UNCRC Assault on Parental Rights to Be Expedited

look_and_ask_the_child1 Photo by jdl_deleon

Every parent needs to hear about the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and then tell everyone they can.  This threat to state sovereignty and parental rights is only a vote away from ratification in the United States.

Be Educated!  Senate ratification of the UNCRC would be the death knell for Parental Rights as we know them.  We can’t let the opposition redefine and overturn state parental rights laws simply because we are too ignorant to protest.

Go Fight Win!

–Beetle Blogger

From ParentalRights.org: State Department to Expedite the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child


After Ambassador Susan Rice’s inability to make an “iron-clad commitment” for immediate ratification, Boxer will ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for U.S.support of the UNCRC.

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which opponents say could destroy American sovereignty by imposing international rulings on American law, could reach the Senate within 60 days. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) says she wants a 60-day timeframe for the State Department to complete its review so the Senate can move toward ratification of the UNCRC. During the Senate Confirmation hearing between Boxer and UN Ambassador-designate Susan Rice held on January 15, 2009, Boxer told Rice the UNCRC would protect “the most vulnerable people of society.”

Opponents vehemently disagree. Under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI) of the U.S. Constitution, ratified treaties preempt state law. Since virtually all laws in the U.S. regarding children are state laws, this treaty would negate nearly 100% of existing American family law. Moreover, it would grant the government authority to override parental decisions by applying even to good parents a standard now only used against those convicted of abuse or neglect.

In the hearing, Rice promised to review the treaty but noted “challenges of domestic implementation.” Rice also resisted a strict timeframe: “I don’t have a sense of how long it will take us, in light of the many different things on our plate,” she said.

Calling it a “complicated treaty,” Rice expressed her commitment to the treaty’s objectives, but when Rice concluded that she could not meet the Senator’s strict timeframe, Boxer said they would take it up with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Sign the petition:  http://www.parentalrights.org/join-the-fight.

Kids as Pawns in the Gay Agenda

by Pink Sherbet Photography

Photo by Pink Sherbet Photography

California Actively Promotes Gay Adoption Agenda at the Expense of Children

What is California doing handing children out as legitimacy prizes for gay agenda promos?  Shouldn’t they be more concerned with giving children a chance at being a part of real families?

Gender matters in child raising.  Homes with single parents or same-sex parents are not equipped to give a child the same things homes with a loving mother and father could.

The American College of Pediatricians says that homosexual parenting is sadly less than ideal for children:

“The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development,” the college states in a position statement about homosexual parenting posted in the “Position Statements” section of its website, acpeds.org.

“Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation,” it says. “This position is rooted in the best available science.”

The American College of Pediatricians’ position statement references the many studies that have found that children thrive best in families with a married mother and father.

So, if there’s no equal substitute for a real family, why are we giving children away to gay couples?  And why is California pushing the issue and giving money it doesn’t have to promote the gay agenda?

Bankrupt California buys ads for ‘gay’ adoptions


SACRAMENTO – Facing a $42 billion deficit and a state debt that grows by $28,000 every minute, California has managed to find enough room in its budget to sponsor an elaborate statewide campaign to promote homosexual adoption.

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation has partnered with the California Department of Social Services and the Los Angeles County to promote a “Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Family” campaign that invites homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals to adopt children.

According to a Campaign for Children and Families report, the state has sponsored two billboards promoting “gay” adoption in West Hollywood and Alameda County.

In April 2007, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed John Wagner as director of the Department of Social Services. Wagner is openly “gay” and is an advisory member of the Human Rights Campaign.

Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, a California pro-family organization, released a statement saying the state has no business sponsoring the campaign when it has decided to issue taxpayers IOUs in place of their annual returns.

“At a time when the state doesn’t have enough money to provide hard-working people with their tax refunds, it’s a shame that state and county funds are being wasted on this propaganda,” he said.

The Campaign for Children and Families cited a 2001 University of Southern California “study of studies” on raising children in same-sex families titled, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” The campaign includes the following discoveries by sociology professors Judith Stacey and Timothy Blibarz on its website:

  • A significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers say they have experienced sexual intimacy with a partner of the same sex. They were not, however, statistically more likely to identify themselves as gay or lesbian.
  • Young girls raised by lesbians are more likely to be sexually adventurous and active than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. However the sons of lesbians exhibit “an opposite pattern” and are likely to be less adventurous and active than boys raised by heterosexual households.
  • Lesbian mothers reported that their children behave in ways that do not conform to “sex-typed cultural norms.” And the sons of lesbians are reportedly less likely to behave in traditionally masculine ways than those raised by heterosexual couples.

Thomasson said children are more likely to experience healthy childhoods when they are raised by loving heterosexual parents.

“When the facts confirm that children do best with a married father and mother, there is no reason other than selfishness for anyone to advocate placing vulnerable children into these sexually confused and sexually charged environments.”

Kids deserve a home with a mom and a dad and a chance at normalcy.  Children are not prizes or pawns in to be used in pushing the gay agenda on society, so why is our government exposing children to social experimentation?

–Beetle Blogger

Teachers’ Union Ignored Members in Making Prop 8 Donation


photo by iboy_daniel

Teachers’ Union, Members At Odds On Prop. 8

As everyone endlessly debates the in-kind donations offered by the LDS church during proposition 8, isn’t it interesting that hardly a peep has been mentioned about the actual cash donations made by the California Teacher’s Union totaling more than five times that amount, not in “in-kind” donations but actual hard cash.

Whose cash?  Teachers’ cash!  Money previously earmarked for encouraging much needed class size reduction. NPR reports:

“….the Mormon church said this week its support consisted of in-kind donations of about $190,000.

On the other side of the debate, the California Teachers Association drew fire for its decision to help finance the opposition to Proposition 8 with $1.25 million of its members’ money.”

During the same-sex marriage conflict, the state’s teachers union put up 1,250,000.00 to advocate for gay marriage.  That is a significant sum, by far one of the highest donations made by an organization.

But what do the teachers think?

According to an NPR analysis of Proposition 8 contribution data recently released by the California secretary of state, individual public school teachers in the state were giving more money to enact the ban than to defeat it!

So, on an issue that has very little, if anything to do with education, the question has to be asked, “Why did the union cheat its teachers to spend their war chest on an issue it’s members were obviously against?”

Advocacy Outside Education

“It was frustrating,” says Fred Vanderhoof, a sixth-grade teacher who has taught at Nelson Elementary in Pinedale, Calif., for the past 20 years. “But I was not surprised, because they’ve had a liberal agenda for a couple of decades.”

Vanderhoof, who does not belong to the union, gave $650 to support the gay marriage ban. To him, it is unremarkable that teachers gave more money in favor of the ban than against it.

“I think that as public school teachers, we are with these young people every day and we see the problems that they have — not understanding their sexual identity and their sexual roles, male and female.” Gay marriage, he says, “is one more thing happening that is not going to help them. I think we teachers see that.”

Proposition 8 is a social issue, not a classroom issue.  How could “gay marriage” be more important to teachers who are desperately advocating for smaller class sizes and job security during a time of extreme budget cuts and downsizing during this period of economic turmoil.  In this time of educational crisis, what was the CTA thinking?

Mike Antonucci, a teachers union watchdog and blogger, says union leaders tend to be more liberal than the rank-and-file they represent.

A few years ago, he produced a report about the nation’s largest teachers union, the National Education Association. He wrote that the group’s own surveys of its members’ opinions demonstrate “how an organization of 2.7 million members of widely divergent political and social views can end up championing a narrowly liberal worldview.”

Antonucci says, “As I understand it, there’s a very powerful gay and lesbian caucus” within CTA’s policymaking council.

Union spokeswoman Jackson rejects the argument that the union’s leaders lean further to the left than its typical members do.

“I think the CTA does represent the majority of its members,” she says. “I don’t believe that the overall membership is more conservative than the leadership. If so, I think we would hear about it.”

Jackson says the union heard from many more members who supported the group’s position than from those who opposed it.

Perhaps CTA’s ears are not open.  What else could be the explanation for the large amount of personal donations from CTA members FOR prop 8? If the California Teachers Union truly supported its members, these numbers would be a shocking wake-up call for policy makers inside the union.

Instead, it is a shocking wake-up call to the teachers who think CTA has their interests in mind.

—Beetle Blogger