May 31, 2023

A Problem For Parental Rights

PH2008112401773Get a good look at the man on the right of former Attorney General Janet Reno.  The man’s name is David W. Ogden, and he’s in line to become second in command at the Justice Department.

Why should you be concerned?  Because this man will hold a highly influential position in the Obama Administration, and his views may differ from yours.

One of the things that is different from you and I is his history:

[T]he man in line to become No. 2 at the nation’s top law enforcement agency was once a strident defender of Playboy and other purveyors of nudity.

And some critics are drawing attention to his risque legal work ahead of his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday. In one case, Ogden paved the way for the blind to enjoy Playboy at the Library of Congress.1

If that doesn’t get your attention, this should:

Home School Legal Defense Association urges all of its members to immediately telephone both U.S. senators from your state to oppose the nomination of David Ogden.

The most important reason to oppose Ogden’s nomination is his belief that the rules found in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child are already binding on the United States under the doctrines of international law.

What’s wrong with this set of rules?  Take a look at some of them yourself:

  1. That every child shall be registered by the government immediately after birth. Article 7 (1). Government tracking of all children will be required.
  2. That every child shall receive the highest attainable level of health care services. Article 24 (1). In Chapter 11 of the American Bar Association book by Davidson and Cohen, they state that this provision indicates that a mandatory federal health insurance plan would be necessary to comply with the Treaty.
  3. That no child is subjected to corporal punishment. Article 28.2 states that all schools must be prohibited from using corporal punishment. In Article 19.1, and in Article 37 (a), it not only prohibits school authorities from administering corporal discipline, but it also applies it to “parents, legal guardians, or any other person who has care of the child.” This Treaty will essentially outlaw spanking.
  4. Under the UN Treaty, the United States will be required to ensure that children are vested with “freedom of expression.” Section 1 states that a child has a right to “seek, receive and impart information 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.” This essentially gives children the right to listen to rock music, watch television, and even have access to pornography.
  5. Furthermore, children are guaranteed the “freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.” This will give children the right to object to their parents’ religious training and participate in religious services of other cults.
  6. The child under the Treaty would have the “right to freedom of association.” Parents would be prevented from prohibiting their children from associating with certain other children or gangs.
  7. A child will be given a “right of privacy,” which of course would open the door for children to get access to abortion over their parents’ objection. This would virtually invalidate all parental notification laws concerning abortion.
  8. Public education for the first time would be a “right” to all children of the United States under the UN Convention. Parents interfering with the child’s right to choose public education would be violating his rights and could be subject to prosecution.
  9. Under the Treaty, governments must enforce the right of the child to “freely participate in cultural life and arts.”
  10. Cohen and Davidson in the American Bar Association treatise indicate that Article 27 would require the United States to increase massive social welfare programs for children.

President Clinton signed the treaty, but it would take ratification by the Congress in order for this monstrosity to be ratified.  Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is already pushing for its ratification and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is very much in favor of it.  It is believed that Pres. Obama would support its ratification.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
(Visited 53 times, 1 visits today)
  1. Obama Justice Nominee Used to Represent Playboy – Fox News []

8 thoughts on “A Problem For Parental Rights

    1. What I find interesting is that even the Muslim countries have ratified this thing, but they were able to put exceptions into it– which made it mostly moot.

      I’m not sure what can be done. It’s been headed this way for some time, and we can definitely pray and call our representatives, but the truth of the matter is that it is all in His hands, and many people are going to have to start to make hard decisions about their faith and what they believe is right and what they can compromise on.

  1. I can’t tell my children not to watch lewd stuff? That’ll be the day. Law or no law, they’ll get what’s coming to them if they get out of line.

  2. @Ling: I remember reading, when I was a kid, about how if you spanked your child in Soviet Russia you could get your children taken away, or you could be thrown in prison. While I don’t know if the story is true or not, I believe it would work much the same way, since this is a socialist program. Basically, I would think that this would give more power to the DSS (Department of Social Services) to taken children away or jail parents if they were found to do more things.
    We’ve been headed down this road for some time– with children trying to “divorce” their parents, etc. and so far we’ve had a weird balance between state’s rights to your kids and parental rights. The previous Administration was much more in favor of parental rights where it looks as if this new one may be much more desirous of state’s rights.

  3. I’ve heard of this treaty before and find it a frightening possibility. I’m confident that my state representatives would never ratify something like this but will certainly be in prayer for other representatives.
    Isn’t it nice, though, to know that no matter whatit’s all in His hands!

    Kyndras last blog post..Lessons From Ballroom Dance

  4. @Rachel: I know Sen. Barbara Boxer wants to push it to get ratified (California has tried to pass anti-spanking legislation in the past) and it’s said that Pres. Obama is inclined to support it. Pres. Clinton signed it, but it isn’t binding until binding until ratified by the Senate. I know that HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association) is again asking people to call their senators to register their objection. And I know that the man mentioned in this post supports ratification.
    Other than calling your senator I’m not sure what can be done.

  5. I had no idea how disturbing this man is. It seems that the Obama cabinet picks as of lately are rather disconcerting.

    Yes, this “rights of child” thing is pretty weird. It’s like saying my 2 year old daughter has a right to do whatever she wants whenever she wants. Don’t people know there is a reason that children have parents? Because up until at least 18 years of age (in many cases longer) children need parental guidance in navigating throughout life.

    The ridiculousness of this document astounds me.

    militarywifeys last blog post..Dora the (Shopping) Explorer?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge