explanation of the effect of the CRC, the opinion of the vast majority of Americans becomes very clear. 78.3% oppose this treaty, and only 6.4% support it.

Opposition to the CRC is found in every political faction. Republicans oppose it 90.1% to 3.9%, Independents 78.5% to 5.2%, Democrats 67.0% to 9.5%. Even liberals opposed the CRC 56.3% to 15.7% - again, a landslide.

Analysis

The vast majority of the American electorate is on our side in this issue of parental rights. The level of support varies a bit from the “landslide” level on the low end up to “nearly unanimous” on the high end.

We have all known that our issue is right—legally and morally. These polls tell us that our issue is winnable.

The challenge we have is to get our message to the American public. If we can reach the public, we will win. It is that simple.

To reach the public we need resources. We need ads, we need earned media (which requires hard work from our staff to make it happen), and we need to use the internet more aggressively and more effectively.

All of these take a great deal of money. And our budgets are very modest. (By the way, I take no salary or expenses from Parentalrights.org.)

We believe that we have a very realistic shot at stopping the Convention on the Rights of the Child in this session of Congress. Right after the last election, Barbara Boxer promised that it would be ratified in this session.

I also believe that we have a realistic chance of passing the Parental Rights Amendment in the House early in the next term of Congress.

The public stands with us. If we can reach them with our message, the vast majority in Congress will listen to the voices of the voters.

Will you please help us with the very best gift you can so that we may reach the American public with our message and protect the rights of all parents for generations to come?

Thank you for helping us make history.

Warmest regards,

Michael Farris

We Need SR 519 NOW!

We Need SR 519 NOW!

…and here’s why.

With November elections coming up, timing is everything. If we can focus on the Parental Rights Amendment during the August recess and beyond, we can add more cosponsors between now and November, as candidates looking to win their seats begin to feel the popularity of our cause. August through Election Day is a crucial opportunity for the Amendment. But we can’t take advantage of that if we have to spend August (or worse, September and October) finishing up with Senate Resolution 519 (SR 519).

And we don’t dare save SR 519 until after the elections. The current leadership have made clear that they will use any chance to push their agenda, which is unwanted by the majority of Americans. Historically, a lame duck Congress such as we are likely to have for November and December is just such an opportunity. Voters have “won the election” and let their guard down, and BOOM – lawmakers on the way out leave behind one final mess. This year, that mess could very well include ratifying the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child.

But not if SR 519 reaches 34 cosponsors before then.

And that’s why we need to get just 9 more senators on board this month!

Action Items

1. Call your Senators and urge them to support U.S. sovereignty and American families. Urge them to cosponsor SR 519 to end the threat of ratifying the CRC. (Get talking points here.) For your senators’ status and phone number, visit parentalrights.org/Status.

2. Give generously to our Declaration Campaign to fund ads decrying the CRC, and making your senator’s position on it public knowledge. Ads will run August 2, so time is running out!

3. Pass it on. Time is pressing, and more calls will mean faster success. Please forward this email to family and friends, post it on bulletin boards, add it to Facebook, Twitter, and so forth.

Together we will win to secure America’s future!

Gratefully Yours,

Michael Ramey
Communications Director

Supreme Court Nominee Favors Use of International Law

This article was on the Homeschool Legal Defense Association's Website and I wanted to pass it on. It shares with us how Elena Kagan could be a threat to our parental rights because she favors using international law when deciding cases that come before the bench. This is not a new trend, but it is a dangerous one. Our country should be ruled by it's own citizens and it's own laws. Because of this concern the HSLDA is recommending we call our Senators to try and stop this nomination. For more review of Elena's history with her preference for International law read their other article “Will Elena Kagan use International Law as Supreme Court Justice?”.

Elena Kagan Confirms Her Support for International Law

William A. Estrada, Esq.
Director of Federal Relations

Melanie Palazzo
Congressional Action Program Director

July 12, 2010

HSLDA urges our members and homeschoolers nationwide to call their two U.S. senators and express their opinions on the nomination of Elena Kagan for Supreme Court.

Elana Kagan was recently nominated by President Obama to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Ms. Kagan underwent a four-day confirmation hearing held by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee ending July 1.

HSLDA has been concerned about Ms. Kagan’s nomination because of her support of international law over the U.S. Constitution while she was Dean of Harvard School of Law. Our concerns were not alleviated, but only grew with Kagan’s answers during her hearing.

For instance, Senator Chuck Grassley (IA) asked Ms. Kagan on the second day of the hearings, “Should judges look to foreign law for ‘good ideas.’ ”

Ms. Kagan responded, “I am in favor of good ideas wherever we can get them.”

Senator Grassley later asked, “If you were confirmed, would you rely on or cite international foreign law when deciding cases?”

Ms. Kagan’s response: “It depends. There are some cases in which the citation of foreign law or international law might be appropriate.” (Watch the hearings in their entirety online.)

We are concerned about Kagan citing foreign or international law as a Supreme Court justice because of the danger that could ensue if she ever cited the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) as precedent in a Supreme Court opinion. This treaty could severely limit parental rights. To learn more about why Kagan citing the CRC as a Supreme Court Justice would be dangerous please read “Will Elena Kagan use International Law as Supreme Court Justice?”

We encourage you to call your two U.S. senators and share with their staff your thoughts about Ms. Kagan’s confirmation. We expect that the full Senate will vote on Ms. Kagan's nomination in the next couple of weeks.

You can reach your two U.S. Senators by calling the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121, or toll-free at 866-220-0044. You can find your U.S. senators by using HSLDA’s Legislative Toolbox.

S. Res. 519 Introduced to Stop Ratification of CRC

S.Res.519 is a resolution to stop the Senate from ratifying the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This treaty would ultimately give a foreign body and a foreign document precedence over even our own constitution and undermines traditional US law regarding parents and children. Please take a moment to read the resolution and then visit ParentalRights.org to see if your Senator has already co-sponsored this legislation. If they have not please urge them to become one so that we may protect the sovereignty of our nation and to be governed by our own laws and our own citizens. That was the very principle that made us a nation, let us not lose sight of it now.

Mike Farris and Chuck Norris on Huckabee

Michael Farris and Chuck Norris talk to Huckabee about how parental rights are under attack. From the current health care bill in the Congress to cases before the Supreme Court, we need to be aware of how these rights are under attack.

Parental Rights Amendment - Video Contest Winners

Here are the winners from the Parentalrights.org video contest. You can find the entire list of winners and runner ups at the Parental Rights Proclaim Video Contest Winners page. Feel free to use these videos on your own blog to help support and promote the parental rights amendment. Also, do not forget to leave me a comment if you have a blog that you would like us to list here as a parental rights supporter.

Category Adults:
1st Place Winner

Category Youth:
1st Place Winner

Category Commercial:
1st Place Winner

Supreme Court Urged To Impose UNCRC Treaty

I read this press release today and it is quite frightening! Amnesty International is in our own court system trying to apply to our country a treaty that we have never ratified. It is my hope that the courts will keep our sovereignty in tact, but if they do not we are all in big trouble. As we can see, the time to protect those rights is now! We need to Parental Rights Amendment to make sure that no one can take our rights away! Visit the link below to read the entire article.

SUPREME COURT URGED TO IMPOSE UNRATIFIED TREATY

Press Contact: Rebekah Pizana National Coalition Director ParentalRights.org 540.645.9475 Rebekah@parentalrights.org

by Jim Bentley Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The Supreme Court this term has agreed to hear on appeal two cases which question the authority of a state to sentence juvenile violent offenders to life without parole. Amnesty International and other global organizations have filed briefs urging the Court to apply the U.N.’s controversial Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) to Florida law as a matter of binding “Customary International Law”. On Monday, sixteen members of the U.S. House of Representatives filed an opposing brief which argues that this use of international law is contrary to both the facts and the law.

[More]

The United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child Treaty

Call NOW To Stop UN Children's Treaty

I received this email from the HSLDA, it's important that those of us who are opposed to this treaty act now.

Call Now to Stop
UN Children’s Treaty

Dear HSLDA Members and Friends,

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.

Action

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 the 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 using HSLDA’s Legislative Toolbox.) 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!

Michael Farris
HSLDA Chairman

Three Major Developments Threatening Parental Rights

In their article Civil Rights Forces Mobilize, Parentalrights.org reports that in just the last few weeks there have been major developments that put parental rights at risk.

Three major developments—all of them ominous—have occurred in the last several days.

1. On June 1 and 2, Georgetown University Law School hosted a two-day symposium entitled “The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC): Why It Is Time to Ratify.”

This well-funded conference was held to organize a new coalition effort by American internationalists to seek ratification of the UN child’s rights treaty.

2. In the second week of June, a major study was released by the British education ministry calling for dramatically dangerous increases in the regulation of homeschoolers in that nation.

This study concludes that the UN CRC requires that the government enter every homeschooling home and privately interview each homeschooling child to determine “the child’s wishes” regarding his or her education.

3. On June 17, at the UN headquarters in Geneva, the UN’s Human Rights Committee—which oversees all human rights treaties—announced that it was forming a committee to draft a new “protocol” for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under this new addition to the CRC, individual children would be able to file a formal legal complaint if they believe that their rights had been violated. It would give this new international tribunal the right to determine if the child’s treaty rights had been violated by any person.

It is obvious from the recent symposium at Georgetown that supporters of the UNCRC are beginning to organize and push for the US to ratify this treaty. The recent study in Britain confirms that the UNCRC is unfavorable to homeschooling and would require the government, not parents, to determine what is in the best interest of the child's education. And since the UN Human Rights committee is seeking new protocols for the UNCRC that would give children the power to sue their parents we can see that the threats against parental rights are very real. In America, parents, not judges, need to be the decision makers in the lives of their own children. These latest developments are a reminder as to why we need to take action now to protect parental rights. The only way to stop all threats against parental rights is to pass the The Parental Rights Amendment. To learn more about the proposed amendment or to find ways you can help protect parental rights, visit parentalrights.org.

Oklahoma Passes Resolution Opposing the UNCRC...Tennesseee to Follow

ParentalRights.org has recently reported that the Oklahoma legislature adopted a resolution (HCR 1033) that states their opposition to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and urges the Senate to reject its ratification. The resolution passed with bipartisan support and had wide margin of victory with a vote of 61 to 28 in the House. Other states are considering similar resolutions with Tennessee being the next to take action by introducing HJR 0369 on May 1st. I hope that many other states will follow suit and start sending a message to the United States Senate that parents are serious about protecting their rights.

Excerpts from Oklahoma’s resolution include:

WHEREAS the right of the parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right protected by the Constitutions of the United States and the state of Oklahoma; and …

WHEREAS, by virtue of the federal Supremacy Clause all Oklahoma law regarding children would be overridden if there is a conflict with this treaty if ratified; and…

WHEREAS, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child at periodic intervals publishes “general Comments” which are substantive additions to the obligations of state parties already under the Convention, and…

WHEREAS, this represents a wholesale abandonment of the ultimate sovereignty of the United States on matters within the scope of the treaty…

…BE IT RESOLVED…that the State of Oklahoma hereby condemns the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and urges the United States Senate to reject its ratification.

To read more about what these states are doing and how you can encourage your state to take similar action visit parentalrights.org and view their recent article, State Legislatures Oppose UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

20 Things you need to know about the UNCRC

When we heard Michael Farris speak last month, he handed out papers that explained 10 things you need to know about the structure of the CRC and 10 things you need to know about the substance of the CRC. He said that we could copy that information up to about 100,000 times (or some large number like that) without asking his permission. In other words, he wanted this information to be passed around. So I am copying this from the ParentalRights.org website. Be sure to see the their full article 20 Things you Need to Know About the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to learn more.

10 Things you need to know about the structure of the CRC.

1. It is a treaty which creates binding rules of law. It is no mere statement of altruism.

2. Its effect would be binding on American families, courts, and policy-makers.

3. Children of other nations would not be impacted in any direct way by our ratification.

4. The CRC would automatically override almost all American laws on children and families because of our Supremacy Clause.

5. The CRC has some elements that are self-executing, while others would require implementing legislation. Federal courts would have the power to determine which provisions were self-executing.

6. The Courts would have the power to directly enforce the provisions that are self-executing.

7. Congress would have the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty. This would constitute the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.

8. A committee of 18 experts from other nations, sitting in Geneva, has the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty which are entitled to binding weight in American courts and legislatures. This effectively transfers ultimate authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee.

9. Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.

10. Reservations, declarations, or understandings intended to modify our duty to comply with this treaty will be void if they are determined to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.

10 Things you need to know about the substance of the CRC.

1. Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

2. A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

3. Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

4. The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.

5. A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

6. According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.

7. Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

8. Christian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.

9. Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

10. Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

For more information visit: