By Sara Noble
What kind of people want to take away your rights as parents and turn them over to the United Nations?
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama strongly support the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a treaty which does exactly that.
The Convention, which has been around since the Clinton era, is rearing its ugly head and is in the final stages of negotiations. President Barack Obama has described the failure to ratify the Convention as ‘embarrassing’ and promised to review it.
Nations that ratify this convention are bound to it by international law. It means we will all follow the same law.
Compliance is monitored by an 18-member panel in Geneva composed of “persons of high moral character” who review the rights of children in nations that are party to the convention. Once a year, the Committee submits a report to the Third Committee of the U.N. General Assembly, which also hears a statement from the CRC Chair, and the Assembly adopts a Resolution on the Rights of the Child.
This is a treaty meant for nations that inflict horrible abuse on their children and do not have the laws in place to protect them.
Only the U.S. and Somalia have not signed the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and for good reason. It substitutes global governance for U.S. law and the rights of U.S. parents. Treaties become the law of the land according to the Supremacy clause of the constitution.
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” (U.S. Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 2)
The U.S. has signed and ratified both the optional protocols [regarding child soldiers and child prostitution and pornography] to the Convention. The EU is calling for the U.S. to sign and ratify the treaty. There are strong U.S. groups supporting ratification as well. Check out Time Magazine and their strange twist on the issue.
Senator Jim DeMint submitted an opposition bill in the Senate last year which says it is “expressing the sense of the Senate that the primary safeguard for …the well-being and protection of children is the family, and that the primary safeguards for the legal rights of children in the United States are the Constitution’s.”
There is a companion bill in the House. Both will not pass due to Democratic opposition.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, a big California liberal, has been pushing this treaty for years. She is “humiliated” that only the U.S. and Somalia are refusing to sign. Senator Bernie Sanders, a socialist, is another big supporter.
The treaty mandates “the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” and outlaws the “arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy,” intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference. It takes the control of child rearing from parents.
The UN’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation has decided that, “in a world affected by HIV and AIDS”, it is “imperative” to teach children as young as 5 about masturbation as well as “gender roles, stereotypes and gender-based violence”.
By the time they’re 9 years old, they’ll learn about “positive and negative effects of ‘aphrodisiacs,” and wrestle with the ideas of “homophobia, transphobia and abuse of power.” At 12, they’ll learn the “reasons for” abortions — but they’ll already have known about their safety for three years. When they’re 15, they’ll be exposed to direct “advocacy to promote the right to and access to safe abortion.”… Read more here…
One of the provisions bars anyone under 18 years of age to be imprisoned with adults. It will invalidate all state laws requiring teens over 16 accused of murder and other violent crimes to be tried and sentenced as adults. Forget state rights, what about our right to safety. It gives a slap on the wrist to violent, dangerous youths.
It applies to all children under 18 and includes disabled children.
Parental rights groups are deeply concerned that the government is meddling in even the simplest freedoms to raise their children as they see fit.
“Whether you ground your kids for smoking marijuana, whether you take them to church, whether you let them go to junior prom, all of those things . . . will be the government’s decision,” said Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org. “It will affect every parent who’s told their children to do the dishes.”
20 Things You Need to Know About the Treaty And I Warn You – It’s Big Brother [Parental Rights.org]:
Ten things you need to know about the structure of the CRC:
It is a treaty which creates binding rules of law. It is no mere statement of altruism.
Its effect would be binding on American families, courts, and policy-makers.
Children of other nations would not be impacted or helped in any direct way by our ratification.
The CRC would automatically override almost all American laws on children and families because of the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause in Article VI.
The CRC has some elements that are self-executing, while others would require implementing legislation. Federal courts would have the power to determine which provisions were self-executing.
The courts would have the power to directly enforce the provisions that are self-executing.
Congress would have the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty. This would constitute the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.
A committee of 18 experts from other nations, sitting in Geneva, has the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty which are entitled to binding weight in American courts and legislatures. This effectively transfers ultimate authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee.
Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.
Reservations, declarations, or understandings intended to modify our duty to comply with this treaty will be void if they are determined to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.
Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC:
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.
Christian schools that refuse to teach “alternative worldviews” and teach that Christianity is the only true religion “fly in the face of article 29″ of the treaty.
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.
Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
KEY CONCERNS FROM parental rights org:
The “Best Interests of the Child”
Article 3 of the CRC states that “in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” Thus, policies affecting children at all levels of society and government should have the child’s best interest as the primary concern.
The problem for families occurs when this principle surfaces as a guiding principle for parents. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern as dictated by the state according to international law.
It is a departure from American Law
he convention emphasized the “best interests” principle which is not aligned with American law. Our law recognizes that parents’ generally act in the best interests of the child. Except in cases where the parent is declared “unfit,” parents makes the decisions about their own children. The convention supersedes the parents’ rights to the STATE
This is Soviet style communism.
It is a new level of government intrusion -
According to Geraldine van Bueren, an international scholar who assisted in the drafting of the CRC, the language of “best interests provides decision and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the child’s or the parents’, providing it is based on considerations of the best interests of the child.”
A parent’s voice is silenced -
Children are considered to have “evolving capacities” and cases will be brought before the courts for all ages of children since all will be viewed as evolving and age will play no role. Judges will have to set their own standards since the convention does not. So you will have the U.N. deciding the child’s best interests, cutting parents out completely.
This presents an imminent danger to the American family and to our nations’ sovereignty over a sacred right to rear one’s own children.
The only way to ensure the preservation of the child-parent relationship is through an an amendment to the constitution protecting parental rights. The time to secure the protection and preservation of the American family is now. Don’t wait until it’s too late. Sign the petition for the Parental Rights Amendment today.
Interesting information from Dick Morris. Apparently, we will pay for other countries’ children and this treaty can become yet another welfare payment, only this one goes worldwide -
No comments:
Post a Comment