Golden-Rule-Ad-WEB
Our Local Columnists
~ READ MORE ~
Read The Guest Columns
~ READ MORE ~
Monday, June 26, 2017 - 01:22 PM
INDEPENDENT CONSERVATIVE VOICE OF THE PALMETTO STATE
Obama White House Trading Sovereignty for More UN Presence? PDF Print E-mail
Written by Bob Dill   
Wednesday, 06 May 2009 00:00

There are reports that the Obama administration is preparing to swap U. S. sovereignty for a higher level of U. S. presence at the United Nations.

Michael Farris, chancellor of Patrick Henry College and founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, is sounding the alarm that the Obama Administration is trying to secure a seat on the U. N. Human Rights Council. In order to secure the seat, Farris said, the Obama camp has submitted a series of “Commitments and Pledges” declaring loyalty and “deep commitment” to the U.N.

An April 27 “Commitments” document released by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, the U. S. representative to the U.N., the Obama White House pledged its support for the Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, which along with the Convention on the Rights of the Child makes the U.S. subservient to the international agenda.

If the two treaties are adopted, Farris said, they will not only jeopardize U.S. sovereignty but hasten the end of the traditional American family.

According to the Parental Rights website, the Convention on the Rights of the Child 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.

 

 


Site Developed & Designed by James Spurck & Maintained by The Times Examiner
© 2017 Copyright • Greenville, SC