Look Who Wants to Legally STEAL YOUR CHILDREN!

Western Journalism wcj@westernjournalism.com via mail78.us1.rsgsv.net

5:09 AM (14 hours ago)

What Would You Say If We Told You That The United States Senate Is About To Ratify A U.N. Treaty That Seeks To • Eradicate Your Parental Rights • Advance Abortion Around The World • Sexualize Children As Young As Five-Years Old • And Institute Population-Control Measures At Home And Abroad?
      And what would you say if we told you that a number of Senate Republicans have joined hands with the Democrats and are actually pushing the ratification of this United Nations treaty, either because they are legitimately ignorant when it comes to the actual language of this treaty, or are simply too scared to oppose itbecause it is masquerading as an international effort to affirm the rights of disabled persons?

       We couldn't have made it up if we tried. As a matter of fact, Senator Jim DeMint, who is leading the charge in opposition to this United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)treaty, came right out and said: "When you look at the language in the treaty you realize THERE ARE OTHER THINGS AT STAKE HERE. A LOT OF THE LANGUAGE IN THERE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DISABILITIES...." [Emphasis Ours]

       And now, CRPD actually stands a better-than-even chance of actually being ratified because RINOSenators Richard Lugar, John Barrasso and Johnny Isakson, voted with the Democratic majority in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to send it to the full Senate for ratification... and we're not about to let our elected officials pass this unholy thing in the dark of night while no one is looking.

       You can stop CRPD the exact same way you just sunk the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty(LOST) and the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). We need to get our elected officials on recordNOW. It only takes 34 Senators to say "No" and if 34 of them put their opposition to CRPD IN WRITING, right here and right now, as they did with LOST and ATT, we can kill CRPD, dead in its tracks, without even bringing it up for a vote.

Use the button or the hyperlink below to send your urgent Blast Faxes to each and every one of the 47 Republican Members of the United States Senate.

If button above does not work, please use this hyperlink.

The Problem With The CRPD Is That It's Not Really About Helping Persons With Disabilities. In Actuality, It's A Ploy To Trick Us Into Voluntarily Surrendering Our Sovereignty.

     Make no mistake, the canard of addressing the needs of the disabled is simply pretty ribbons and bows. What's inside the actual package is the surrender of our sovereignty to the America-haters and tyrannical third-world dictatorships that call themselves United Nations Members.

       And we're not the only ones saying it. The Heritage Foundation writes that "ratifying it [the CRPD] would subject the U.S. to UNTOLD THREATS against its sovereignty and invite further intrusion by U.N. officials into sensitive social and domestic policies." [Emphasis Ours]

       Heritage goes on to say: "However, U.S. ratification of the [CRPD] is more than merely superfluous; the [CRPD] threatens American sovereignty in a variety of ways. As with other human rights treaties, the [CRPD] established a treaty body composed of unelected 'experts' ... that evaluates the compliance of state parties to the treaty."

       Those are mighty strong words coming from an organization like Heritage that strives to phrase just about everything in as dignified and academic a manner as humanly possible. There can be no mistake, CRPD is all about the surrender of our national sovereignty... and we're in no mood to surrender it... we're not going to stand by a let it happen without a fight.

Senator Jim DeMint said: "We don’t need to go beyond our Constitution and federalist system by allowing our fundamental rights to be dictated by unaccountable and unelected international bureaucrats."

John Bolton, the former-Ambassador to the United Nations, was making an obvious reference to the CRPD as the hat-trick to LOST andATT when he recently said: "I think there are a lot of threats to American sovereignty that the Obama administration has had cooking in the U.N. They've kept it kind of low key."

And Bonnie Alba, an independent columnist, who served in various positions in the Department of Defense, said of the United Nations: "[I]f we acquiesce to the U.N. plan to run the world under the guise of helping the poor and weak, there is one guarantee. Over time all nations would lose their national sovereignty to the U.N. which would end up performing as a Banana Republic Dictatorship through enforced collection of taxes. And accountable to no one."

And what is perhaps the ultimate irony is that this treaty, if ratified, would probably do nothing to safeguard the innate, inalienable (and for those of us in the United States, God-given) rights of people with disabilities. Instead, it WOULD erode (or even eradicate) the civil liberties of your children and grandchildren; and that's why we must speak out and make our voice heard at this very moment.

But The Eradication Of Our Sovereignty Is Not The End Game. It's Just The Beginning.

     Mike Farris with the Home School Legal Defense Fund clues us in to the first bit of United Nations trickery on CRPD when he tells us that the "CRPD provides no specific definition of disability." And Farris is not alone. Heritage concurs: "Other language in [the CRPD] is troubling... such as its lack of a clear definition of disability, which it defines as 'an evolving concept.'" Of course, neglecting to clearly define the term "DISABILITY" in the 50 distinct articles of the "Convention on the Rights of Persons with DISABILITIES" treaty WAS NO ACCIDENT. It's Standard United Nations Operating Procedure.

       An unelected and unaccountable body of America-haters and third-world thugs, or as Heritage put it, "a treaty body composed of unelected 'experts,'" will define this "evolving concept" as they go. Thedefinitions of what constitutes "disabilities" and "rights" will constantly change, expand and morph to include greater numbers of people, and as more "rights" are allocated to an ever-increasing numbers of people who are deemed "disabled," others will demand these newly created special "rights" as well.

       And our enemies will simply rinse-and-repeat the process, continually abuse this "evolving concept" and impose unfunded, unconstitutional and even sublimely ridiculous mandates upon you, your children and your grandchildren, under the guise of "securing the rights of the disabled." In reality, they'll simply be attempting to overwhelm our already strained entitlement system, and crippling the United States under the weight of that same entitlement system.

       If you think that ObamaCare and Barack Obama's other economy crippling shenanigans are bad, know that the demagogues of the third-world are just itching to show us how it's really done... but we're not going to give them the chance.

       We can't give them the chance because we might not be able to close Pandora's Box once it is flung open; and once our own cowardly politicians start to tell us that we are obliged to follow theDICTATES of this body of third-world thugs and America-haters (and tyrannically enforce OUR compliance on THEIR behalf), it's all over.

       Article VI of our own Constitution requires compliance: “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.”

       As for our enemies, they won't comply; and all the America-haters at the United Nations will simply turn their backs and look at us with blank stares on their faces. 'What do you mean Iran is not complying with the provisions of the treaty... of course they're in compliance... however, the other member nations of the panel would like to address some more issues involving your compliance with you.'

       After all, THEY define the terms and THEY make the rules as they go. As with many United Nations treaties and resolutions, CRPD will mean whatever they say it means on any given day, and our children and grandchildren will be left with no national sovereignty... no individual liberties... and a wreaked economy. Our children and grandchildren will be reduced to serfdom under the iron fist and the autocratic rule of those who despise freedom, liberty, and most of all, us... but it doesn't have to be that way. We can put a stop this menace today.

Did You Know That The Promotion Of The Radical Worldwide Abortion Movement Goes Hand In Hand With Safeguarding The Rights Of Persons With Disabilities?

     And just what do abortion and the rights of the disabled have to do with each other? We still don't know, but we DO KNOW that the United Nations has become infamous over the years, for constantly sneaking coded abortion advocacy language into treaties and resolutions that should have nothing whatsoever to do with abortion; and CRPD is no exception.

       Article 25 of the CRPD which addresses issues of "Health" states that the "State Parties" are mandated to "take all appropriate measures" to ensure those covered under the treaty have access to"gender-sensitive" health services... and "free or affordable health care and programmes... in the area of sexual and reproductive health..." ("sexual and reproductive health," is known to be United Nations-speak for abortion).

       And just so you know not only how committed the Left is when it comes to promoting a radical worldwide abortion agenda, but also how the United Nations intentionally interjects "code phrases" in treaties and resolutions; consider what happened when Senator Marco Rubio actually introduced an amendment to the CRPD in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which simple stated:

"The United States understands that the phrase ‘sexual and reproductive health’ in Article 25(a) of the Convention does not include abortion, and its use in that article does not create any abortion rights, cannot be interpreted to constitute support, endorsement, or promotion of abortion, and in no way suggests that abortion be promoted as a method of family planning."

       ALL HELL BROKE LOOSE. Chloe Cooney with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America(PPFA) wrote: "These extreme views in opposition to women’s rights and U.S. participation in the global community only succeed in marginalizing a bipartisan effort like the [CRPD]," and Senator Barbara Boxer echoed that statement: “No senator in my view should use any international treaty to push his or her views on an issue that isn’t part of this treaty.”

       Did you catch that? The United Nations is advancing a treaty that allegedly attempts to safeguard the innate and inalienable rights of persons with disabilities and interjects the promotion of abortion into the document THROUGH THE USE OF CODE WORDS; and when a Marco Rubio sought to clarify that the treaty on the rights of the disabled "in no way suggests that abortion be promoted as a method of family planning," Barbara Boxer and her denizens of the Left accused RUBIO of interjecting HIS"views on an issue" into the debate.

       And the Democrats and the RINOs on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted Rubio down. That's why we need 34 Senators to go on record NOW and put their opposition to CRPD in writing. We need to send the world a message. The United States refuses to even hold a vote on lunacy.

And Did You Know That Our Children Have The "Right" To Sexual Gratification From The Moment They Emerge From The Womb And This Disability Treaty Is Going To Enforce That "Right" Too?

     Senator DeMint and Mike Farris have very real and well-founded concerns when it comes to Article 7 of the CRPD, which mandates that states ensure that "the best interests of the child" shall be the primary consideration in all actions concerning the "rights" of the child.

       As Farris, who sees the dangers in his capacity as one of the nation's leading, if not the nation's leading, homeschool advocate states: "Should the government’s assessment of the child’s best interests differ from that of the parents, the government gets to make the decision, not the parents."

       DeMint says: “We’re afraid that if the language suggests that parental authority is not absolute, we’re going to have an international body telling our parents they can’t homeschool."

       What DeMint and Farris aren't addressing is that the dangers posed by this treaty to your children and grandchildren are far worse. Article 23 of the CRPD, deceptively and ironically titled, "Respect For Home And The Family" mandates that children have "access to age-appropriate information, reproductive and family planning education are recognized, and the means necessary to enable them to exercise these rights are provided.”

       You might be interested in knowing what the United Nations typically means when it uses the term"age-appropriate" in reference to "reproductive and family planning education," because it doesn't mean what you think it means... at least not to far too many United Nations officials and NGOs.

       As an aside, you may have also realized that the term "rights" is also a United Nations code word that typically means "coerced mandate;" a scary proposition when the word is used in relation to the topics of "abortion," "health care," "the disabled," and "child gratification."

       One of the good-guys, Family Watch International, a NGO that attempts to prevent some of the more radical anti-family notions that come out of the United Nations from ever seeing the light of day, tells us about the term "age-appropriate:"

"The International Guidelines on Sexuality Education," which is a"publication issued by UNESCO, UNICEF and the United Nations Population Fund "maintains that children have a right to receive instruction in sexual pleasure, masturbation and homosexuality..."

Other UNESCO guidelines tell us that children as young as five-years-old should be taught "that they can touch their body parts for sexual pleasure" and;

A significant number of activists connected to the United Nations assert "that children are sexual from birth, and as such, are entitled to experience sexual pleasure."

       Volumes have been written on this subject. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people have never read anything issued by the United Nations and United Nations' recognized NGOs; and if you are so ignorant as to believe that the sexualization of your child is not "age-appropriate"... well that's just too bad.

       Under the terms of the treaty, the United States Government will be mandated to enforce the dissemination of "age-appropriate information" and "reproductive and family planning education" to your child, whether you, as the parent, like it or not. It's your child's "right."

       As Senator Boxer would probably say, you really should not "use any international treaty to push"your personal "views on an issue that isn’t part of this treaty.” We say "nuts" to that... our God-given liberties are non-negotiable and it's essential that we communicate that message to our elected officials.

And Did You Further Know That Population-Control And The Rights Of The Disabled Go Hand In Hand Too?

     Article 25 of the CRPD, which has already been quoted in part, also mandates that "State Parties"provide access to "population-based public health programmes..." And just what is a "population-based public health" program?

       One example that may actually be familiar to you is something called "Agenda 21," a term which should conjure visions of former Vice-President Al Gore's "Earth In The Balance"-enviro-babble; but a good, hard, look at Barack Obama's Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, John P. Holdren, should more accurately solidify what is meant by "population-based public health programmes" in your mind.

       As it turns out, Van Jones wasn't the only "nut" in Obama's inner-circle, and what is probably even more startling is that the United States Senate actually confirmed Holdren.

       In 1997, Holdren co-authored a textbook entitled "Ecoscience," which advocated mass sterilization, compulsory abortion, one-world government and the establishment of a global police force to enforce these population control measures... errrr... "rights."

       Here are several more of the "greatest hits" from Holdren's tome:

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution [he's talking about the United States Constitution] if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” -page 837

“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.” -page 917

“... a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable... the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade... including all food on the international market.” -pages 942 and 943

“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.” -pages 942 and 943

Why Would So Many Republican Senators So Willingly Support The Surrender Of Our Sovereignty To The United Nations?

     We've got our work cut out for us because Senators Lugar, Barrasso and Isakson aren't the only Senate Republicans supporting this atrocity. Senators John McCain, Jerry Moran and Bob Corker have already gone on record in support of the CRPD as well... and more are certain to follow if our elected officials don't hear from you right now.

       These 6 RINOs only need 8 more Senate Republicans to agree to this affront to our sovereignty, and there are plenty that are ripe for the picking... Senators Lindsey Graham, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Scott Brown, Kay Bailey-Huchinson, Lamar Alexander, Mark Kirk, Thad Cochran, Michael Enzi, John Thune and Lisa Murkowski come immediately to mind.

       That's more than 8 and that list is by no means inclusive. Senators Moran and Barrasso, who stood in opposition to LOST, are actually pushing CRPD. McClatchy even reported that Jim DeMint is very aware that he's "up against other Republican senators" and that he "faces an uphill battle in preventing ratification."

       But that doesn't mean we can't win this fight. We've fought much harder battles and if you make your voice heard now, we can win.

       Why would these Republican Senators so willingly surrender our sovereignty to the United Nations? Why ask why? History, after all, is clear. In the "Federalist Papers" Alexander Hamilton observed that "a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people" and "that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying obsequious court to the people...."

       Perhaps it is enough to say that it takes intelligence, discernment and courage to do the right thing; particularly when the "right thing" is opposing something that masquerades as an effort to advance the rights of the disabled.

       Isakson's own office inadvertently confirmed the above by issuing a slyly-worded statement that said he "voted in favor of the [treaty] in the committee because ratification would signal to the world that the U.S. is committed to continuing its role as the international leader in disability rights."

       But hold on... wait until you hear what came next. Isakson's office actually added that the treaty"will not erode our sovereignty." Is he serious?

       Perhaps, but it's more than certain that Isakson and far too many of our Republican leaders didn't bother to read Article 46 of the CRPD, which explicitly states: "Reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted."

       Isakson and Company should know better; but they don't. Mike Farris said: "They lack the knowledge to execute their offices AND IT'S SHAMEFUL." [Emphasis Ours]

       One thing is certain. When our elected officials are done picking up the mountains of faxes that will spill from their overflowing fax trays onto their floors... they won't be able to use the excuse that they "lacked knowledge."

       So let's make our demands known. Tell our elected officials in no uncertain terms, with an election approaching, that there will be dire career-ending consequences UNLESS they send the opposition a clear message that even bringing this treaty up for a vote is an effort in futility. We want them on record... and we want it in writing.

Floyd Brown

The Western Center for Journalism is a 501©3 educational organization. Contributions are tax-deductible as allowed by IRS regulations. Personal and corporate contributions are allowed.

The Center for Western Journalism
42104 N Venture Drive Suite B-122, Anthem, AZ 85086 (202) 370-6366

Forum

Look Who Wants to Legally STEAL YOUR CHILDREN!

Replies