UN treaty, US children
I, too, want to thank Congressman Kevin McCarthy for co-sponsoring H.J. Res. 42, the Parents' Rights Constitutional Amendment, which opposes the international child-protection treaty known as the United Nations' Convention on Children's Rights.
This proposed amendment addresses two essential concerns: first, good families, not government, have the most essential and fundamental right to make child rearing and educational decisions for their children; and secondly, the U.S. Constitution must remain the supreme law of our country in parent-child relations.
It is difficult to see what would motivate opposition to this amendment, unless that motivation is patently twofold: First, by the belief that children are essentially property of the state; and secondly, by the belief that a single worldwide government is intrinsically superior and preferable to a world of individual sovereign states.
But readers ought to recall the warnings raised by the secular prophets of the mid-20th century, Aldous Huxley and George Orwell. Both saw clearly how totalitarian powers sought the disintegration of the traditional family. They recognized that deconstructing the family was a strategy intrinsic to total societal control by the state.
Let the readers, then, remember these prophetic lessons, stand alerted and support our elected representatives who see the issues clearly. We must recognize that the erosion of parental rights and family integrity removes a vital layer of protection from a government that increasingly views its citizens as its property. The Parental Rights Amendment keeps that protection in place.
RANDY MARTIN
Bakersfield
