Sen. Barbara Boxer is pushing the Obama administration to move forward with ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, this is only the "tip of the iceberg" . . . keep reading, and discern the combined effect of the U.N. and the new White House agenda.
-- From "Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights" by Joseph Abrams, FOXNews.com 2/25/09
Sen. Barbara Boxer is urging the U.S. [a.k.a. the Obama administration] to ratify a United Nations measure meant to expand the rights of children, a move critics are calling a gross assault on parental rights that could rob the U.S. of sovereignty.
The California Democrat is pushing the Obama administration to review the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a nearly 20-year-old international agreement that has been foundering on American shores since it was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995 but never ratified.
Critics say the treaty, which creates "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.
Because of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, all treaties are rendered "the supreme law of the land," superseding preexisting state and federal statutes. Any rights or laws established by the U.N. convention could then be argued to hold sway in the United States.
Nearly every country in the world is party to it -- only the U.S. and Somalia are not -- but the convention has gained little support in the U.S. and never been sent to the Senate for ratification.
The U.S. is already party to two optional pieces of the treaty regarding child soldiers and child prostitution and pornography, but has refused to sign on to the full agreement . . .
That could change soon.
During the Oct. 22, 2008, presidential youth debate, Obama promised to "review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."
During U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's January confirmation hearing, Rice called the convention "a very important treaty and a noble cause," and said it was "a shame" for the U.S. to be in company with Somalia, which has no real government.
Rice told Boxer that "there can be no doubt that [President Obama] and Secretary Clinton and I share a commitment to the objectives of this treaty and will take it up as an early question," promising to review the treaty "to ensure that the United States is playing and resumes its global leadership role in human rights."
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
From "Sen. Boxer tries to hurry children's 'rights' treaty" © 2009 WorldNetDaily 2/26/09
. . . Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org and chancellor of Patrick Henry College, said the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child would mean every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child's best interest.
"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," he warned.
The international treaty creates specific civil, 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 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.
According to the Parental Rights website, the CRC dictates the following:
* 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.
* Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
* 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.
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."
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
From "United Nations Population Fund Leader Says Family Breakdown is a Triumph for Human Rights" by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, LifeSiteNews.com 2/3/09
A leader in the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has declared that the breakdown of traditional families, far from being a “crisis,” is actually a triumph for human rights.
Speaking at a colloquium held last month at Colegio Mexico in Mexico City, UNFPA representative Arie Hoekman denounced the idea that high rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births represent a social crisis, claiming that they represent instead the triumph of “human rights” against “patriarchy.”
"In the eyes of conservative forces, these changes mean that the family is in crisis," he said. "In crisis? More than a crisis, we are in the presence of a weakening of the patriarchal structure, as a result of the disappearance of the economic base that sustains it and because of the rise of new values centered in the recognition of fundamental human rights."
"Day after day, Mexico experiences a process of this diversity and there are those who understand it as a crisis, because they only recognize one type of family," one of the speakers on the panel also told the audience.
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
From "Conservatives Expect U.N. Battle Over Homosexuality as a ‘Human Right’ to Begin in '09" by Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor CNSNews.com 12/24/08
France fired the opening salvo [in mid-December 2008] in a battle at the United Nations over making homosexuality a “human right.”
The European nation tried but failed to get the U.N. to approve a non-binding resolution decriminalizing homosexuality worldwide. The United States refused to sign onto the measure, the only Western power to do so.
Note that this was the U.S. position BEFORE Barack Obama was inaugurated; note the Obama Administration policy now.
France, which heads the European Union (EU) until the end of the year [2008], garnered support from only 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries. But all of the EU countries voted for the resolution.
Conservative U.N. analyst Thomas Jacobson said he expects France will try again soon.
“I would fully expect that France and the European Union will push for ‘LGBT (lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender) rights’ and ‘gender-identity rights’ and collaborate heavily with the Obama administration, beginning in the first quarter of 2009,” Jacobson, who works for the conservative Focus on the Family, told CNSNews.com
He said France was “greatly emboldened” by the U.S. election of Barack Obama as president. adding, "They know they are going to have a partner to work with at the U.N.”.
Obama, Jacobson said, has been very clear in his support of the homosexual activist agenda . . .
“As soon as the Obama administration has all of its people in place, this will be one of their primary initiatives. You can bet that they have taken great note of what France was doing,” Jacobson added.
Jacobson said that, ironically, the French and British – and other industrialized European nations – are busy promoting a new form of “imperialism” – a cultural imperialism to force a radical pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda on the world.
“This is a form of imperialism that is coming out of a very liberal mindset in Europe – and increasingly in the U.S -- to force smaller, less powerful countries to conform to their will in their internal policies in matters of sexuality," he said.
To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.
