Re: Parental rights

[Guest guest]

I wish you would elucidate, Carol, on how the PRA is both bipartisan

and relevant to this forum on traditional foods. Truly, I cannot

understand how you would interpret such a proposed constitutional

amendment stemming from the Christian political right as such. Please

remember that this list is about healthy foods, not a vehicle for

promoting a far-right agenda using ridiculous scare tactics. I do

think it would be sage to remember that there are a variety of

religious and political viewpoints in this world and, if you truly

want to promote traditional foods, your perspective does not

monopolize the varied and wide-reaching arena of nutrition in any way,

be it culturally, morally, or intellectually.

[Guest guest]

The whole-food, sustainable, organic, nutrient-dense, buy-local,

small-family-farm has made for strange bedfellows. Personally, I'd

rather not spend time side-by-side with Christian-haters, or those who

use a platform to raise hackles, shaking fingers at the so-called

" political right " . If it weren't for Christians in the Slow Food

movement, you wouldn't have a Slow Food, WAPF/NT movement. In fact,

I'm trying to picture most farmers living without a knowledge of

Providence. So how about we keep the vitriolic right-wing crap to a

minimum and think, rather than spew hatred......

If we as parents lose our rights to parent, try to imagine the issues

in a family where the parents believe raw milk, or whole-food are

appropriate in their child's diet, and the child determines it isn't?

Mayhem. My son, who battles Autism, would liked to have turned me

in any number of times when I didn't give him " choices " that he'd been

told, at the gov't run school, that he " deserved " to have. I gave

him a choice, either he could eat the made-from-scratch, NT/WAPF food

I gave him, or go to his room and go to bed early.

Lose your parental rights? Won't be long before someone is accusing

you - maybe your child - of trying to " poison " them, violating their

" right " to choose their own food and you can just sit there silent,

watching them drink their, " you have to give it to me because I have

rights " milk - maybe chocolate, pastuerized, homogenized, HFCS-laden

milk..........Yum.

Sharon, NH

>

>

> I wish you would elucidate, Carol, on how the PRA is both bipartisan

> and relevant to this forum on traditional foods. Truly, I cannot

> understand how you would interpret such a proposed constitutional

> amendment stemming from the Christian political right as such. Please

> remember that this list is about healthy foods, not a vehicle for

> promoting a far-right agenda using ridiculous scare tactics. I do

> think it would be sage to remember that there are a variety of

> religious and political viewpoints in this world and, if you truly

> want to promote traditional foods, your perspective does not

> monopolize the varied and wide-reaching arena of nutrition in any way,

> be it culturally, morally, or intellectually.

>

>

--

I just happen to think that in life we need to be a little like the

farmer, who puts back into the soil what he takes out " ~ Newman

Deut 11:15 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you

will have plenty to eat.

Check out my blog - www.ericsons.net - Food for the Body and Soul

[Guest guest]

I am not Carol, but would like to say that it may seem that this has nothing to

do with trad food, on the other hand it is an issue that concerns all of us. No,

it is NOT a religious thing! It is about freedom, which then in a roundabout way

could have to do with trad food. The UN Convention on the Rights of a Child

treaty, if ratified, will take precedence over the US Constitution! That means

that the government can ultimately decide what is best for your child. How your

child is schooled, which belief you think is best for your child, etc. If

someone strongly disagrees with the fact that you feed your child raw milk and

believes that that will endanger your child they could take you to court and

somebody else then decides what you have to do.....this is not about left -

right wing or anything. It is about control, and if any government is allowed to

tell you what you can and can not choose for your child - they will and it may

not be in your best

interest. The group that is trying to have an amendment to the treaty (

amendment because the treaty is very much embraced by this legislation) happens

to be christian, but look beyond that, it concerns all of us - christian or not!

As far as it having to do with this list, well, you would like the freedom to

choose which foods to eat and you would like to choose the freedom to choose

whether or not to drink and use raw milk etc. the underpinnings of it all are

freedom of choice....isn't that what America is all about? I am from Germany, we

had flee Germany because we are homeschooling and it is not legal there and that

is why they wanted to take our parental rights. If any government is given

certain rights they will exercise them.

a

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/sojourner00

________________________________

To: trad-foods-MN

Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2009 8:16:35 AM

Subject: Re: Parental rights

I wish you would elucidate, Carol, on how the PRA is both bipartisan

and relevant to this forum on traditional foods. Truly, I cannot

understand how you would interpret such a proposed constitutional

amendment stemming from the Christian political right as such. Please

remember that this list is about healthy foods, not a vehicle for

promoting a far-right agenda using ridiculous scare tactics. I do

think it would be sage to remember that there are a variety of

religious and political viewpoints in this world and, if you truly

want to promote traditional foods, your perspective does not

monopolize the varied and wide-reaching arena of nutrition in any way,

be it culturally, morally, or intellectually.

[Guest guest]

I guess to elucidate on why this is relevant to the trad foods forum, the logic

is clear. Trad Foods is a choice, and for those of us who have children, it is

a

parental choice. We are just asking for some parental protection to

make that and other choices for our families. If the we amend our constitution,

the right to choose how we feed our children will be protected. If we do not,

the UN will mandate how we feed our children. If one chooses to eat a trad food

diet, why would one want the UN mandating a diet for ones children? How is that

not related to Trad Foods? Are you telling me that the left is opposed to

freedom of choice? Thereby making this partisan? I'm confused and not

following your logic.

" How would you like a job where, every time you make a mistake, a big red light

goes on and 18,000 people boo? "

~Jacques Plante

To: trad-foods-MN

From: dawsoncsd@...

Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 08:16:35 -0500

Subject: Re: Parental rights

I wish you would elucidate, Carol, on how the PRA is both

bipartisan

and relevant to this forum on traditional foods. Truly, I cannot

understand how you would interpret such a proposed constitutional

amendment stemming from the Christian political right as such. Please

remember that this list is about healthy foods, not a vehicle for

promoting a far-right agenda using ridiculous scare tactics. I do

think it would be sage to remember that there are a variety of

religious and political viewpoints in this world and, if you truly

want to promote traditional foods, your perspective does not

monopolize the varied and wide-reaching arena of nutrition in any way,

be it culturally, morally, or intellectually.

_________________________________________________________________

Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online.

http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:\

en-US:SI_SB_online:082009

[Guest guest]

We have a very clear example of this happening in Minnesota just this year. The

teenage boy with cancer decided that he did not want a second round of chemo was

supported by his parents and sought out alternative treatments, including I

believe Essiac tea. I don't know the final outcome, but the courts forced the

boy to have chemo and mom was prosecuted for child endangerment. Recently some

parents in Wis were also found guilty and sentenced to prison for using

alternative treatments for their child who sadly died (and we " know " that chemo

is " always " successful).

How many trad food people would be in danger of being prosecuted for child

endangerment for feeding their son/daughter just for giving them fresh milk?

Think of the alternatives many on this list also embrace: no annual flu

vaccine, no vaccines, homeschooling, unfloridated water, being in the sun

without sunscreen.... Do you want some bureaucrat making these parenting and

life decisions for you and your family?

Lynn

[Guest guest]

,

Again, my apologies for reacting with defensiveness. I feel that your below

message is also dripping with assault so I will do my best to not react and

attack back.

If the parental rights ammendment is partisan, which I am not convinced it is,

it certainly should be bi-partisan, unless you are telling me the left does not

beleive in parental rights? Is that what you are saying? I had been under the

impression that most americans, the left included, believe in parental rights.

Don't left politicans support it? I was told they do, at least some do that

value parental rights. It is true that the extreme left want a society

completely government controlled, (and the extreme right want control in other

ways that are just as wrong so do not accuse me of attacking anyone here) but

the left in general, I thought, believed parents should make choices for their

children. And again, as I stated, at least half of the names on my petition are

from liberal voters. So truly, I do not understand why you have flown off the

handle with your accusations against me.

I am amused I am not officially teamed up with Farris, even though I

have never met the man, and now we are one in opinion. Yet you state I am

" pretending fallacies " even though this is exactly one of the ways you have

attacked me in your post.

But my reply is not really to defend myself, but to hopefully persuade you and

others that this ammendment is about food, and all other choices a parent SHOULD

have the right to make. I am absolutely confused and bamboozled how this is a

relgious issue. If Muslims want a local food co-op, is the co-op then a

religious cause? Your arguement makes no sense.

The UN convention IS going to pass. It has enormous support and politicians are

under enormous pressure. Once it passes, our rights as parents are gone because

a treaty supersedes all state laws and all our parenting laws are at the state

level. Because in the examples I have already cited about home packed school

lunches, this does effect wholesome food choices, as well as other issues most

of us agree about such as vaccines, and natural health care. I am not aware of

any flaws in the ammendment, but undoubtedly there are flaws as everything

people touch is marked with flaw. But I personally think the higher cause of

letting parents have choices on all issues (including foods)for their children

is more important than a flaw in the legislation.

I would like to challenge you that perhaps your personal view of Mike Farris, or

the right, or something, has scewed your understanding of the necessity of this

ammendment. Without it, you can kiss any parenting freedoms you have goodbye,

and certainly for your kids kids.

Also, I would like to say that constitutionalists are not on the right side of

the spectrum. Rather, they are completely OFF the spectrum. WHile the left

wants government control, the right wants corporate control, and

constitutionalists only want control when someone or something harms a persons

basic right to exist. So to say constitutionalists are on the right indicated

you do not understand. I encourage you to learn more about the party and what

is really stands for.

Best wishes to you .

Carol f

>

> You all can go on pretending fallacies about me such as I am ignorant

> of the elementary distinctions between the Constitution and Republican

> parties, that I am " dead wrong " , that I hate Christians and teach my

> children accordingly, etc. Fine. I certainly can't change that. I

> do, however, stand by my assertion that the PRA, back in '95 and again

> in '09, garners the vast majority of its support from the religious

> right (and yes, constitutionalists do hold many tenets of the right

> end of the political spectrum). My only purpose in posting originally

> is to point out that the PRA is NOT bipartisan and that there are many

> valid dissenting opinions regarding this topic. The original post

> implied an authority on the topic that was both arrogant and

> misguided. I simply wanted to point out to those who may not be

> familiar with PRA that Carol's and Farris's viewpoint does not

> reflect ultimate truth. Furthermore, let us not forget that the only

> thing we all have in common is our interest in trad. foods. This is a

> deeply divisive religious and political piece of proposed legislation

> with no direct ties to strengthening the availability of or knowledge

> regarding wholesome foods. To promote this amendment blindly without

> considering its flaws, prompting further research, respecting other

> viewpoints, or welcoming logical debate renders void its relevancy to

> this forum.

>

[Guest guest]

,

Again, my apologies for reacting with defensiveness. I feel that your below

message is also dripping with assault so I will do my best to not react and

attack back.

If the parental rights ammendment is partisan, which I am not convinced it is,

it certainly should be bi-partisan, unless you are telling me the left does not

beleive in parental rights? Is that what you are saying? I had been under the

impression that most americans, the left included, believe in parental rights.

Don't left politicans support it? I was told they do, at least some do that

value parental rights. It is true that the extreme left want a society

completely government controlled, (and the extreme right want control in other

ways that are just as wrong so do not accuse me of attacking anyone here) but

the left in general, I thought, believed parents should make choices for their

children. And again, as I stated, at least half of the names on my petition are

from liberal voters. So truly, I do not understand why you have flown off the

handle with your accusations against me.

I am amused I am not officially teamed up with Farris, even though I

have never met the man, and now we are one in opinion. Yet you state I am

" pretending fallacies " even though this is exactly one of the ways you have

attacked me in your post.

But my reply is not really to defend myself, but to hopefully persuade you and

others that this ammendment is about food, and all other choices a parent SHOULD

have the right to make. I am absolutely confused and bamboozled how this is a

relgious issue. If Muslims want a local food co-op, is the co-op then a

religious cause? Your arguement makes no sense.

The UN convention IS going to pass. It has enormous support and politicians are

under enormous pressure. Once it passes, our rights as parents are gone because

a treaty supersedes all state laws and all our parenting laws are at the state

level. Because in the examples I have already cited about home packed school

lunches, this does effect wholesome food choices, as well as other issues most

of us agree about such as vaccines, and natural health care. I am not aware of

any flaws in the ammendment, but undoubtedly there are flaws as everything

people touch is marked with flaw. But I personally think the higher cause of

letting parents have choices on all issues (including foods)for their children

is more important than a flaw in the legislation.

I would like to challenge you that perhaps your personal view of Mike Farris, or

the right, or something, has scewed your understanding of the necessity of this

ammendment. Without it, you can kiss any parenting freedoms you have goodbye,

and certainly for your kids kids.

Also, I would like to say that constitutionalists are not on the right side of

the spectrum. Rather, they are completely OFF the spectrum. WHile the left

wants government control, the right wants corporate control, and

constitutionalists only want control when someone or something harms a persons

basic right to exist. So to say constitutionalists are on the right indicated

you do not understand. I encourage you to learn more about the party and what

is really stands for.

Best wishes to you .

Carol f

>

> You all can go on pretending fallacies about me such as I am ignorant

> of the elementary distinctions between the Constitution and Republican

> parties, that I am " dead wrong " , that I hate Christians and teach my

> children accordingly, etc. Fine. I certainly can't change that. I

> do, however, stand by my assertion that the PRA, back in '95 and again

> in '09, garners the vast majority of its support from the religious

> right (and yes, constitutionalists do hold many tenets of the right

> end of the political spectrum). My only purpose in posting originally

> is to point out that the PRA is NOT bipartisan and that there are many

> valid dissenting opinions regarding this topic. The original post

> implied an authority on the topic that was both arrogant and

> misguided. I simply wanted to point out to those who may not be

> familiar with PRA that Carol's and Farris's viewpoint does not

> reflect ultimate truth. Furthermore, let us not forget that the only

> thing we all have in common is our interest in trad. foods. This is a

> deeply divisive religious and political piece of proposed legislation

> with no direct ties to strengthening the availability of or knowledge

> regarding wholesome foods. To promote this amendment blindly without

> considering its flaws, prompting further research, respecting other

> viewpoints, or welcoming logical debate renders void its relevancy to

> this forum.

>

[Guest guest]

,

Email is such a horrible way to have this conversation. I don't even know you.

I didn't write my response with a tone of defensiveness or nastiness, my

apologies if it came off that way. I also believe that whatever your beliefs

you hold, you have a right to them. I just don't understand where you were

coming from/your logic. The reason I drew a line was so you could see how I

came to my conclusion, I was hoping for response containing how you got to

yours. I like to understand both sides thoroughly. And with new information, I

may change my mind. For the record, I am neither D or R. I have a very

difficult time finding candidates that represent my views. And the label

independent doesn't cut it either because that has too many things associated

with it I don't agree with. So basically, I'm still looking for why you feel

the legislation is not bi-partisan. Not the group behind it.

Thanks,

" How would you like a job where, every time you make a mistake, a big red light

goes on and 18,000 people boo? "

~Jacques Plante

To: trad-foods-MN

From: dawsoncsd@...

Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:09:14 -0500

Subject: Re: Re: Parental rights

You all can go on pretending fallacies about me such as I am

ignorant

of the elementary distinctions between the Constitution and Republican

parties, that I am " dead wrong " , that I hate Christians and teach my

children accordingly, etc. Fine. I certainly can't change that. I

do, however, stand by my assertion that the PRA, back in '95 and again

in '09, garners the vast majority of its support from the religious

right (and yes, constitutionalists do hold many tenets of the right

end of the political spectrum). My only purpose in posting originally

is to point out that the PRA is NOT bipartisan and that there are many

valid dissenting opinions regarding this topic. The original post

implied an authority on the topic that was both arrogant and

misguided. I simply wanted to point out to those who may not be

familiar with PRA that Carol's and Farris's viewpoint does not

reflect ultimate truth. Furthermore, let us not forget that the only

thing we all have in common is our interest in trad. foods. This is a

deeply divisive religious and political piece of proposed legislation

with no direct ties to strengthening the availability of or knowledge

regarding wholesome foods. To promote this amendment blindly without

considering its flaws, prompting further research, respecting other

viewpoints, or welcoming logical debate renders void its relevancy to

this forum.

_________________________________________________________________

With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos.

http://www.windowslive.com/Desktop/PhotoGallery

[Guest guest]

,

Email is such a horrible way to have this conversation. I don't even know you.

I didn't write my response with a tone of defensiveness or nastiness, my

apologies if it came off that way. I also believe that whatever your beliefs

you hold, you have a right to them. I just don't understand where you were

coming from/your logic. The reason I drew a line was so you could see how I

came to my conclusion, I was hoping for response containing how you got to

yours. I like to understand both sides thoroughly. And with new information, I

may change my mind. For the record, I am neither D or R. I have a very

difficult time finding candidates that represent my views. And the label

independent doesn't cut it either because that has too many things associated

with it I don't agree with. So basically, I'm still looking for why you feel

the legislation is not bi-partisan. Not the group behind it.

Thanks,

" How would you like a job where, every time you make a mistake, a big red light

goes on and 18,000 people boo? "

~Jacques Plante

To: trad-foods-MN

From: dawsoncsd@...

Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:09:14 -0500

Subject: Re: Re: Parental rights

You all can go on pretending fallacies about me such as I am

ignorant

of the elementary distinctions between the Constitution and Republican

parties, that I am " dead wrong " , that I hate Christians and teach my

children accordingly, etc. Fine. I certainly can't change that. I

do, however, stand by my assertion that the PRA, back in '95 and again

in '09, garners the vast majority of its support from the religious

right (and yes, constitutionalists do hold many tenets of the right

end of the political spectrum). My only purpose in posting originally

is to point out that the PRA is NOT bipartisan and that there are many

valid dissenting opinions regarding this topic. The original post

implied an authority on the topic that was both arrogant and

misguided. I simply wanted to point out to those who may not be

familiar with PRA that Carol's and Farris's viewpoint does not

reflect ultimate truth. Furthermore, let us not forget that the only

thing we all have in common is our interest in trad. foods. This is a

deeply divisive religious and political piece of proposed legislation

with no direct ties to strengthening the availability of or knowledge

regarding wholesome foods. To promote this amendment blindly without

considering its flaws, prompting further research, respecting other

viewpoints, or welcoming logical debate renders void its relevancy to

this forum.

_________________________________________________________________

With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos.

http://www.windowslive.com/Desktop/PhotoGallery

[Guest guest]

I agree ! If we are too afraid to express our views and fail to educate

ourselves and each other, we don't get anywhere!

I find the exchange rich and stimulating and hope we can continue the

conversation with passion and peace.

Kathy

[Guest guest]

I agree ! If we are too afraid to express our views and fail to educate

ourselves and each other, we don't get anywhere!

I find the exchange rich and stimulating and hope we can continue the

conversation with passion and peace.

Kathy

[Guest guest]

Has anyone actually visited and read the information on the parental rights dot

org website and the United Nations General Comments (1 - 12) from the Committee

on the Rights of the Child? Before you decide to back either of these ideas-

the Amendment or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, be sure to read

each thoroughly. While I support all efforts to keep our food choices for

ourselves and our children free, and I am sure some of the general comments that

are set out in the UNCRC will be used to mandate their view of nutrition or

health prevention (i.e. vaccines), the parental rights website has nothing of

nutritional interests in it. However, the UNCRC does have numerous issues of

parental discipline, especially General Comment #8.

The threat of laws which would limit the right of parents to discipline their

children in a manner inconsistent with the UNCRC and which would appear to force

information given to their children which could be inconsistent with the parents

moral beliefs, seems to be the main focus of the website. The majority of the

UNCRC, which the amendment seeks to keep parents from being forced to accept,

deals with mental and physical treatment of children.

Those that join the movement for the amendment to protect their rights in food

choices for their children (Which I certainly would fight for!) may not realize

they are also supporting an amendment to stop implementation of the rest of the

child rights.

As in all democracies, read ALL the information from the ACTUAL documents,

before signing your name.

Please remember for all of us on this forum, no matter how we achieve freedom,

the Food Freedom movement needs and has room for all of us, regardless of our

other views.

~Jan

[Guest guest]

>

> Has anyone actually visited and read the information on the parental rights

dot org website and the United Nations General Comments (1 - 12) from the

Committee on the Rights of the Child?

Of course not, Jan! America is the land of sound bytes and Faux Noise " Talking

Points, " remember? Our collective attention span is approximately two seconds.

;o)

~Joe

[Guest guest]

No Joe, I do have an attention span of more than 2 seconds, and Yes, I have

read both carefully.

Jan, please understand that one does not choose which to support- the Un

convention OR the parental rights amendment. The point of the parental

rights amendment is to protect the rights of parents for which the UN

convention would take authority.

I can agree with you Jan that on the surface, protecting kids from

physically and mental harm is a good thing. Who wouldn't? But if you think

the wording through, and then look closely at the countries who have adopted

it and see how it is being enforced, we can get a REAL, practical

application of the law, rather than just theoretical.

In previous emails, and outlined on the parental rights web site, there ARE

examples of parents losing rights to choose food for their kids. I do not

want to retype all that information, but yes, the un convention gives full

authority of our children to the UN, including food choices, because that

falls under the physical as you have already pointed out. And again, we

need to look at how this is being used in other countries to get an idea of

how the convention plays out in real life

And part of the wording in the UN convention states all children have a

right to medical care as deemed appropriate by the state. This means

VACCINES! And no I am not trying to scare anyone. Look at how the

convention is applied in other countries. Children have the right to a

vaccine, no matter what their parent says, and the UN has spoken for the

child. Yes, it means forced vaccines, and it IS happening in countries that

have adopted UN convention.

Everyone loves children. And everyone wants the best for kids. And so on

the surface the un convention looks good. But in reality, who should decide

what is best for the child?

Again, I want to state the parental rights amendment does not negate or

prevent the implementation of the un convention. All it does is give

parents an opt out if they choose.

Each person has the right to decide what they believe in, but I want to make

sure people do understand the facts and not be confused by wording of

treaties.

Carol

[Guest guest]

>

> *

> Everyone loves children. And everyone wants the best for kids. And so on

> the surface the un convention looks good. But in reality, who should decide

> what is best for the child?*

>

Um.....no.......agree with you up to this point. NOT everyone " love "

children - not in the way that you or I would define " love " .

The " psychology " and " physical abuse " argument put forth, however, is a red

herring thrown out there to distract and divert.

We don't need a global organization, the UN, dictating one law to one world

for ANY of us. Every government has a responsibility to create and enforce

laws that PROTECT its own people, without the boundaries of its own country.

I don't personally care what they do in other countries unless I'm looking

at it from a perspective of what is down the road for me.

Some of us *waving hand* don't even BELIEVE in the pseudo-science of

psychology, but its language is rife through uber-liberal documents. I

believe we each stand accountable to our God, or god, or gods.......that we

all have a " law " written on our hearts and don't need it dictated by one

entity. Let each community work out its own laws of protection for

themselves.

Sharon, NH

[Guest guest]

this is not private..please take offlist!

>

>

> Carol, I am responding privately because this is getting bizarre. Is your

> skin really that thin that you get offended by everything?

>

> If you actually _read_ my comment, I wasn't even addressing you, let alone

> implying that you and you alone have an attention span of 2 seconds. Please!

> I'm too polite to dress you down in public but I will do it privately if

> need be (and I'm reaching that point if you keep on like you are).

>

> No, I was actually responding facetiously to Jan's comment, out of

> frustration with the political polarization we have in the US. Your very

> first post about parental rights is a classic example of conservative

> hysteria vs liberal cynicism. It just never ends, and it can't when all you

> do is stir the pot with your defensive comments.

>

> And the reason you get " attacked " like you claimed earlier is because you

> have sometimes spouted off opinions that sound like FOX Network " News "

> talking points that have little basis in fact and a lot to do with hysteria.

> It's similar to the way the Left freaks out about global warming. And when

> you post this stuff, some people get on your case to back up your stance

> with some facts, as did.

>

> Joe

>

>

--

Kathy-jo

c.

ebay store: http://stores.ebay.com/Uptown-rags

[Guest guest]

Hi everyone. FYI- I did respond privately to Joe, but publically, my

apologies for coming across defensive. I thought Joe's comment was funny.

:-)

[Guest guest]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:21 PM, bellasol.organics <

bellasol.organics@...> wrote:

> * Has anyone actually visited and read the information on the parental

> rights dot org website and the United Nations General Comments (1 - 12) from

> the Committee on the Rights of the Child?*

>

* *

> *The majority of the UNCRC, which the amendment seeks to keep parents from

> being forced to accept, deals with mental and physical treatment of

> children.

>

> Those that join the movement for the amendment to protect their rights in

> food choices for their children (Which I certainly would fight for!) may not

> realize they are also supporting an amendment to stop implementation of the

> rest of the child rights.*

>

This reply just kept going through my head. The snark-level was

over-the-top....

Do you have children? I do. When you have walked a mile in my shoes,

trying to work with an IEP and a gov't school system, negotiating their

twisted views of " mental and physical treatment " of children, you would

find, as we have, it is very subjective and often a spur-of-the-moment,

making-it-up as they go along. You lack experience. I can say that

because if you did have the experience we've had, of asking that your child

not be fed the crap that is brought in for birthday parties, and are then

told by the teaching staff we are " subjecting " our child to lifelong

self-esteem issues because we're not allowing him to feel " part " of the

group, you would see how twisted and deranged the babble is about " mental

and physical treatment " of children somehow tying in with their " rights " .

My son did not have severe " meltdowns " at home, but he did at school -

without my knowing it. The gov't school RESTRAINED him for 45-minutes EVERY

SINGLE DAY, WITHOUT telling me. If the tables were turned, can you imagine

their reaction if they discovered I was physically restraining him because

he was supposedly " out-of-control " ? My child would have had 'rights'. I

wouldn't. Yet since they deemed it to be necessary that THEY restrain him, I

somehow LOST my parental rights to the information that they were engaging

in this type of wacko treatment of him.

By the way, I remained firm that they not give him junk and crap food, and

feed him ONLY what I sent in. Yo know what happened? They decided it was

in his best interests and his right to occasionally have gum and candy,

violating the IEP. Bottom line, they weren't able to properly discipline

or instruct him, so they had to revert to bribery.

No, he's no longer in school and yes, I homeschool him. And if you want to

have all kinds of other people with their wacko ideas telling you what to

feed your family, and what will or won't psychologically harm them because

heaven-forbid, we not all conform to someone else's image, then you just

keep on going down this one-world silliness......

Sharon, NH

[Guest guest]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:21 PM, bellasol.organics <

bellasol.organics@...> wrote:

> * Has anyone actually visited and read the information on the parental

> rights dot org website and the United Nations General Comments (1 - 12) from

> the Committee on the Rights of the Child?*

>

* *

> *The majority of the UNCRC, which the amendment seeks to keep parents from

> being forced to accept, deals with mental and physical treatment of

> children.

>

> Those that join the movement for the amendment to protect their rights in

> food choices for their children (Which I certainly would fight for!) may not

> realize they are also supporting an amendment to stop implementation of the

> rest of the child rights.*

>

This reply just kept going through my head. The snark-level was

over-the-top....

Do you have children? I do. When you have walked a mile in my shoes,

trying to work with an IEP and a gov't school system, negotiating their

twisted views of " mental and physical treatment " of children, you would

find, as we have, it is very subjective and often a spur-of-the-moment,

making-it-up as they go along. You lack experience. I can say that

because if you did have the experience we've had, of asking that your child

not be fed the crap that is brought in for birthday parties, and are then

told by the teaching staff we are " subjecting " our child to lifelong

self-esteem issues because we're not allowing him to feel " part " of the

group, you would see how twisted and deranged the babble is about " mental

and physical treatment " of children somehow tying in with their " rights " .

My son did not have severe " meltdowns " at home, but he did at school -

without my knowing it. The gov't school RESTRAINED him for 45-minutes EVERY

SINGLE DAY, WITHOUT telling me. If the tables were turned, can you imagine

their reaction if they discovered I was physically restraining him because

he was supposedly " out-of-control " ? My child would have had 'rights'. I

wouldn't. Yet since they deemed it to be necessary that THEY restrain him, I

somehow LOST my parental rights to the information that they were engaging

in this type of wacko treatment of him.

By the way, I remained firm that they not give him junk and crap food, and

feed him ONLY what I sent in. Yo know what happened? They decided it was

in his best interests and his right to occasionally have gum and candy,

violating the IEP. Bottom line, they weren't able to properly discipline

or instruct him, so they had to revert to bribery.

No, he's no longer in school and yes, I homeschool him. And if you want to

have all kinds of other people with their wacko ideas telling you what to

feed your family, and what will or won't psychologically harm them because

heaven-forbid, we not all conform to someone else's image, then you just

keep on going down this one-world silliness......

Sharon, NH

[Guest guest]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:21 PM, bellasol.organics <

bellasol.organics@...> wrote:

> * Has anyone actually visited and read the information on the parental

> rights dot org website and the United Nations General Comments (1 - 12) from

> the Committee on the Rights of the Child?*

>

* *

> *The majority of the UNCRC, which the amendment seeks to keep parents from

> being forced to accept, deals with mental and physical treatment of

> children.

>

> Those that join the movement for the amendment to protect their rights in

> food choices for their children (Which I certainly would fight for!) may not

> realize they are also supporting an amendment to stop implementation of the

> rest of the child rights.*

>

This reply just kept going through my head. The snark-level was

over-the-top....

Do you have children? I do. When you have walked a mile in my shoes,

trying to work with an IEP and a gov't school system, negotiating their

twisted views of " mental and physical treatment " of children, you would

find, as we have, it is very subjective and often a spur-of-the-moment,

making-it-up as they go along. You lack experience. I can say that

because if you did have the experience we've had, of asking that your child

not be fed the crap that is brought in for birthday parties, and are then

told by the teaching staff we are " subjecting " our child to lifelong

self-esteem issues because we're not allowing him to feel " part " of the

group, you would see how twisted and deranged the babble is about " mental

and physical treatment " of children somehow tying in with their " rights " .

My son did not have severe " meltdowns " at home, but he did at school -

without my knowing it. The gov't school RESTRAINED him for 45-minutes EVERY

SINGLE DAY, WITHOUT telling me. If the tables were turned, can you imagine

their reaction if they discovered I was physically restraining him because

he was supposedly " out-of-control " ? My child would have had 'rights'. I

wouldn't. Yet since they deemed it to be necessary that THEY restrain him, I

somehow LOST my parental rights to the information that they were engaging

in this type of wacko treatment of him.

By the way, I remained firm that they not give him junk and crap food, and

feed him ONLY what I sent in. Yo know what happened? They decided it was

in his best interests and his right to occasionally have gum and candy,

violating the IEP. Bottom line, they weren't able to properly discipline

or instruct him, so they had to revert to bribery.

No, he's no longer in school and yes, I homeschool him. And if you want to

have all kinds of other people with their wacko ideas telling you what to

feed your family, and what will or won't psychologically harm them because

heaven-forbid, we not all conform to someone else's image, then you just

keep on going down this one-world silliness......

Sharon, NH

[Guest guest]

Hi Sharon and everyone else following this-

Thank you for sharing your story. I can add that to the list of horrors I

have heard of kids with iep's. I think your story is one of many examples

of why we need to preserve parental freedoms. Again, the UN convention will

pass and be available. All the parental rights amendment does is to give

parents an opt out if they see the programs as not a good fit for their

children, Without it, we will be forced to have our children abide by all

the convention says (again, not a panic, but reality as seen in the cases

cropping up overseas where the convention is enacted. For instance, in

England, a case is filed that home schooling is illegal based on the

convention (I agree the wording does state that) and the enforcers of the

convention have filed because the UN convention conflicts with england's

freedom to home school laws. Legally, an international treaty reigns, so

legally, the judge on the case will have their hands tied and will have to

allow the convention to reign. Now, if we have a parental rights amendment

in place, the amendment will then supersede the convention and allow parents

to not have their kids in public school, not vaccinate, and yes, feed our

kids what we want (because part of the pediatricians mental and physical

health screen includes things like what percent fat milk does your child

drink.) I understand some people are offended by the person heading up the

amendment, but honestly, to give parents freedom, and have an opt out for

the un having control over our kids, I personally do not care if the purple

man eating martian started it. We need this amendment to preserve rights of

all types.

Carol

[Guest guest]

Hi Sharon and everyone else following this-

Thank you for sharing your story. I can add that to the list of horrors I

have heard of kids with iep's. I think your story is one of many examples

of why we need to preserve parental freedoms. Again, the UN convention will

pass and be available. All the parental rights amendment does is to give

parents an opt out if they see the programs as not a good fit for their

children, Without it, we will be forced to have our children abide by all

the convention says (again, not a panic, but reality as seen in the cases

cropping up overseas where the convention is enacted. For instance, in

England, a case is filed that home schooling is illegal based on the

convention (I agree the wording does state that) and the enforcers of the

convention have filed because the UN convention conflicts with england's

freedom to home school laws. Legally, an international treaty reigns, so

legally, the judge on the case will have their hands tied and will have to

allow the convention to reign. Now, if we have a parental rights amendment

in place, the amendment will then supersede the convention and allow parents

to not have their kids in public school, not vaccinate, and yes, feed our

kids what we want (because part of the pediatricians mental and physical

health screen includes things like what percent fat milk does your child

drink.) I understand some people are offended by the person heading up the

amendment, but honestly, to give parents freedom, and have an opt out for

the un having control over our kids, I personally do not care if the purple

man eating martian started it. We need this amendment to preserve rights of

all types.

Carol

[Guest guest]

> Do you have children? I do. When you have walked a mile in my shoes,

> trying to work with an IEP and a gov't school system... You lack

experience.

> I can say that because if you did have the experience we've had,…

Sharon,

I understand and feel your pain and frustration with the school system

and your experience with their treatment of children.

I DO have children, special needs children, one has an IEP, and the

other is in the process of it.

I have Home Schooled both most of their lives, including through 12th

grade. I have worked with the college with my son, and had to actually

perform the " accommodations " the IEP set forth myself because the

college did not have the resources. NO school was ever able to meet the

needs of my children and despite their desire to attend school and score

A's thereby proving themselves good students. Every school we tried

over 4 states and at least 10 different schools including public,

private, Christian, Waldorf, Montessori, and Reggio was unable to

accommodate or provide instruction that allowed my children to answer

questions in a way that was physically possible for them.

My son was diagnosed with 5 different disabilities and my daughter one.

Both are extremely intelligent (not just my assessment, the school

testing was the highest ever seen in the school) and if they had stayed

IN the school system I a cann0t imagine the damage done to their

self-esteem and sense of self-worth.

I also just finished dealing with the MN waiver for lack of vaccines

given, which I had to have notarized twice just to " get it

right " , in case I wasn't really a conscientious objector and

just did not have the means or understanding to get all the vaccines

done.

As far as freedom of food goes: I was a La Leche League Leader that

breastfed my children until age 6 which I can only now state without

fear of them being removed from my home. I also dealt with the cupcake

issue and stood firm with my son in preschool on not eating sugars,

bribes and all. Fortunately for me, he ended up not liking sweets and

made his own stand against them, which I was also told would somehow

damage his social skills! My daughter was not so fortunate, and at one

point in her life, in one of our many `tries' with public

school, she gained 30 lbs in the first quarter (10 weeks) we went back

to Home Schooling again after that and other issues. I can't imagine

what would have happened if they realized she had steak ceviche in her

lunch from home! Both have had Foods classes in college and high

school, where they educate the class and teacher on Weston A Price

teachings, but still answer the tests " from the govt. point of

view " . I was determined to not have to confused them over this and

other teachings from the public schools until they were old enough to

understand the difference between different " facts " .

I am the Weston A Price leader for LaCrosse. I own and operate a grass

fed organic farm in WI. If you have followed what is going on in WI

with DATCP and raw-milk producers, NAIS farm registrations, trying to

sell meat anywhere, you will know I am constantly frustrated by our

archaic food systems that are intent in forcing all small farms out of

business and only allowing industrial food to be consumed. They already

have the school systems under their control. While we in WI have made

some head way into having some fresh local vegetables in schools, the

price they will pay is so low that only the conventional farms or those

with produce they just can't sell any other way will be able to

basically donate to the schools.

I am also an economist and CPA and know firsthand from working with

farms and the IRS, how our economic system is forcing non-industrial

farms into poverty (Ever heard of a farm without " off-farm " income,

including retirements, savings from past employment, donations, etc? -

does not exist for non-commercial farms and only the largest of them).

So, I can say from an empathetic and heartfelt way that I do have the

experience and understand the pain, frustrations, limits, and basic

un-fairness in our Governments and their administrations - be it public

schools, Dept of Ag, Dept of public health, etc.

We still need to read all documents and statements we support. We

should continue to have discussions such as this, which IS relevant to

especially this group, as what has been brought up about the possible

intrusions in even more of our rights is certainly inevitable. With

this knowledge and continued efforts, we can keep fighting for our

rights. Whether that includes support for these particular platforms is

up to each individual, and should be respected by others, as there are

many different ways to fight for our Freedoms.

~Jan

[Guest guest]

> Do you have children? I do. When you have walked a mile in my shoes,

> trying to work with an IEP and a gov't school system... You lack

experience.

> I can say that because if you did have the experience we've had,…

Sharon,

I understand and feel your pain and frustration with the school system

and your experience with their treatment of children.

I DO have children, special needs children, one has an IEP, and the

other is in the process of it.

I have Home Schooled both most of their lives, including through 12th

grade. I have worked with the college with my son, and had to actually

perform the " accommodations " the IEP set forth myself because the

college did not have the resources. NO school was ever able to meet the

needs of my children and despite their desire to attend school and score

A's thereby proving themselves good students. Every school we tried

over 4 states and at least 10 different schools including public,

private, Christian, Waldorf, Montessori, and Reggio was unable to

accommodate or provide instruction that allowed my children to answer

questions in a way that was physically possible for them.

My son was diagnosed with 5 different disabilities and my daughter one.

Both are extremely intelligent (not just my assessment, the school

testing was the highest ever seen in the school) and if they had stayed

IN the school system I a cann0t imagine the damage done to their

self-esteem and sense of self-worth.

I also just finished dealing with the MN waiver for lack of vaccines

given, which I had to have notarized twice just to " get it

right " , in case I wasn't really a conscientious objector and

just did not have the means or understanding to get all the vaccines

done.

As far as freedom of food goes: I was a La Leche League Leader that

breastfed my children until age 6 which I can only now state without

fear of them being removed from my home. I also dealt with the cupcake

issue and stood firm with my son in preschool on not eating sugars,

bribes and all. Fortunately for me, he ended up not liking sweets and

made his own stand against them, which I was also told would somehow

damage his social skills! My daughter was not so fortunate, and at one

point in her life, in one of our many `tries' with public

school, she gained 30 lbs in the first quarter (10 weeks) we went back

to Home Schooling again after that and other issues. I can't imagine

what would have happened if they realized she had steak ceviche in her

lunch from home! Both have had Foods classes in college and high

school, where they educate the class and teacher on Weston A Price

teachings, but still answer the tests " from the govt. point of

view " . I was determined to not have to confused them over this and

other teachings from the public schools until they were old enough to

understand the difference between different " facts " .

I am the Weston A Price leader for LaCrosse. I own and operate a grass

fed organic farm in WI. If you have followed what is going on in WI

with DATCP and raw-milk producers, NAIS farm registrations, trying to

sell meat anywhere, you will know I am constantly frustrated by our

archaic food systems that are intent in forcing all small farms out of

business and only allowing industrial food to be consumed. They already

have the school systems under their control. While we in WI have made

some head way into having some fresh local vegetables in schools, the

price they will pay is so low that only the conventional farms or those

with produce they just can't sell any other way will be able to

basically donate to the schools.

I am also an economist and CPA and know firsthand from working with

farms and the IRS, how our economic system is forcing non-industrial

farms into poverty (Ever heard of a farm without " off-farm " income,

including retirements, savings from past employment, donations, etc? -

does not exist for non-commercial farms and only the largest of them).

So, I can say from an empathetic and heartfelt way that I do have the

experience and understand the pain, frustrations, limits, and basic

un-fairness in our Governments and their administrations - be it public

schools, Dept of Ag, Dept of public health, etc.

We still need to read all documents and statements we support. We

should continue to have discussions such as this, which IS relevant to

especially this group, as what has been brought up about the possible

intrusions in even more of our rights is certainly inevitable. With

this knowledge and continued efforts, we can keep fighting for our

rights. Whether that includes support for these particular platforms is

up to each individual, and should be respected by others, as there are

many different ways to fight for our Freedoms.

~Jan

[Guest guest]

Wow, Jan! And I thought you just sold great beef!

Thanks for your articulate sharing of your experiences, frustrations and

solutions.

It was both upsetting and inspirational!

Kathy