Wednesday, May 30, 2012

ALERT: CRC End-Around Now in the Senate!

The following is passed along from with the sincere hope that you will take immediate action.

We have sounded the alarm about the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child, which would take away parental rights if it were ratified. With your support we have secured 37 cosponsors on SR99 to make sure that ratification never takes place.

But the current administration has introduced an end-around called the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). President Obama sent this treaty to the Senate for ratification on May 18, 2012. Like the CRC, the CRPD would seriously curtail the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, though under CRPD it is mostly the parents of special needs children who would be affected.

CRPD calls for numerous protections for people with disabilities. Many of these protections are included in U.S. law as part of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). However, CRPD also includes numerous provisions drafted by the United Nations which would concern many U.S. citizens. Like the CRC and CEDAW, if ratified, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would become the supreme law of the land under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause in Article VI, would trump state laws, and would be used as binding precedent by state and federal judges. Since it is a treaty, the U.S. Constitution requires that it must be ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. senators present at the time of the vote, or 67 senators if all 100 U.S. senators were present.

Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

  1. Any remaining state sovereignty on the issue of disability law will be entirely eliminated by the ratification of this treaty. The rule of international law is that the nation-state that ratifies the treaty has the obligation to ensure compliance. This gives Congress total authority to legislate on all matters regarding disability law—a power that is substantially limited today. Article 4(5) makes this explicit.
  2. Article 4(1)(a) demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of the UN.
  3. Article 4(1)(e) remands that “every person, organization, or private enterprise” must eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. On its face, this means that every home owner would have to make their own home fully accessible to those with disabilities. If the UN wants to make exceptions, perhaps they could. But, on its face this is the meaning of the treaty.
  4. Article 4(1)(e) also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your church will be established by the UN—not your local government or your church.
  5. Article 4(2) requires the United States to use its maximum resources for compliance with these standards. The UN has interpreted similar provisions in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to criticize nations who spend too much on military issues and not enough on social programs. There is every reason to believe that the UN would interpret these provisions in a similar fashion. The UN believes that it has the power to determine the legitimacy and lawfulness of the budget of the United States to assess compliance with such treaties.
  6. Article 6(2) is a backdoor method of requiring the United States to comply with the general provisions of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This treaty enshrines abortion rights, homosexual rights, and demands the complete disarmament of all people.
  7. Article 7(2) advances the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the government—acting under UN directives—gets to determine for all children with disabilities what the government thinks is best.
         Additionally, under current American law, federal law requires public schools to offer special assistance to children with disabilities. However, no parent is required to accept such assistance. Under this section the government—and not the parent—would have the ultimate authority to determine if a child with special needs will be homeschooled, attend a private school, or be required to accept the program offered by the public school.
  8. The United States, as a wealthy nation, would be obligated to fund disability programs in nations that could not afford their own programs under the dictates of Article 4(2). This is what “the framework of international cooperation” means.
  9. Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to ….” This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States.
  10. Article 25 on Education does not repeat the parental rights rules of earlier human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This is an important omission. Coupling this omission with the direct declaration of “the best interest of the child” standard in Article 7(2), this convention is nothing less than the complete eradication of parental rights regarding the education of children with disabilities.

In light of this threat to parental rights, we implore you to contact your U.S. senators and urge them to oppose this dangerous treaty. You can call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for them by name, or you can find their direct DC number by clicking on your state at

Michael Farris, President

P.S. - Between the imminent introduction of the Parental Rights Amendment in Congress and this immediate threat being raised in the Senate, our resources are being stretched. Please take a moment now to make a generous donation to support our continuing efforts as we protect your parental rights. We cannot win this struggle without you!

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

On rewards

It is more just to reward effort, even if it cannot be proven to benefit the least affluent, than it is to reward the least affluent even if they exert little effort to improve their status. Moral superiority does not entail punishing the industrious wealthy to sustain the indolent poor.

-- Robert A. Levy
Chairman, Cato Institute

The matter addressed above by Robert Levy in “Cato Policy Report” (Mar/Apr 2012) becomes even more important when considered in view of public policies that encourage indolence—rather than industry—amongst those in need. This concern is multiplied when public policies also seem bent upon punishing without mercy those who prove themselves industrious or in possession of wealth.

Surely such madness is on the very brink of national suicide in the name of benevolence (falsely so-called).

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

On the Constitution and those whom we elect

George Mason, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry worked on the U.S. Constitution. They also drafted the Constitution of Virginia and, in it, they said, "No free government, nor the blessings of liberty, can be preserved... but by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."

The Founding Fathers understood that the preservation of our liberty requires us to revisit the first principles with regularity. Yet, in Congress, the concept of liberty—in the sense in which our Founders used it—has long been forgotten. Surely, our politicians are to blame for this to some extent. But, more importantly, it is "we, the people," who are to blame for not reminding them frequently of this and other first principles.

We, the people, have taken our liberty for granted while the politicians that have "settled themselves" far away "in that federal city" (Washington, DC) and forgotten the principle of liberty for the people.

For this important principle the politicians have substituted the near surety of their own re-election by buying votes using taxpayer money through numerous and growing entitlement programs for corporations, unions, special interest groups and even individuals.

As we, the people, have asked (or, at any rate, allowed) the government to do more and more for us, we have willingly surrendered—step by step—more and more of our liberty. As the people kept asking, the courts and the politicians were more than willing to accommodate in exchange for their re-election. (Note: Re-election rates hover around 85 percent now.)

Now we have an over-reaching federal government that—unless ObamaCare is overturned—has demonstrated virtually unlimited power over the lives of the citizens. Unlimited power to compel us to do whatever the government chooses is TOTALITARIANISM, even if we still live in a "democracy."

It was the federal republic that was intended by our Constitution to defend us from this, but we have long ago lost site of that precious fact.

It's time to wake up America! Stop the madness!