Friday, February 06, 2009

The CRC is another Step toward U.N. World Government


John R. Houk
© February 6, 2009


There is a
Treaty out their originating from the U.N. pertaining to children and parents. It is called the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children or CRC. Apparently the Convention only needed 20 signatories for it to be considered international law. To date, 193 have signed the CRC and the USA is not one of those nations.

There is good reason for the USA not to sign the CRC.

  1. It is a step toward World Government abrogating the U.S. Constitution and American sovereignty.

  2. A foreign international body will intrude on parental rights for its view of what is right for a child.

  3. For example those that believe in spanking (not physical abuse) as discipline would be in trouble with the law.

  4. A child can say NO to parental training such as teaching values (religious or secular) and the government will enforce the child’s wishes over the parents.

  5. A child that has committed a heinous crime cannot be tried as an adult with adult convictions that may lead to capital punishment or life sentences. Here I agree to a point, the problem for me is what is defined as a child. The CRC includes the age up to seventeen. There are remorseless teenagers that know what they are doing when committing gang murders or other thug related murders. There has must be an age of accountability for an adult crime committed at least for teenagers.

  6. CRC would be the beginning of State control of individual lives diluting freedom and liberty to what is defined by the government; in other words Big Brother is watching.


President Obama has expressed to the effect that America should care as much about its children as a 193 other signatories of the CRC. The irony is a huge significant amount of those signatories ignore the implication of the CRC in their own nations. Do you think that Middle Eastern Muslim nations will comply with an international convention if it is contrary to Sharia Law? NO! Yet those same hypocritical Muslim nations will happily join a U.N. enforced sanctions against the USA if the U.N. body determines the USA is not complying with the rules of the Treaty.

If you are politically inclined write your Senator. Whether President Obama wishes the Treaty or not, the Senate will have to ratify it for America to be among the signatories of the CRC.

JRH 2/6/09
*********************************
United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
Expert: Pact would ban spankings, homeschooling if children object


By Chelsea Schilling© 2009
WorldNetDaily
Posted: February 05, 2009 12:00 am Eastern



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.



"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."


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."

________________________________

The CRC is another Step toward U.N. World Government
John R. Houk
© February 6, 2009
______________________________

United Nations' threat: No more parental rights

Chelsea Schilling is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily.
Copyright 1997-2009 All Rights Reserved. WorldNetDaily.com Inc.

2 comments:

Dr Wael said...

Why ? Why this hate and this revolt against Islam and Muslim?
Muslim do wars , Do terror ,Do 911
Dear
911 was just a lie just like Bush's weapon of mass distruction in Iraq
See my blog.
I am not a muslim but I live with them in Syria and Egypt
maybe muslim in the west differnt?

Theway2k said...

Dr. Wael Hmm ...

You are either the victim or a perpetuator of the delusions that come from rogue Syria or elements of Ihkwan in Egypt.

1. 911 was an al-Qaeda plan in which the actual planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed.

2. There are sources of information that differ from the Duelfer Report which probably has refused to acknowledge because of Political Correctness or the fear of causing a diplomatic incident.

*Russia in an Intelligence coup moved WMD out of Iraq.

*Former Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada on Iraqi WMD.

*David Gaubatz ignored by Iraq Survey Group that was responsible for investigating the existence of Iraq WMD (Hmm ... Charles Duelfer was one of the lead ISG people ignoring Gaubatz).