Wednesday, February 25, 2009


Barbra Boxer can go to hell. I refuse to abide by any law that tells me how I can and cannot raise my child. I think, should this go to a vote of the people, with a full explanation of what would happen were the treaty ratified, almost every parent in the United States would be against it.
"Critics say the treaty, which creates 'the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion' and outlaws the 'arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy,' intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference."

"The right of the child to freedom of thought" I have no disagreements with. Ditto, religion. However. Most children haven't developed a conscience, and will not without infringement of the parents upon the so-called rights of the child--i.e., punishment for wrong actions.

And as for privacy? What right to privacy does a child have, when there are those out there that would hurt and exploit children? One could argue that the child has, under this treaty, the right to full privacy on the internet: that parents are not allowed to supervise what sites they visit, or who they talk to, exposing children to inappropriate images, and pedophiles.

"The U.S. is already party to two optional pieces of the treaty regarding child soldiers and child prostitution and pornography, but has refused to sign on to the full agreement..." In other words, we already enforce the reasonable parts of the treaty, the ones that actually protect children. So, why not the whole thing?

"... legal experts say the convention does nothing to protect human rights abroad -- and that acceding to the convention would erode U.S. sovereignty.Because of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, all treaties are rendered 'the supreme law of the land,' superseding preexisting state and federal statutes. Any rights or laws established by the U.N. convention could then be argued to hold sway in the United States."

In other words, anything we sign onto with this treaty overrides our own laws. What does that mean?

"'... an outside body, a group of unaccountable so-called experts in Switzerland have a say over how children in America should be raised, educated and disciplined -- that is an erosion of American sovereignty,' said Steven Groves, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank."

In other words,

"Whether you ground your kids for smoking marijuana, whether you take them to church, whether you let them go to junior prom, all of those things . . . will be the government's decision. It will affect every parent who's told their children to do the dishes."
Boxer and her cronies say that our not signing it leads to further abuses abroad. Not only is that terribly egocentric on her part--thanks to generations of moral relativism weakening our culture of responsibility, duty, and courage, no one looks up to the United States as an example--but flat out wrong. Any country can sign a document opting out of whatever offends their particular sensibilities. For example, Islamofacist countries have opted out of anything that might contradict their Sharia law, which permits the abuse and murder of girls that step outside of their accepted roles (like allowing those who want to learn to read to be attacked with acid).

So, why are they pushing so hard to get this ratified? Transnational progressivism.

So, who are these transnational progressivists, or tranzies? I'm going to quote from an essay added to the end of one of my favorite books by two of my favorite authors: John Ringo and Tom Kratman's Yellow Eyes.

"...suffice to say that Tranzism is the successor ideology to failed and discredited Marxist-Leninism. Many of the most prominent Tranzis are, in fact, "former" members of various communist parties, especially European communist parties. These have taken the failure of the Soviet Union personally and hard, and, brother, are they bitter about it.

...- Chapter 39One of the difficult things about analyzing Tranzis and their works is that they are not a conspiracy. What they are is a consensus. Don't be contemptuous; civilization is nothing more than a consensus. So is barbarism. Moreover, the Tranzis are a fairly cohesive consensus, especially on certain ultimate core issues. Nonetheless, if you are looking for absolute logical consistency on the part of Tranzis you will search in vain.

On the other hand, at the highest level, the ultimate Tranzi goal, there is complete agreement. They want an end to national sovereignty and they want global governance by an unelected, self-chosen 'elite.'"
Sound familiar? International Criminal Court, anyone? "Citizen of the world"?

This is intolerable. And by permitting them an inch, we've made them our rulers. Literally.


  1. I want to throw up.

    Boxer doesn't have the reputation for being the dimmest bulb in the Senate for nothing.

  2. Ditto. Actually, I'm not sure if I want to throw up or go hide out somewhere I can live my life without (much) government interference.

  3. All this hand-wringing and up-chucking, and all these red-herring arguments -- for what? To defend the right of parents to isolate their children from society and to indoctrinate them with silly/hateful/intolerant religious dogma and anti-science propaganda?

    You guys don't even have the guts to use your real names to spout your uninformed opinions and barely disguised racism. (If Heroditus is your real name, please forgive me) If a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members, then the U.S. gets a failing grade and deserves to be in a class alone with Somalia.

    Children have the same basic, inherent rights and freedoms as adults, including the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Freedom OF religion also includes freedom FROM religion, including religious indoctrination.

    Parents do not own their children, and any rights they hold as parents are not absolute but subject to limits. What people like you, and those Christian facists cited in the article are arguing for is the right for parents to abuse their children in anyway they see fit -- intellectually/spiritually/ psychologically/emotionally/physically -- without any oversight or intrusion by the state. Like I said, you're in good company with Somalia, a lawless land without a effectively functioning government.

  4. Perry, I don't use my real name because my opinions could cause the university where I teach part time to decide that they didn't have any classes for me to teach anymore (and then place an ad in my city's paper for adjuncts for the next day).

    I agree: parents should not be allowed to abuse their children. I believe that DFS has a place in society--when it works. It didn't for me, or for my siblings, when my father was beating, emotionally/mentally abusing, and raping us.

    However. That said. I do not abuse my son. I will not allow anyone to abuse my son. That includes individuals force feeding dangerous ideologies to him in the guise of public school lessons.

    It is my job to keep him safe and in one piece until he turns eighteen. That includes monitoring his internet usage when he's old enough to use the computer to make sure he does not view pornographic images, and is not contacted by sexual predators (like his grandfather). That includes monitoring his friends to make sure he does not get into dangerous situations, like gang initiations, like parties with lots of alcohol, like unsafe sex practices.

    I said that children don't inherently have a conscience to violate. If you don't believe that's true, look at the headlines: an 11-year-old boy murdered his father's 8 month pregnant fiance recently, and has shown absolutely that he does not feel any remorse. (And please don't change the subject to gun control. I've addressed that in other posts.) I believe it's my job to instill a conscience in my son, by catching him breaking societal rules and punishing him accordingly. Yes, that does include a light swat on the diaper when he's too young for a time out to work. No, that does not include beating him until he's bruised, with bones broken, and crying that he loves me to get me to stop like Baby Grace in Texas did with her mommy.

    Keeping my son safe and instilling a conscience will violate many of the rights that the U.N. treaty lays out. Privacy. Conscience (which I don't believe they have, at this point). Freedom of action.

    Raising my son, in my opinion, isn't raising a child. It's raising an adult.

    Don't be a bigot. Not all Christians are facists, just as the Left argues that not all Muslims are terrorists. We do not all fit into some stereotype that you feel comfortable sneering at. You should keep an open mind, be tolerant of other viewpoints, and remember that mine is no more wrong than yours.

    Otherwise, you're nothing but the same kind of hypocrite my father, an evangelical minister, was.

  5. You said: "children don't inherently have a conscience to violate" For evidence of that you cite one news story of a child with psychopathic tendancies and extrapolate to all children? Gimme a break.

    You said: "...force feeding dangerous ideologies to him in the guise of public school lessons." Can you give me an example of a dangerous ideology being force fed to students?

    The examples you and the article cite,such as how parents would be unable to monitor their child's internet use under the CRC, are just red-herrings and are simply not true. Those arguments are merely fear-mongering of the chicken-little-the-sky-is-falling variety. Those things do not happen in countries that have ratified the UNCRC. For example, I know of no case in Canada where parents have been unable to monitor and restrict their children's internet use. You are just repeating silly arguments that have no basis in fact.

    You said: "Don't be a bigot. Not all Christians are facists..." I never said all Christians are facists; I was referring to very specific groups mentioned in the article. What's the point of trying to debate with someone who argues like you do? Of course, you are entitled to your opinions, but if you are so afraid that your opinions will get you fired, that begs the inference that it is you who are the bigot.

    Yes, I agree that it is important to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. You don't want me to stereotype you, yet you have stereotyped me as an intolerant bigot, which is very far from the truth.

    You said: "be tolerant of other viewpoints, and remember that mine is no more wrong than yours." Do you really think that all view points are equal, or is that just a sneer on your part? If you are some sort of Christian, which I assume you are, then do you really think that my view point is "no more wrong than yours"? It is one thing to be tolerant of other view points; it is an entirely different matter to say all view points are valid -- they are not! Just one obvious example to illustrate -- young earth creationists believe the earth and all life is less than 10,000 years old. This is an absurd view point. It is not valid. I can tolerate people who believe this, but that doesn't make their view valid.

  6. I cited an extreme case, true, in the case of the 11 year old. Still, were you ever bullied? Children aren't born with a conscience. They have to be taught what right and wrong are.

    "Harmful ideologies" I had in mind include that my son is inherently evil because he's a white, middle class, American male that some extremists try to (and, occasionally, are successful) teach. The best example of that that I can come up with is, yes, in college, but a couple of years ago, the University of Delaware had a very harmful program in its dorms that was very invasive of student privacy, and started with the assumption that the most evil, overpriveledged, and oppressive group in the world were straight, white, middle class, American males.

    I have to remind you: this is not Canada. This is the country I was born in, where I've seen zero tolerance policies eroding common sense for two decades, now (I don't count my first decade because, as a young child, I neither paid attention nor cared about what happened to other people). I do not think that I'd be immediately barred from keeping my child safe. I believe that my ability to make choices to keep my child safe would be slowly eroded by increasingly invasive government decrees--unless I pissed off the wrong person.

    I have begun checking out the Parental Rights group quoted in the article. I have not finished yet, but I can tell you right now that the Heritage Foundation is not a Christian fascist organization that advocates allowing children to be abused in the name of parental rights.

    You're right: I am a Christian. I am not, however, an unthinking believer. I do not blindly follow any particular doctrine of Christianity, nor do I trust any individual's translation or interpretation of God's word to Man. Nor do I believe in a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible without the backup of real facts--as the "young earth" idiots do. I believe that much of the bible is metaphor, which most--both fundamentalists and not--simply do not understand.

    I spent most of my life with those around me telling me I must believe this or that, and forcing their own beliefs down my throat without allowing me to study, to think, and to decide for myself what I should believe to tolerate those who do it to their children. In point of fact, I believe that could also be construed as a dangerous ideology.

    I will admit to the sneer. However, I have far too many friends that do believe that all opinions, beliefs, and cultures are equally valid (with the exception of our own) to think that it's an exaggeration. However, I apologize for assuming that your moral relativism had no logical thought behind it. I do not know you, and have not known you for years as I have those friends.

    And lastly, no, I'm not stereotyping my employers. They've fired (in the case of adjuncts) and/or chased off (in the case of tenured individuals) more than one instructor in the English department whose views they did not like.

    A bigot hates stereotyped groups without thinking about what they hate, why they hate it, or even examining their assumptions to see if the stereotypes are valid. I'm not that. I've studied different points of view for years, through literature, political speech, political writing, and through interaction. And through that, I've come to the decision that I do not like transnational progressivism, leftist ideology, moral relativism, or any combination of the above, any more than I like radicals of any stripe.

    I am neither Democrat nor Republican. I am not a Libertarian. I am not an anarchist. What I am is an individualist. I believe that the Founding Fathers were correct in their assumption that a too-powerful government would take rights from the people, and would do anything possible to protect the power it had, and gather more power unto itself.

    I believe our government, here, now, has become our Founding Fathers' nightmare.

    And I believe that this treaty is nothing more than an attempt by that government to gather more power over the lives of its citizens unto itself.


Sorry, folks. A hundred plus spam comments in an hour equals moderation on older posts, so until further're gonna have to wait for your comments to be approved before they show up.