Two Minute Warning

The clock is running as I speak.

Forget about the charity hustlers and the global government crowd for a minute. This phoney UN treaty —— Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities —— has a good chance of being ratified if it ever comes up for a ratification vote before or after the election.

UN-loving traitors hellbent on ratifying as many treaties as possible before they lose the Senate and the White House are counting on every senator’s fear of being crucified in the media should they vote against the “disabled.” It’s the same as voting against the children. It just isn’t done even though every time the children are invoked adult parasites feeding at the public trough benefit the most.

Phyllis Schlafly lays out why the CRPD should not be ratified:

UN Treaty Mischief on Disabilities
by Phyllis Schlafly
July 25, 2012

The United Nations in collusion with Obama’s globalists have cooked up another scheme to slice off a piece of U.S. sovereignty and put us under global government. The plan is to stampede the Senate into ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

This particular piece of globalist mischief had been unnoticed since President Obama ordered UN Ambassador Susan Rice to sign this treaty on July 30, 2009. Now he is trying to ram it through to ratification.

The notion that the UN can provide more benefits or protections for persons with disabilities than the U.S. is bizarre. The United States always treats individuals, able or disabled, rich or poor, innocent or guilty, better than any other nation.

We certainly don’t need a committee of foreigners who call themselves “experts” to dictate our laws or customs. But that’s what this treaty and most other UN treaties try to do.

We already have protections and benefits for persons with disabilities enshrined in U.S. laws, regulations, and enforcement mechanisms. Prominent among these laws are the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Other laws that benefit persons with disabilities are the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968. These federal laws are enforced by numerous federal agencies, particularly the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

The UN General Assembly adopted the CRPD on December 13, 2006 and it became part of what globalists euphemistically call international law on May 3, 2008, after 20 nations ratified it. The treaty now has 117 nations that have ratified it.

Under the CRPD, we would be required to make regular reports to a “committee of experts” to prove we are obeying the treaty. The “experts” would have the authority to review our reports and make “such suggestions and general recommendations on the report as it may consider appropriate.”

These demands are often outside the treaty’s scope of subject matter. They override national sovereignty in pursuit of social engineering, feminist ideology, or merely busybody interference in a country’s internal affairs.

CRPD’s Article 7 gives the government the power to override every decision of the parent of a disabled child by using the caveat “the best interest of the child.” This phrase has already been abused by family courts to substitute judges’ decisions for parents’ decisions, and transferring the use of that phrase to the government or to a UN committee is the wrong way to go.

The feminists saw to it that this treaty on disabilities includes language in Article 25 that requires signatory states to “provide persons with disabilities … free or affordable health care … including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based health programmes.” Wow!

When the UN approved the CRPD, the United States made a statement that the phrase “reproductive health” does not include abortion. But that’s just whistling in the wind because international law does not recognize the validity of one nation’s reservations to a treaty ratified by many other nations.

Furthermore, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is on record as stating that the definition of “reproductive health” includes abortion. In testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on April 22, 2009, she said: “Family planning is an important part of women’s health, and reproductive health includes access to abortion.”

After ratification, treaties become part of the “supreme law” of the United States on a par with federal statutes. That gives supremacist judges the power to invent their own interpretations, which some are all too eager to do.
It’s easy to predict that some pro-abortion supremacist judges will rule that the CRPD, if part of the supreme law of our land, includes abortion. Several Supreme Court justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have urged us to use foreign law in interpreting U.S. domestic law.

Americans may differ about the legality and the scope of abortion rights, but it’s unlikely that any of us want those decisions to be made by a UN “committee of experts.”

Another problem with this treaty on disabilities is its failure to give workable definitions. When the treaty states that “disability is an evolving concept,” that means open sesame for litigation against the U.S.

This treaty is a broadside attack on parents’ rights to raise their children, and it’s a particular threat to homeschooling families because of the known bureaucratic bias against homeschooling and against spanking. It is clear that both the United States and persons with disabilities are much better off relying on U.S. law than on any UN treaty.

Take Action!

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Senator John Kerry (D-MA), has placed the CRPD on its agenda for action on Thursday, July 26, at 9:30 a.m.

If one of your U.S. Senators is on that committee (see list here), please tell him or her to vote No on the dangerous CRPD!

Take Action here.

http://www.eagleforum.org/publications/column/2012-07-25.html

 

I don't get what the problem is?

 

1. What is inherently wrong with global government?
2. Phylis has a basic civics error. She thinks that federal laws are the "supreme law" of the land. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
3. Regardless of what treaties the United States is a party to, the Constitution governs how laws are made and enforced. If we sign a treaty that says citizens no longer have free speech, obviously that provision is void under the Constitution. Other governments will howl, but which of them is going to invade or attack the United States to enforce such a provision? Really, in international law, treaties are for everyone else; no country in the world has the means or will to call out the U.S. about treaty violations.

 

To BullsLawDan: If the government and the courts enforce a treaty it matters little what the Constitution says; what people say or want matters even less irrespective of what Sonia Sotomayor says:

Conversely, I recall then-Justice Sandra Day O’Connor saying that treaties are the law of the land.

To BullsLawDan: That’s a smokescreen in addition to being an argument for a one government world. In short: If those terrible Americans won’t enforce a UN treaty a global government is needed to force compliance.

To BullsLawDan: As you should know by now:

 

This is completely ridiculous. I cannot believe the American senators are even considering this.

Why are progressives so bent on bringing everyone under a one-world government?

The USA already has imposed ridiculous legislation in name of helping the handicapped. All public pools will now be required to have an electric chair lifter. This despite progressives banning regular incandescent lightbulbs at the same time to try to save energy! Apparently the convenience of the disabled is more important than the right to use whatever type of lightbulb one wants.

 

To Anders Hoveland: You might find an answer in the OP in this thread:

http://www.politicalforum.com/media-commentators/259712-united-means.html

To Anders Hoveland: It’s all about coerced charity. The day the government began using tax dollars to fund “love and compassion” every charity hustler in the world headed for the public trough.