Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old February 9th, 2009 #1
MikeTodd
Pussy BŁnd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
MikeTodd
Default Jews Drive Wedge between White Parents and Children

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
Expert: Pact would ban spankings, homeschooling if children object
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=87929

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 05, 2009
12:00 am Eastern


By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families' religion is on America's doorstep, a legal expert warns.

Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He told WND that under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child's best interest.

"It's definitely on our doorstep," he said. "The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we're stuck with it even if they lose the next election."

The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there's been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law.

Although signed by Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Feb. 16, 1995, the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives' efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents.

The international treaty creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that "the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." While the treaty states that parents or legal guardians "have primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child," Farris said government will ultimately determine whether parents' decisions are in their children's best interest. The treaty is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has enforcement powers.

According to the Parental Rights website, the substance of the CRC dictates the following:

Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
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.
Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
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.
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.
According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.
Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
(Story continues below)




"Where the child has a right fulfilled by the government, the responsibilities shift from parents to the government," Farris said. "The implications of all this shifting of responsibilities is that parents no longer have the traditional roles of either being responsible for their children or having the right to direct their children."


Michael Farris


The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children's lives.

"If you think your child shouldn't go to the prom because their grades were low, the U.N. Convention gives that power to the government to review your decision and decide if it thinks that's what's best for your child," he said. "If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child."

He continued, "If you think your child should go to church three times a week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the frequency of church attendance."

He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for implementation of the policies.

Farris said it could be easier for President Obama to push for ratification of the treaty than it was for the Clinton administration because "the political world has changed."

At a Walden University presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action.

"It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land," Obama said. "I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a strong supporter of the CRC, and she now has direct control over the treaty's submission to the Senate for ratification. The process requires a two-thirds vote.

Farris said Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., claimed in a private meeting just before Christmas that the treaty would be ratified within two years.

In November, a group of three dozen senior foreign policy figures urged Obama to strengthen U.S. relations with the U.N. Among other things, they asked the president to push for Senate approval of treaties that have been signed by the U.S. but not ratified.

Partnership for a Secure America Director Matthew Rojansky helped draft the statement. He said the treaty commands strong support and is likely to be acted on quickly, according to an Inter Press Service report.

While he said ratification is certain to come up, Farris said advocates of the treaty will face fierce opposition.

"I think it is going to be the battle of their lifetime," he said. "There's not enough political capital in Washington, D.C., to pass this treaty. We will defeat it."
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old February 9th, 2009 #2
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Larry Heinberg
Default

Well at least the "spanking" part sounds reasonable to me. Corporal punishment is demonstrably ineffective after all.

Obviously there should be some checks on parental control. Tricky balancing act though...
 
Old February 9th, 2009 #3
MikeTodd
Pussy BŁnd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
MikeTodd
Default

Geezus, Larry!
You missed the entire fucking point here!
My gawd, you are a bonehead!
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old February 10th, 2009 #4
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Larry Heinberg
Default

...............
 
Old May 5th, 2009 #5
Amy Moore
Kikenverminologist
 
Amy Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: In a house
Posts: 563
Blog Entries: 1
Amy Moore
Default

Quote:
The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children's lives.

"If you think your child shouldn't go to the prom because their grades were low, the U.N. Convention gives that power to the government to review your decision and decide if it thinks that's what's best for your child," he said. "If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child."

He continued, "If you think your child should go to church three times a week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the frequency of church attendance."

He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for implementation of the policies.
Wow, I am sure CPS would just love this. Not that they need any laws in order to split families and kidnap children. The ramifications of a law like this against white families is huge. I, as the parent, should be able to choose whether my children can have an account on any website, get spanked, get home schooled, go to church or need an appropriate punishment for their misdeeds.
__________________
Boudicca 60 AD-I am fighting as an ordinary person for my lost freedom,my bruised body and my outraged daughters.Consider how many of you are fighting and why!Then you will win this battle, or perish.
 
Old September 12th, 2015 #6
John Evans
Christian Anti-Semite
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Kikesville, Hymietown
Posts: 243
John Evans
Default

The sight of any kike makes me want to puke, and that includes their filthy jew brats. Kike brats are the worst behaved of any kids. Just go to any playground or school yard where there's a bunch of kike brats and you'll see what I mean. The filthy kikelings are all running around like crazy, pushing and shoving and yelling at the top of their lungs. Compared to the jew brats, nigger kids behave like little angels. At least they do what they're told when a teacher tells them that play time is over and they have to go back to their classrooms. The jew bastard kids pay absolutely no attention to any adult. They just do what they want.

Kike parents spoil their brats. The little darlings get goodies and shit from the day they're born. No wonder little jew bitches are called JAPs -- jewish american princesses. They act like their shit don't stink. They're told they are better than any gentile, and that the jew's destiny is to rule the world and make slaves out of all the gentiles. So they start early with that superior attitude that all the kikes have.

Jew boys are no better than jew girls when it comes to bad behavior. They're running around with their hair down around their ears, and those stupid caps (yamikas?) that they wear on their heads. They're laughing all the time, and you never know what they're laughing about because they talk that supid jew lingo. And their clothes are filthy, all stained and smelly. Just like their mommies and daddies.

Hitler was right, all the jews have to be exterminated, not just the adults but the brats too. You can't cut down the trees and leave the seeds behind. The seeds just grow up and pose the same danger as the bigger trees that spawned them. All the kike bastards have to go if there is ever going to be any peace and beauty in the world.
__________________
No jews, no problems.

Never trust a jew.
 
Old June 23rd, 2016 #7
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,902
Robbie Key
Default

Jew-run Disney teaches contempt for dads


By Naomi Schaefer Riley June 14, 2016 | 8:53pm

“Every 3.24 minutes, a dad acts like a buffoon.”

That’s the conclusion of a small study done by a student at Brigham Young University after watching eight hours of the two most popular Disney “tween” shows featuring families. The results of the research — “Daddies or Dummies?” — are not particularly surprising.

Are “Good Luck Charlie” and “Girl Meets World” any different from previous sitcoms like “Roseanne” or “Home Improvement”? A 2001 study by Erica Scharrer in the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media found that the number of times a mother told a joke at the father’s expense increased from 1.80 times per episode in the 1950s to 4.29 times per episode in 1990.

But what’s interesting about the new research is that the author, Savannah Keenan, also looked at the reaction of the children on screen to their fathers’ displays of cluelessness. At least half the time, children reacted “negatively” to these displays — by rolling their eyes, making fun of Dad, criticizing him, walking away while he’s talking or otherwise expressing their annoyance.

This behavior, especially on Disney shows, has become the norm to such a degree that parents regularly tell me they don’t allow their children to watch the channel. There’s no sex or violence — but there’s only so many times they want their children to watch their counterparts on screen ignore, insult or pretend to humor their parents for laughs.

We should probably be most concerned when dads are the butt of the joke. Decades ago, when the place of men in the family and in the work world was clear, the use of comedy to make the powerful powerless was understandable and helped lighten the mood by humanizing the authority figure.

Sure, kids tried to put one over on their fathers and sometimes they got away with it. But there was a sense that a father’s authority was something you had to work to get around. And that doing so came with real consequences.

Whether you were the teenage girl trying to sneak out on a date with the wrong boy or you were a kid who got caught breaking a vase when you were playing ball in the house and then lying about it, it was Dad’s rules and Dad’s wrath that you feared the most.

Today’s sitcoms, by contrast, often show dads trying to act like mothers have traditionally — and failing miserably. In an episode of “Black-ish,” the mother and father learn that they haven’t been saving as much money as they should have. The father, played by Anthony Anderson, was supposed to be in charge of the finances.

Not only does he prove to be an incompetent money manager, his wife, played by Tracee Ellis Ross, also says that if he doesn’t get his act together, then he’s going to have to start dealing with the children’s lives more — taking them to doctor appointments, worrying about their schedules, etc. — a fate he seems to fear more than death.

Not only has Anderson failed in his traditionally male role, but the assumption is that he would be a total disaster performing his wife’s duties.

He comes off looking like an idiot, and his wife — even though she acknowledges that she doesn’t like to do the family budgeting — looks like superwoman. She’s an Ivy League-educated surgeon running a house with four kids. All she wanted was her husband to be putting aside money for college, and he couldn’t even manage that.


Maybe the problem isn’t simply that men are portrayed as bumbling. Women in popular culture — and also in journalism — are portrayed as the people who can do it all. They’re showing how it’s possible to juggle careers and children, all without missing a beat. Can you imagine a popular comedy in which a woman really is falling down on the job?

The sitcom “Mom” offers viewers this contrast. Allison Janney is the aging recovering addict, a mother who did everything possible to screw up her daughter’s life. But the daughter is managing to raise children of her own, hold down a job, keep her mother’s predilections in check and even date occasionally. She’s got this all covered.

In a recent episode of “Girl Meets World,” the father, Cory, played by Ben Savage, tells his daughter and her friend that a fight between Superman and Batman wouldn’t be fair because one has superpowers and the other one doesn’t. His wife, Topanga, played by Danielle Fishel, gives the punch line: “Sort of like when you and I fight.”

The question is if women are really superwomen, how are men supposed to be anything but buffoons?

http://nypost.com/2016/06/14/how-dis...empt-for-dads/
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:56 AM.
Page generated in 0.14086 seconds.