Conservative thought put into action!
Our Families are under attack!! Satan is going after the strongest of God's institutions, and we need to fight back!
Posted by Tom 2 the Right • Wednesday, 2009-January-14
It has come to my attention in the past two days that both the US and the UN are taking upon themselves the role of Children and Family protectors. Something that God appointed the Church, the husband, and the wife to do. Below are tow different blogs from mine and others Facebook pages.
Have you ever bought a children's toy, or article of clothing, or book from a second hand store, reseller, or ebay? Sure you have. You've probably sold some items too. Upon purchasing or selling the item did you worry about having to pay massive fines or even going to jail to do so? You had better think about that now!!
The most recent exercise in neo-socialism is set to start in February of this year! It is called the Consumer Product and Safety Improvement ACT (CSPIA). In short it is a law that will force manufacturers and sellers of childrens products to pay exorbitant fees for testing the products before selling them. Resellers such as Once Upon a Child and the like aren't required by the new law to test the products they currently have on their shelves. Don't get to excited about that, because though the law does not require them to test the products, it does hold them criminally liable if they sell one. So obviously the best course of action to avoid huge fines and jail times is to pay for the testing which can cost upwards of $4000.00. So that cute slightly used baby swing that would cost you $20 in the consignment shop will now cost you $4020.00 in the name of the government trying to protect your children from their toys!!
Not only will this Act force several resellers and local merchants out of business, but it will drive toy and product prices up as the manufacturers will also have to compensate for the testing fees imposed on them. And you thought you spent too much on Christmas this year. Fortunately, the government has issued a statement clarifying the laws, and encouraging resellers specifically to avoid certain types of products. What a list!!! It basically eliminates every product in the shop.
If the government was so concerned with the protection of my family they wouldn't be try to remove my 2nd Amendment right of keeping and bearing arms. We don't want any child to die by choking on a dolly's eyeball, at least not the ones that survive abortion anyway. Instead they are going to "address" the economy by instituting more fees and regulations, and force prices up in a market that is recession proof....childrens products.
If you would like to read the release from CSPS it is found at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html
I wonder if there will be a "Childrens Products Resellers Bailout". And the UN is doing its part as well...
The Washington Times
January 11, 2009
Washington Times Op-ed—U.N. Treaty Might Weaken Families
by J. Michael Smith
HSLDA President
One of the issues American families could face this year is the ramifications from a treaty called the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
You may ask, “How could a treaty directly affect internal decision-making by American families?” We generally think of treaties as agreements affecting international relations between countries. The U.N., however, has initiated treaties that not only affect international relations, but also the domestic relations of member nations as well. These treaties, sometimes called “conventions,” require member nations that ratify the treaty to implement the requirements as binding law or rules.
On Nov. 20, 1989, the U.N. adopted the CRC and submitted it for ratification to the member nations. It has been ratified by 193 nations—the United States is one of the few countries that has not ratified it.
The ratification process requires a two-thirds vote by the U.S. Senate. On Feb. 16, 1995, Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., signed the CRC on behalf of the United States. The CRC, however, has never been sent to the Senate for ratification because there is insufficient support to pass it.
Due to the recent election, however, there are rumblings from Capitol Hill that there will be an effort to seek ratification of the CRC during the next congressional cycle. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a strong supporter of the treaty, and as secretary of state, would have direct control over the submission of treaties to the Senate.
Why should passage of the CRC be of concern? It likely would have a negative impact on domestic law and practice in the United States. Article VI of our Constitution makes treaties—and remember, conventions are viewed as treaties—“the supreme law of the land.” The CRC would be treated as superior to laws in every state regarding the parent-child relationship. This would include issues regarding education, health care, family discipline, the child’s role in family decision-making, and a host of other subjects.
Article 43 of the CRC establishes an international committee on the rights of the child to examine compliance by member nations. This committee, which sits in Geneva, has final authority concerning interpretation of the language contained in the CRC.
Two central principles of the CRC clearly are contrary to current U.S. laws related to parent-child relationships. The CRC provides that in all matters relating to children, whether private or public, or in courts, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. Additionally, nations should ensure that children are capable of expressing their views freely in all matters affecting them, giving due weight to the age and maturity of the child.
This is contrary to traditional American law, which provides that absent proof of harm, courts and social workers simply do not have the authority to intervene in parent-child relationships and decision-making. The importance of this tradition and practice is that the government may not substitute its judgment for that of the parent until there is proof of harm to the child sufficient to justify governmental intervention. It is clear that in two very important areas of the parent-child relationship, religion and education, there will be potential for tremendous conflict.
The international committee in Geneva, in reviewing the laws of practice of countries that have ratified the CRC, has expressed its concern that parents could homeschool without the view of the child being considered; that parents could remove their children from sex-education classes without the view of the child being considered; that parents were legally permitted to use corporal punishment; and that children didn’t have access to reproductive health information without parental knowledge.
The bottom line is the CRC would drastically weaken the United States’ sovereignty over family life, which would have a substantial impact on every American family. For more information on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, visit www.parentalrights.org/learn.
The original article.
Have you ever bought a children's toy, or article of clothing, or book from a second hand store, reseller, or ebay? Sure you have. You've probably sold some items too. Upon purchasing or selling the item did you worry about having to pay massive fines or even going to jail to do so? You had better think about that now!!
The most recent exercise in neo-socialism is set to start in February of this year! It is called the Consumer Product and Safety Improvement ACT (CSPIA). In short it is a law that will force manufacturers and sellers of childrens products to pay exorbitant fees for testing the products before selling them. Resellers such as Once Upon a Child and the like aren't required by the new law to test the products they currently have on their shelves. Don't get to excited about that, because though the law does not require them to test the products, it does hold them criminally liable if they sell one. So obviously the best course of action to avoid huge fines and jail times is to pay for the testing which can cost upwards of $4000.00. So that cute slightly used baby swing that would cost you $20 in the consignment shop will now cost you $4020.00 in the name of the government trying to protect your children from their toys!!
Not only will this Act force several resellers and local merchants out of business, but it will drive toy and product prices up as the manufacturers will also have to compensate for the testing fees imposed on them. And you thought you spent too much on Christmas this year. Fortunately, the government has issued a statement clarifying the laws, and encouraging resellers specifically to avoid certain types of products. What a list!!! It basically eliminates every product in the shop.
If the government was so concerned with the protection of my family they wouldn't be try to remove my 2nd Amendment right of keeping and bearing arms. We don't want any child to die by choking on a dolly's eyeball, at least not the ones that survive abortion anyway. Instead they are going to "address" the economy by instituting more fees and regulations, and force prices up in a market that is recession proof....childrens products.
If you would like to read the release from CSPS it is found at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html
I wonder if there will be a "Childrens Products Resellers Bailout". And the UN is doing its part as well...
The Washington Times
January 11, 2009
Washington Times Op-ed—U.N. Treaty Might Weaken Families
by J. Michael Smith
HSLDA President
One of the issues American families could face this year is the ramifications from a treaty called the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
You may ask, “How could a treaty directly affect internal decision-making by American families?” We generally think of treaties as agreements affecting international relations between countries. The U.N., however, has initiated treaties that not only affect international relations, but also the domestic relations of member nations as well. These treaties, sometimes called “conventions,” require member nations that ratify the treaty to implement the requirements as binding law or rules.
On Nov. 20, 1989, the U.N. adopted the CRC and submitted it for ratification to the member nations. It has been ratified by 193 nations—the United States is one of the few countries that has not ratified it.
The ratification process requires a two-thirds vote by the U.S. Senate. On Feb. 16, 1995, Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., signed the CRC on behalf of the United States. The CRC, however, has never been sent to the Senate for ratification because there is insufficient support to pass it.
Due to the recent election, however, there are rumblings from Capitol Hill that there will be an effort to seek ratification of the CRC during the next congressional cycle. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a strong supporter of the treaty, and as secretary of state, would have direct control over the submission of treaties to the Senate.
Why should passage of the CRC be of concern? It likely would have a negative impact on domestic law and practice in the United States. Article VI of our Constitution makes treaties—and remember, conventions are viewed as treaties—“the supreme law of the land.” The CRC would be treated as superior to laws in every state regarding the parent-child relationship. This would include issues regarding education, health care, family discipline, the child’s role in family decision-making, and a host of other subjects.
Article 43 of the CRC establishes an international committee on the rights of the child to examine compliance by member nations. This committee, which sits in Geneva, has final authority concerning interpretation of the language contained in the CRC.
Two central principles of the CRC clearly are contrary to current U.S. laws related to parent-child relationships. The CRC provides that in all matters relating to children, whether private or public, or in courts, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. Additionally, nations should ensure that children are capable of expressing their views freely in all matters affecting them, giving due weight to the age and maturity of the child.
This is contrary to traditional American law, which provides that absent proof of harm, courts and social workers simply do not have the authority to intervene in parent-child relationships and decision-making. The importance of this tradition and practice is that the government may not substitute its judgment for that of the parent until there is proof of harm to the child sufficient to justify governmental intervention. It is clear that in two very important areas of the parent-child relationship, religion and education, there will be potential for tremendous conflict.
The international committee in Geneva, in reviewing the laws of practice of countries that have ratified the CRC, has expressed its concern that parents could homeschool without the view of the child being considered; that parents could remove their children from sex-education classes without the view of the child being considered; that parents were legally permitted to use corporal punishment; and that children didn’t have access to reproductive health information without parental knowledge.
The bottom line is the CRC would drastically weaken the United States’ sovereignty over family life, which would have a substantial impact on every American family. For more information on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, visit www.parentalrights.org/learn.
The original article.
Post reply
Archive