Posts Tagged ‘United Nations’
Melissa Harris-Perry: All Your Kids Belong to Us (Not the Parents)
View on YouTube
I’ve seen the village, and I don’t want it raising my kids!
In a scripted MSNBC promo, Melissa Harris-Perry made the following statement:
“We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had a private notion of children, your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children. So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”
Got that? You kid doesn’t belong to you. He/she belongs to the “collective” – meaning, the state.
Ironically, this is the same woman who calls unborn babies “things that turn into humans.”
How do I put this politely? Stay the **** way from my kids!
So kids belong to whole communities? Didn’t we fight a war back in the 1800s to prove that people weren’t owned by the state or anyone else, but were, in fact, people? Seriously?
But take that out of it. This is amazingly stupid commentary. All of us who own property (real property, not children) pay property taxes to fund a public education system to educate our children. We have democratically elected school boards to make the decisions on how tocollectively educate our kids to common, state approved standards.
It is failing spectacularly. And I suspect that the tangible efforts to improve it, from neutering teachers unions to giving parents choices in where to send their children, are opposed by Melissa Harris-Perry.
I never thought I’d see the day when self-styled progressives advocated the state owning the people.
Ken Shepherd at Newsbusters correctly points out that this is actually Maoist philosophy she’s spewing:
[T]he notion of collective responsibility for children was a philosophy that undergirded the Cultural Revolution in Communist China under Chairman Mao. I bring that up because, as you may recall, another Harris-Perry “Lean Forward” spot contains a reference to a “great leap forward,” which calls to mind the disastrous agricultural reform plan which starved millions of Chinese to death in the 1950s.
The Five on Fox made some great points about this collectivist mentality while discussing this around the table:
View on YouTube
Sarah Palin tweeted a few ingenious responses to this:
Love it! After having spent 22 hours of my life in labor, I heartily agree!
After the justifiable outrage and backlash, Harris-Perry is trying to walk back her statements and blame the views for misunderstanding her. Nice try. This is typical for the Left. They float a trial balloon and then pretend it was all an innocent misunderstanding when they get called for dropping their mask. The mask goes back up, but the ugliness behind it doesn’t go away. They work by desensitizing people over time, so that what sounds outrageous now will actually start to sound reasonable a few years from now. I don’t buy her “backpedaling” for a second.
Sign the petition to adopt the only Constitutional Amendment that will protect children from this kind of power grab – the Parental Rights Amendment!
The Senate voted earlier to block the U.S. from joining the treaty, but Obama is likely to sign it anyway.
He’s already heading out onto the never-ending campaign trail to stump for more gun control. He wants to stir up public pressure to force the Senate to ratify it. If they do, you can kiss your 2nd Amendment rights good-bye.
This morning, by a vote of 154 nations in favor (including the United States), 23 abstentions, and three against (Syria, North Korea, and Iran), the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The treaty will be open for national signature on June 3, 2013, and will enter into force for its signatories when it has been signed and ratified by 50 nations.
Though the vote in favor of the treaty seems overwhelming, a closer look shows something different. Among the major exporting and importing nations, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, and Russia abstained. So did most of the Arab Group, as well as a range of anti-American regimes, including Bolivia, Cuba, and Nicaragua, and a smattering of others, including Belarus, Burma, and Sri Lanka.
A further 13 nations did not vote, including some known opponents of the treaty, such as Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Finally, while Pakistan voted in favor of the treaty, its statement in explanation implied that it was voting for the treaty because it anticipated that India would abstain, and it wanted to look good by comparison.
Thus, what the U.N. vote amounts to is the tacit rejection of the treaty by most of the world’s most irresponsible arms exporters and anti-American dictatorships, who collectively amount to half of the world’s population.
Ken Klukowski warns, “What Americans Need To Know About The UN Gun Control Treaty“:
Today the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a global gun control treaty called the Arms Trade Treaty. Now the fight begins here at home. There are several things gun owners need to know to protect their constitutional rights.
Now that it’s been proposed, the treaty goes to all the member states to decide on whether to join. Per the U.S. Constitution, in America it must first be signed by the president (which it will), then be ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate (which it won’t). The United States is not likely to join the treaty as a nation, though President Barack Obama will likely push for it.
The General Assembly can’t do anything at the United Nations except propose (not establish) treaties and admit new U.N. members. Most of the power at the U.N. is in the Security Council, which consists of five permanent members (including the U.S.) and ten rotating seats among all the other U.N. members. So the General Assembly did one of the only things it can by recommending this treaty to its member states.
However, the first danger is that U.S. courts have held we’re bound by “customary international law,” sometimes called the “law of nations.” If enough U.N. member states were to adopt this treaty, a liberal federal court could rule it has become customary international law. The current Supreme Court would never affirm such a ruling, but there is a real danger if Obama changes the balance of the Court over the next three years.
Because federal statutes and treaties are of equal force under the U.S. Constitution, whenever they are in direct conflict, the most-recently passed of the two prevails. So, if somehow this treaty were ratified by the Senate, if Congress were to later pass a statute taking the opposite position, it would trump the treaty.
Of course, you need a president’s signature to pass a statute or two-thirds of Congress to override a presidential veto, so we would need a president in 2016 who supports the Second Amendment to pass such a law.
[...] The dangers are obvious, however. If Barack Obama manages to get an anti-gun politician like Hillary Clinton or Andrew Cuomo to follow him in 2016 as president, and changes the balance of the Supreme Court over time, then the Arms Trade Treaty could open America up to a worldwide U.N. gun control regime. That could lay the groundwork and set up a system that a decade or two from now could restrict lawful firearm ownership in this nation.
In the twisted mind of the Left (the ideology of which the United Nations is the primary propagandist), telling a woman that she can’t murder her child is the same as genitally mutilating her.
Offering a person the counseling and therapy needed to address the deep wounds at the root of same-sex attraction is equal to torturing and beating them.
You can’t even reason with someone that detached from reality and logic. Black is white, up is down, wrong is right, love is hate, night is day…and nothing you say will convince them otherwise.
A recent United Nations report on torture and mistreatment in health care systems around the world singled out lack of access to abortion as a form of “torture,” classifying it as a human rights violation on par with female genital mutilation, forced sterilizations and state-sanctioned beatings.
The report also says governments should recognize the preferred sex of ‘transgender’ individuals without regard to biology, arguing that forcing such people to undergo sex-reassignment surgery in order to prove their case is equivalent to torture.
[...] The report calls for the “elimination of homophobia” in health care settings, calling on “all States to repeal any law allowing intrusive and irreversible treatments, including forced genital-normalizing surgery … ‘reparative therapies’ or ‘conversion therapies,’ when enforced or administered without the free and informed consent of the person concerned.”
[...] One of the main ‘protection gaps’ identified was a lack of easy access to abortion in some countries.
“The Committee against Torture has repeatedly expressed concerns about restrictions on access to abortion and about absolute bans on abortion as violating the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment,” Mendez wrote.
In the densely-worded 23-page report, Mendez devotes an entire section to “Reproductive Rights Violations.” While a list of violations towards the beginning of the section includes female genital mutilation, forced abortion, and forced sterilizations, much of the text that follows is focused on abortion access.
The tyrants at the UN won’t be satisfied until every citizen capable of resisting them world-wide is disarmed into sitting ducks. If just 2/3 of the Senate votes to ratify this treaty, our gun rights will be in serious jeopardy.
The fact that Democrats are willing to take the side of other nations against their own fellow citizens’ constitutional right to self-defense reveals how traitorous they truly are.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said there was not enough support to give Sen. Dianne Feinstein the stand-alone vote she demands on the “assault weapon” ban, but the upper chamber may soon be the deciding factor in whether the United States ratifies an international treaty that could strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights.
On Monday, the United States joined in the nine day conference in New York to finalize negotiations of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The treaty is intended to regulate the global trade of conventional weapons, but depending how the final document is worded, it could put at risk Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.
The countries were negotiating the draft last July, but stopped when the U.S. asked for a delay. Many believe Mr. Obama pushed the issue past Election Day in order not to further alienate gun owners. Now that he has more “flexibility” in his second term, the U.S. is back at the table.
Secretary of State John Kerry has encouraged reaching consensus by March 28. “The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability,” he wrote in a statement Friday.
[...] Mr. Obama will likely go ahead and sign the treaty as it is. Then the only thing standing in the way of the U.N. stripping Americans of their Second Amendment rights is if he can get two-thirds of the Senate to ratify.
Certainly the ATT is controversial. Touted as a means of getting a handle on an international arms trade valued at $60 billion a year, its stated purpose is to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime at an international level.
Its vague and suspicious wording led some 150 members of Congress last June to send a letter to President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warning that the treaty is “likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.”
We have noted that a paper by the U.N.’s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) says that arms have been “misused by lawful owners” and that the “arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would . .. minimize the misuse of legally owned weapons.”
Would defending your home against intruders, or U.S. laws permitting concealed carry, be considered a “misuse?”
[...] Last Thursday, Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., introduced a bipartisan resolution opposing the treaty. The resolution states the U.N. proposal “places free democracies and totalitarian regimes on a basis of equality” and represents a threat to U.S. national security.
Our Constitution is unambiguous in its protection of gun rights. The ATT is not.
Interestingly, just as the world’s worst human rights violators have sat on and often chaired the U.N. Human Rights Council, Iran, arms supplier extraordinaire to America’s enemies, was elected to a top position at the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty held in New York last July.
The U.S. is one of few countries that has anything like a Second Amendment, our Founding Fathers enshrining the right to bear arms in our founding principles in recognition of it being the ultimate bulwark against tyrannical government.
The fact that an organization full of tyrants, dictators, thugs and gross human rights violators wants to control small arms worldwide is hardly a surprise.
Somehow, administration assurances that the treaty won’t infringe on our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn’t reassure us.
UPDATE: Defeated in the Senate 53-46. We dodged a bullet…this year.
Nothing shows a person’s true colors better than who they choose to adulate as heroes. For the past week, the Left in America has been tripping over themselves to pay tribute to the recently deceased brutal Communist dictator.
Michael Burleigh notes, “How typical of the Left to idolise a despot who gloried in attacking America and Britain“:
The truth is that Chavez was a brutal despot who strutted the world stage basking in the international celebrity status he gained as a result of his anti-American rhetoric and relentless attacks on Britain.
He was a master of propaganda who deftly wooed the ‘useful idiots’ of the Left — to use the phrase Stalin applied to Britain’s Labour politicians and trade unionists — while clamping down on free speech in his own country, rigging the political system in his favour and presiding over a nation drowning in bloodshed and mired in poverty.
[...] He may not have been a genocidal maniac in the style of Kim Jong-Il or Stalin, but Chavez was one of a grotesque line of authoritarian strongmen who have been the curse of Latin America over the decades.
And yet, because of his defiant stance on the U.S. and his attacks on British ‘imperialism’, he was lionised in this country by the Left and its media mouthpieces, The Guardian and the BBC. (Perhaps that’s not so unexpected — we have to remember that a BBC reporter wept during the funeral of arch Palestinian terrorist Yasser Arafat.)
Sadly, this infection is not isolated across the pond. American leftists are just as guilty:
The fantasy of benevolent dictatorship remains irresistible to [leftists]. The idea of some towering moral and intellectual colossus seizing absolute power to “fix” a broken nation, on behalf of The People, is breathtaking. Just imagine the delicious tears that would be shed by the enemies of the righteous Left on that day!
The regard for power flows uphill. Those who believe themselves superior, enlightened beings naturally view their leaders as even more luminous creatures – smarter, wiser, and better-educated than their adoring leftist supporters. And the leader of those leaders? Why, that person would be some sort of “Lightworker,” a “rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign places or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment,” as somebody once said about another comically inept but fulsomely praised leftist demigod.
Socialism is always judged by the promises it makes to its victims, never by the results. People like Hugo Chavez know how to exploit that sentiment to the hilt. Mouth a bit of leftist cant, and you can stroll away with satchels full of looted cash, to the applause of the very same people who rail endlessly against the alleged “greed” of honest businessmen. Flatter the moral vanity of such people, and they’ll grant all sorts of dispensations they would never extend to their capitalist fellow citizens.
This is the sick mentality we’re dealing with, though most radical environmentalists wouldn’t dare to admit it publicly.
Well-known TV presenter and environmental activist Sir David Attenborough has a dire warning for humanity – we need to die off of our own volition or mother nature will do the job for us.
Attenborough, famous for hosting numerous nature documentaries over the span of the past six decades, told Britain’s Radio Times that humans are a plague on the earth and the only way to save the planet is to limit human population growth.“We are a plague on the earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde,” Attenborough said.
“Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now.”
Attenborough is best known for his “Life on Earth” series of wildlife documentaries, as well as for a previous statement extolling the virtues of saving the environment by eliminating people.
“Maybe it is time that instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, we should control the population to ensure the survival of the environment,” Attenborough is widely quoted to have said in a letter to John Guillebaud, Professor of Family Planning and Reproductive Health at University College London.
Funny how none of these guys every volunteer to remove THEMSELVES from the planet in an effort to stop this “plague.” It’s OTHER people whose lives they consider disposable.
Paul Ehrlich, the doomsday biologist who coined the term “The Population Bomb” more than 40 years ago with a book of the same name, says the world now faces “dangerous trends” of global climate change and overpopulation, which threaten our extinction.
Reducing the number of people is still the answer to civilization’s woes, Ehrlich and his wife Anne wrote in anarticle published Jan. 9 by London’s Royal Society.
“To our minds, the fundamental cure, reducing the scale of the human enterprise (including the size of the population) to keep its aggregate consumption within the carrying capacity of Earth is obvious but too much neglected or denied,” Ehrlich wrote.
Ehrlich spelled out exactly what he meant in an interview with a liberal blog/news site called Raw Story.
“Giving people the right to have as many people, as many children that they want is, I think, a bad idea,” the Web site quoted Ehrlich as saying.
“Nobody, in my view, has the right to have 12 children or even three unless the second pregnancy is twins,” Ehrlich added.
How much you wanna bet this guy believes it’s a mother’s “right” to murder her unborn child….just not to give birth to him/her if he/she happens to expand your family larger than some bureaucrat with a god complex thinks it should be?
Of course, the “solutions” to these quacks’ anti-human hysteria involves confiscating more of your tax money to pay for other people’s abortions and population control schemes:
Little does it matter to people like Ehrlich and Attenborough that population control has usually been deeply rooted in eugenics, a science attempting to reduce “undesirable” populations, asDaniel Patrick Moloney has documented.
Nor does it seem to matter that attempts at population control have only resulted in outcomes such as China’s oppressive and coercive one-child policy, which, coupled with a cultural preference for boys, is not only decimating the country’s demographics, but causing the sex-selective abortion of millions of baby girls.
Fortunately, pro-life advocates succeeded yesterday in halting the Obama Administration’sattempt to include abortion in the list of rights protected by the United Nations. This week, we can hope they will continue to make progress toward protecting lives in the United States.
This is why we desperately need the Parental Rights amendment! Countries that have ratified the UNCRC have given the state the power to override parental decisions and tear apart families simply because bureaucrats disagree with the parents’ choices – even when the parents are fit and there is no proof of neglect or abuse!
On Monday, December 10, 2012, also International Human Rights Day, a Swedish appeals court reversed a lower court ruling in favor of Annie and Christer Johansson and terminated their parental rights in regard to their son, Domenic.
The boy and his parents were on board a jetliner minutes from departing Sweden for Annie’s home country of India when Domenic was seized in June 2009. The reason authorities initially gave for taking Domenic was that he had been homeschooled.
During subsequent medical evaluations, Domenic was found to have missed some vaccinations and “had cavities” in his teeth.
During the first months following his seizure the parents were only permitted to visit Domenic once every two weeks. This quickly became once every five weeks, and in 2010 all visitations were cut off.
The United States Supreme Court has written that terminating parental rights is the Family Court equivalent of the death penalty. Every party to such an action, the court wrote in Stanley v. Illinois, must be afforded every procedural and substantive due process protection. In American courts this means that clear and convincing evidence, the civil equivalent of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” is necessary before parental rights are terminated.
The case of the Johanssons in Sweden demonstrates what can happen when the family is not respected as an integral unit of society.
The parents’ hopes had risen after nearly three-and-a-half years of forced separation from their son when a district court ruled in June 2012 that they would retain their parental rights. Christer and Annie learned shortly thereafter that the Social Welfare Committee had appealed their victory.
According to the family’s attorney, the Social Welfare Committee had ignored a request to review the case for over a year. The law requires that such a request be acted on within four months. However, the agency did not schedule such a review until the appeals court seemed ready to rule on the case.
The December 19 date set for the review will likely be ignored as the social authorities have won their appeal and now have unrestricted guardianship over Domenic.
The case has attracted international attention, and two official representatives of the Indian government attended to observe the proceedings at the appeals court. In an interview after the hearing, Mr. Rakesh Misra, the Indian Embassy to Sweden’s first secretary, made a statement during a break in the hearing.
“I don’t see how they can claim that these are not good parents. My impression is that these are good parents,” he is reported to have told the family’s attorney.
“The Embassy [of India] may send a letter to the Swedish State Department and the Justice Department with our views on the case,” stated Mr. Misra after the case in an interview with a Swedish newspaper, noting that the embassy has full respect for the legal process and will not intervene in it. “However, we believe this is a case where you must carefully weigh both child’s rights and parents’ rights. One also cannot ignore the great cultural and social differences between Sweden and India.”
According to Misra, the embassy became involved in the case on Domenic during the past three months, given that the mission in Norway recently helped resolve a custody dispute concerning two Indian nationals.
Michael Donnelly, HSLDA’s director for international affairs, called the decision “brutal.”
“The United States Supreme Court has called the termination of parental rights of the Family Court equivalent of the death penalty. After a district court victory we had hoped the end of this nightmare was approaching. At this point we can only hope that the Swedish Supreme Court will intervene to correct this grave injustice,” he said. “The facts have shown Annie and Christer Johansson to be good parents. It is unconscionable that a court in a democratic country like Sweden could find it is in the child’s interests to remain separated from these parents. The pain, suffering and harm done to this family are incalculable.”
Ruby Harrold-Claesson is president of the Nordic Committee on Human Rights. She says this ruling on International Human Rights Day is atrocious.
“This is a despicable act,” she said. “I don’t know how these judges can have done this. The chief judge wrote a strong dissent that I hope will make an impact on the Swedish Supreme Court. We will appeal this horrible decision.”
Time for American parents to wake up to the fact that the Girl Scouts were hijacked by the liberal feminist agenda long ago, and put their daughters in a safe, conservative alternative like American Heritage Girls instead.
As the twentieth anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) approaches, abortion activists are marking out their priorities for governments to adopt for the next 20 years. To that end, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), along with various non-governmental organizations hosted, ICPD Global Youth Forum in Bali last week, touted by sponsors as an “unprecedented opportunity to influence global policy.”
The participants were pre-selected by the event organizers which wanted to ensure uniformity of opinion. According to UNFPA, 600 youth “delegates” attended, a third fewer than the anticipated900, with approximately 2,500 additional online participants. Attendance appeared sparse throughout the conference. Emcee Robert Skinner of the United Nations Foundation began one morning’s session by optimistically attributing the many empty seats to people being “out there making connections, making friends, having fun. And that’s what it’s all about.”
The recommendations from the youth forum were mere suggestions but UNFPA said they would be added to a UN Secretary-General report that will be presented to the General Assembly, assertingthey “will help define development priorities for the next 20 years.”
The organizers’ priorities were clear from the openingstatements given by the two youth members of the steering committee, both of whom are employed by pro-abortion organizations. They urged that “safe abortion services” be accessible to young women and that gender should be viewed as “not in a binary” (A definition of binary is “a whole composed of two.”) Also on the steering committee were representatives of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, World YWCA, and the World Association of Girl Scouts and Girl Guides, as well as members of the Indonesian government that hosted the event.
Huh. Wonder why you never hear THIS reported on the evening news.
Whew! That was too close for comfort!
Just a few minutes ago the United States Senate rejected ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. [NOTE: Our email erroneously named the Convention on the Rights of the Child rather than the CRPD.] The vote of 61 to 38 in favor of the treaty was short of the required two-thirds margin (66 in favor) necessary to ratify a treaty according to Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Less than an hour before the vote, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama testified thathis office has received more than 1,000 letters and emails in opposition to the treaty – and only 40 in favor. This shows an amazing outpouring from defenders of parental rights!
While we recognize that our success in Alabama is not indicative of the support level in every state, we would not have achieved this victorious outcome without the overwhelming support of concerned Americans just like you. Thank you so much for your calls, letters, and emails to oppose this ratification!
We also appreciate your patience with us as we have filled your inbox over the last two weeks during the height of this struggle. Now that the immediate danger has passed, we will continue to keep you updated on this and other dangers to parental rights through our weekly emails. You can also follow ongoing conversation or timely updates on our Facebook page or our website.
Finally, we are grateful to these brave senators who stood firm to protect parental rights and American self-government even in the face of a loud and emotional plea from those who favored the treaty.
Director of Communications & Research
P.S. - The roll call list is available online here.
Note which Republicans voted to give away our sovereignty and parental rights to a foreign bureaucracy, and make sure they get primaried in 2012!
The Senate is about to vote on a treaty that would give European bureaucrats the right to influence American law and override parental decisions when it comes to the well-being of their children with disabilities:
The final vote on whether or not to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is scheduled for noon on Tuesday, December 4. Whether our nation will continue to preserve the principles of parental rights and American self-government, or whether we will jettison these in a “symbolic gesture” of support for disabled persons around the world will be decided at that time.
We are optimistic that we will have the votes – 34 or more – to defeat the treaty. But there is too much at stake to trust to speculation.
So please remember to call your senators today, and then call them again tomorrow morning (before noon).
You can ask for their office through the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 or find their number by clicking on your state at http://parentalrights.org/states.
Here are a few things you might mention in your own words:
“I would urge the Senator to oppose giving consent to ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This treaty would surrender the rights of parents whose children are disabled, by establishing the ‘best interests of the child’ legal standard. We already have excellent American-made law to protect persons with disabilities, and the world is already NOT following our example. It would be foolish to adopt a vehicle of international law in hopes that they will suddenly change their minds. This treaty also redefines entitlements as ‘economic, social, and cultural rights,’ which would have a tremendous impact on a host of domestic law issues.
Protect parental rights and American self-government, and reject this giant step toward socialism and government control of our families. Vote NO on the CRPD.”
We will be watching and listening very closely, and we will alert you to the results of the vote tomorrow as quickly as we are able. We are hopeful that the news will be good – but we must all remain diligent between now and then.
Thank you for taking a moment right now and again tomorrow to call your Senators to oppose this dangerous treaty!
Director of Communications & Research
Rick Santorum, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Michael Farris (Home School Legal Defense Association) explain in this press conference why the UN CRPD is a threat to parental rights and American sovereignty:
View on YouTube
The Heritage Foundation explains why this treaty will NOT help disabled children:
U.S. membership in CRPD would not advance U.S. national interests either at home or abroad.
The rights of Americans with disabilities are well protected under existing law and are enforced by a wide range of state and federal agencies. Joining CRPD merely opens the door for foreign “experts” to interfere in U.S. policymaking in violation of the principles of American sovereignty.
Ratification of CRPD would do nothing to improve the existing statutory framework and enforcement system for protecting the rights of Americans with disabilities.
Ratification of the CRPD is unnecessary to end discrimination against people with disabilities in the U.S. As is made clear throughout the Obama Administration’s Transmittal Package, the U.S. already has in place numerous federal laws to protect and advance the cause of Americans with disabilities. Major pieces of legislation include the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the Fair Housing Act.
Other federal laws that protect people with disabilities include the Telecommunications Act, the Air Carrier Access Act, the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, and the Architectural Barriers Act.
Unlike the broad provisions of CRPD, these federal laws were crafted to address the situation of disabled people living in the U.S., not to reflect the general opinions of the international community. The legislation is a firm foundation that can be modified or expanded as necessary through the legislative or regulatory process.
The Geneva-based Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would inevitably interfere with U.S. policymaking, thereby infringing on American sovereignty and intruding into matters wholly unrelated to disability rights.
To monitor implementation, human rights treaties usually establish a “committee of experts” to review reports from states parties on their compliance. States parties are required to submit periodic reports (usually every four years) to the committee detailing their compliance with the particular treaty.
The CRPD established the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD committee) to review periodic reports and make “such suggestions and general recommendations on the report as it may consider appropriate.”
Human rights treaty committees have been known to make demands that fall well outside the scope of the subject matter of the treaty and conflict with the legal, social, economic, and cultural traditions and norms of states. This has especially been the case with the U.S.
The vote is scheduled for noon on Tuesday! Don’t wait! Call right now and tell your senators to oppose U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities!
The UN is a corrupt organization dominated by dictators and radical Islamists. They have no right to give Israel’s land away. They should be immediately defunded and ejected from U.S. soil.
The U.N. General Assembly approved an implicit recognition of Palestinian statehood on Thursday despite threats by the United States and Israel to punish the Palestinian Authority by withholding funds for the West Bank government.
A resolution that would lift the Palestinian Authority’s U.N. observer status from “entity” to “non-member state,” like the Vatican, passed easily in the 193-nation General Assembly. The vote was 138 in favor, 9 against, 41 abstentions.
Here are the 9 nations that voted “no,” according to the AP:
Voting “no” Thursday were Israel, the United States and Canada, joined by the Czech Republic, Panama and several Pacific island nations: Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau.
My guess is that the only reason Obama supported a “no” vote is that he doesn’t want to lose the Jewish Democrat vote before the 2014 elections.
Individual governments are not required to comply with General Assembly resolutions. Thus, as a practical matter, the U.N. vote changes little about how other governments regard Palestinian statehood claims. The countries that already recognize “Palestine” as a state—roughly 130 countries—will continue to do so. Their support in the U.N. today for the upgrade in Palestinian status is a reflection of their position, not a new development.
Similarly, those states voting against or abstaining from the vote are unlikely to change their position because a majority of the General Assembly supported the resolution. Most notably, the U.S. and Israel do not recognize Palestinian statehood claims and see the vote as a deliberate attempt by the Palestinians to achieve their goals while circumventing negotiations with Israel.
As President Obama said when the Palestinians sought U.N. membership last year, “efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state.” They remain insistent that recognition of “Palestine” can come only from a negotiated peace agreement with Israel.
The vote does, however, have significance in the U.N. system and for other international organizations. The Palestinian Authority will almost certainly exploit its upgrade to non-member state status to seek membership in U.N. specialized agencies, as it did last year with UNESCO. Their case will be strengthened by today’s vote. It will be particularly hard for those specialized agencies, like the International Atomic Energy Agency and the International Telecommunication Union, that include the Vatican among their membership to deny the Palestinians membership because the Holy See is also a U.N. non-member state observer.
U.S. law currently prohibits funding U.N. organizations that grant membership to the Palestinians. The Palestinian effort to gain membership in other U.N. specialized agencies fizzled when the U.S. cut funding for UNESCO as required by U.S. law. The most significant impediment to Palestinian membership efforts in other specialized agencies is the threat of losing U.S. funding, which means that the U.S. must maintain and enforce current law.
Somehow I doubt Obama plans to withdraw funding, which means his actions will once again speak louder than his cheap rhetoric.
Whenever you try to appease terrorists, it only makes them more aggressive.
Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens confesses that he was wrong to promote Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza strip in 2005:
Sometimes it behooves even a pundit to acknowledge his mistakes. In 2004 as editor of the Jerusalem Post, and in 2006 in this column, I made the case that Israel was smart to withdraw its soldiers and settlers from the Gaza Strip. I was wrong.
My error was to confuse a good argument with good policy; to suppose that mere self-justification is a form of strategic prudence. It isn’t. Israel is obviously within its rights to defend itself now against a swarm of rockets and mortars from Gaza. But if it had maintained a military presence in the Strip, it would not now be living under this massive barrage.
Or, to put it another way: The diplomatic and public-relations benefit Israel derives from being able to defend itself from across a “border” and without having to get into an argument about settlements isn’t worth the price Israelis have had to pay in lives and terror.
That is not the way it seemed to me in 2004, when then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to pull up stakes, reversing the very policy he had done so much to promote as a general and politician in the 1970s. Gaza, I argued, was vital neither to the Jewish state’s security nor to its identity. It was a drain on Israel’s moral, military, political and diplomatic resources. Getting out of the Strip meant shaving off nearly half of the Palestinian population (and the population with the highest birthrate), thereby largely solving Israel’s demographic challenge.
Withdrawal also meant putting the notion of land-for-peace to a real-world test. Would Gazans turn the Strip into a showcase Palestinian state, a Mediterranean Dubai, or into another Beirut circa 1982? If the former, then Israel could withdraw from the West Bank with some confidence. If the latter, it would put illusions to rest, both within Israel and throughout the Western world.
[...] Put simply, Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza yielded less security, greater diplomatic isolation, and a Palestinian regime even more radical and emboldened than it had been before. As strategic failures go, it was nearly perfect.
Now Israel has some difficult decisions to make. Will it try and maintain the current suicidal status quo? Or will it begin taking back territory needed to keep itself secure?
Terrorist militias serve an ideology, but function as a business. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Fatah or any other of the many groups blanketing the region, need money and weapons to be viable. They need state sponsors and the states that sponsor them want something in return. Terrorist groups find sponsors the way that Renaissance artists found patrons, they show off their skills and wait for someone to come calling with money and guns. And then they perform for their patrons.
Israel’s terrorist problem is unsolvable through any form of peace negotiations because there will always be sponsors. A terrorist group may sign a peace agreement, but then it quickly gets on the phone to its sponsors to assure them that it will go on committing acts of terror. Its militias are spun off into “separatist” or “splinter” groups that go on doing what they did before. And the group then asks its new friend American and Israeli friends for guns and money to fight these extremists. That way the terrorist groups get twice the money for terrorism and a farce of counter-terrorism.
Even if a terrorist leader is sincere, his movement is nothing but an umbrella group for terrorist militias. If the umbrella group stops funneling money from state sponsors to local militias, the militias go into business for themselves. And there is such a demand by sponsors for more and more “extreme” militias, that even the existing terrorist groups find themselves having to compete with newer and more violently Islamist militias.
Peace is useless and hopeless under these conditions. Fatah claimed that it could not control Hamas. Hamas claims it cannot control the men shooting rockets out of Gaza. The people shooting rockets out of Gaza will claim that they cannot control their fingers on the trigger. It’s plausible deniability all the way down when it’s convenient, but the real control is in the hands of regional regimes who feed coins into the slot and get out terrorism.
So what then is Israel fighting for? Peace with security. Which means slapping down Hamas hard enough that it will have to wait another 3-4 years before trying the same thing again, this time with bigger and better rockets. That was the policy six years ago and it’s the policy today.
[...] This is the status quo and it cannot be maintained indefinitely. The air raid sirens going off in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem warn that the war is heading into unsustainable territory. As Iran goes nuclear, Hizbullah is trying to become another Iran and Hamas is trying to become another Hizbullah. It is not a nuisance that can be ignored. Israel has no answer to the growing threat except to try and contain it through the same old methods that have now put Jerusalem and Tel Aviv into the line of fire.
Since 1992, Israel has been retreating and those retreats have replaced secure borders with borders of terror. Rather than reversing those withdrawals, the right has been satisfied with trying to stabilize them. But that has only created safe spaces for terror while setting the stage for the next round of retreats by the left which will create even broader territories of terror. These territories are staging areas for the next invasion, which will come not from Hamas, but a Muslim Brotherhood Egypt and an Islamist Turkey, once Israel has been sufficiently softened up.
The only way to end the threat of Hamas in Gaza is by retaking Gaza, but no such policy is on the table. Like America, Israel responds to terrorism not with the aim of achieving decisive victories, but with a policy of intimidating the terrorists into scaling down their attacks. This is a political policy of political generals and leads to terror becoming a permanent institution.
Israel has tried negotiating its way out of the terrorist trap. It has not tried fighting its way out. Israel has tried to escape the occupation, but in a region where you are either the occupier or the occupied, it may have no choice.
[...] Israel can retake Gaza once. Or it can retake Gaza every few years. It can have soldiers patrol Gaza or it can have rockets falling on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The options are as unfortunate as they are clear. The only hope for peace lies in driving out the terrorist militias who have turned Gaza and the West Bank into their own Somalia and Afghanistan and reclaiming the territory. Because after this fight is through, the next generation of rockets will go on being built and smuggled. And they will not fall in empty fields.
There can be farms and greenhouses on the hilltops of Gaza. Or there can be rockets.
They think Obama is weak, and now they’re going to try and see how far they can push us.
If they close the Strait of Hormuz, choking off the world’s oil supply, gas could skyrocket to over $10 a gallon overnight and send us into a global depression.
Of course, none of that was considered important enough for the media to report this major story before the election, when it could have hurt their favorite candidate.
Iran fired on an unarmed U.S. drone last week as it was hovering in international airspace, the Pentagon announced Thursday.
Spokesman George Little said the incident, which marks the first time the Iranians have fired on a U.S. drone, occurred Nov. 1 at 4:50 a.m. ET. He said the unarmed, unmanned drone was conducting “routine surveillance” over the Persian Gulf when it was “intercepted” by Iran. He said the MQ1 Predator drone, which was not hit, was not in Iranian airspace.
According to Little, two Iranian jets fired twice, missing on both attempts — the drone headed away from the Iranian coast, landing safely soon after at an undisclosed location. The Iranian jets pursued the drone for a short period before giving up.
Charles Krauthammer weighed in the the media cover-up (H/T Gateway Pundit):
Not even 24 hours, and they’re already going after our right to personally defend ourselves. This is going to be a LONG four years!
Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected, the United States backed a U.N. committee’s call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade.
U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies.
Funny how Obama didn’t bother to mention this part of his agenda during the campaign.
Fun fact: every nation that has ever conducted a mass confiscation of guns and disarmed its citizenry has committed genocide against that same population within 6 years. Tyrants hate it when their intended victims can shoot back.
If American or international law enforcement actually tried to start confiscating guns, it could be the trigger that sparks an outright armed rebellion.
You can always count on Texas to step up to the plate when state sovereignty is at stake.
A U.N.-affiliated group called OSCE says it intends to send observers from other countries to observe our elections here in Texas. Yes, you read that right. A UN group is coming here to Texas. It just boggles the mind. Well, our Attorney General, Greg Abbott is having none of it.
[...] Elections and election observation are regulated by state law. The Texas Election Code governs anyone who participates in Texas elections—including representatives of the OSCE. The OSCE’s representatives are not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place. It may be a criminal offense for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance. Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE’s representatives to criminal prosecution for violating state law.
The OSCE was not happy about that letter. Too bad. Don’t mess with Texas.
Gov. Rick Perry tweeted this in support: “No UN monitors/inspectors will be part of any TX election process; I commend @Txsecofstate for swift action to clarify issue.”
Texas authorities have threatened to arrest international election observers, prompting a furious response from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).
“The threat of criminal sanctions against [international] observers is unacceptable,” Janez Lenarčič, the Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), said in a statement. “The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections.”
We gave up all obligations to foreign powers when we issued the Declaration of Independence. Whatever they may claim, the US is not obligated to allow foreigners to interfere in our election process.
The belief that America can’t handle it’s own elections is so abhorrent that even if the left’s request for assistance from the OSCE is a stunt, they should be massively ashamed of themselves. There is a primal First Principle above all others: Citizens are capable of governing themselves. We have federal, state, and local laws to deal with any concerns expressed by either side about the fairness of the vote. The idea that these laws are not adequate is absurd.
Therefore, the only possible explanation for bringing in outsiders to “monitor” the vote is not to ensure a fair election, but to try and intimidate their political opponents. [...]
If you’d like to volunteer to be a poll watcher and make sure the ballots are handled and counted honestly, go to TrueTheVote.org and sign up!