The UN never stops and here is one of the latest: The UN’s Convention on the Rights of a Child.
Here are just a few of the proposals under this UN attack on our sovereignty:
Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities called CRPD in case you don’t recognize it when it is discussed on TV or newspapers etc. Hawk gets really angry about these damned acronyms.
1. Any remaining state sovereignty on the issue of disability law will be entirely eliminated by the ratification of this treaty. The rule of international law is that the nation-state that ratifies the treaty has the obligation to ensure compliance. This gives Congress total authority to legislate on all matters regarding disability law—a power that is substantially limited today. Article 4(5)
makes this explicit.
2. Article 4(1)(a) demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of
3. Article 4(1)(e) remands that “every person, organization, or private enterprise” must eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. On its face, this means that every home owner would have to make their own home fully accessible to those with disabilities. If the UN wants to make exceptions, perhaps they could. But, on its face, this is the meaning of the treaty.
4. Article 4(1)(e) also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your business, private school, or house of worship will be established by the UN—not your local government
5. Article 4(2) requires the United States to use its maximum resources for compliance with these standards. The UN has interpreted similar provisions in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to criticize nations who spend too much on military issues and not enough on social programs. There is every reason to believe that the UN would interpret these provisions in a
similar fashion. The UN believes that it has the power to determine the legitimacy and lawfulness of the budget of the United States to assess compliance with such treaties.
6. Article 6(2) is a backdoor method of requiring the United States to comply with the general provisions of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This treaty enshrines abortion rights, homosexual rights, and demands the complete
disarmament of all people.
7. Article 7(2) advances the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the government—acting under UN directives—gets to determine for all children with disabilities what the government thinks is best.
8. Article 25 on Education does not repeat the parental rights rules of earlier human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This is an important omission. Coupling this omission with the direct declaration of “the best interest of the child” standard in Article
7(2), this convention is nothing less than the complete eradication of parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.
9. Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment.” This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States.
10. The United States, as a wealthy nation, would be obligated to fund disability programs in nations that could not afford their own programs under the dictates of Article 4(2). This is what “the framework of international cooperation” means.
Here is what Parentalrights.org is proposing to remedy this issue with the UN:
The Proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.
Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.
Interested parents, grandparents and others, please sign the petition here: http://www.parentalrights.org/
States involved in this or not are also on the site for you to investigate. You can go to your particular state and see what is going on there. I recommend you do so.
Certain Pravda news outlets (like MSNBC Pravda) are already propagandizing for this type of invasion into parents rights when it comes to their children. This is really bad and we must try to stop it.
On the States’ page you also get the names of your state legislature, your reps and senators to email them about this so-called treaty. We cannot trust the King on this and if we don’t make a stink about it the Senate is not one to trust these days. There is much more info at http://www.parentalrights.org/
A hat tip and thanks to Donna, one of our regular readers, for providing this information. It is so important to everyone in this country besides parents and grandparents.