RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Caving In To Global Government

Posted by: Baldwin
- [3112216] Thu, Feb 05, 2009, 18:06

Obama has already indicated an inclination to cave in to globalist treaties long fought by conservatives.

Here is one of the first ones most likely to fall and a very serious threat. This is just how fast global dictatorship can be upon us. the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC:
According to the Parental Rights website, the substance of the CRC 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.


"Where the child has a right fulfilled by the government, the responsibilities shift from parents to the government," Farris said. "The implications of all this shifting of responsibilities is that parents no longer have the traditional roles of either being responsible for their children or having the right to direct their children."

The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children's lives.

"If you think your child shouldn't go to the prom because their grades were low, the U.N. Convention gives that power to the government to review your decision and decide if it thinks that's what's best for your child," he said. "If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child."

He continued, "If you think your child should go to church three times a week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the frequency of church attendance."

He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for implementation of the policies.

Farris said it could be easier for President Obama to push for ratification of the treaty than it was for the Clinton administration because "the political world has changed."

At a Walden University presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action.

"It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land," Obama said. "I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a strong supporter of the CRC, and she now has direct control over the treaty's submission to the Senate for ratification. The process requires a two-thirds vote.

Farris said Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., claimed in a private meeting just before Christmas that the treaty would be ratified within two years.

1Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Thu, Feb 05, 2009, 20:28
many of the above claims are taking a passage, then extrapolating it out to the worst case scenario.

1. no where does the UN document ban spanking. it bans Capital Punishment of children (which, of course, Texas is firmly against), but no where does it specifically ban corporal punishment.

2. nowhere does it say someone under 18 can't be sentenced to life in prison. it says "life imprisonment without possibility of release. there is a big difference there, and personally, i'm of the belief that people - particularly children - make mistakes, and can sometimes change for the best.

3. choosing religion. that's actually different than reality how? i always thought children could pick their own religion. when i have kids, they'll be able to worship whomever they please, as long as such worship doesn't harm any living thing.

4. really, really, really stretching it.

5. ditto

6. not allowed to spend more on national defense than it does on a child's welfare. i WISH that were true. sadly, that's more bull$hit.

7. leisure - again, really stretching it.

8. Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

and

9. Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

never mind the fact that these are totally unrelated and have NO place in a document like this, why on earth should Christianity - a religion not practiced by a majority of the world - be included in this?

what are Christians? 33 percent of the world's population? 30? 35? well the Islams and Hindus and Agnostics and Jews and Buddhists and Sikhs and all the world's other religions would like a word with you if you push for some sort of bogus mandatory christian education.

you tried that already. it was called the crusades, and also the inquisition, and also the destruction of the native american people.

STOP trying to force your religion on other people. it ain't right when islamofascists do it, and it ain't right when christian fascists do it either.

anyway.

Baldwin, i doubt you actually read the document. heck, i doubt you even tried to find a copy online. instead, you trusted the sewage you like to be spoon fed.

but, by all means, come back with your talking points above, and show us all which article defines the 10 points your beloved WND quoted above...

2Perm Dude
      ID: 6151512
      Thu, Feb 05, 2009, 20:45
Obama has indicated that we need to follow the rules that we agreed to. Treaties are not one-sided. Treaties are contracts that we agree to keep.

I know this is stunning to the far right, but keeping ones promises is actually a very conservative notion.

It is worth noting that McCain strongly supported this treaty as well. And it is worth noting that many countries put limitations on what the treaty covers. Both those nuggets are available from the links in the WND article itself.
3Baldwin
      ID: 3112216
      Thu, Feb 05, 2009, 22:34
I know this is stunning to you, PD, but constitutionally Madeline Albright is not allowed to make a treaty without congressional approval and congress explicitly denied her on this.
4Baldwin
      ID: 3112216
      Thu, Feb 05, 2009, 22:42
Tree

I don't need to answer someone who obviously wants a dictator over us. There are countless examples proving where the globalists are taking this. First they get the laws on the books by subterfuge without getting their controversial issues raised in public as much as possible. As much as possible, they then get this stuff accepted without democratic approval. Goals2000 is an outstanding and particularly relevent example. Then they popularize those issues. Only then do they impliment those laws.
5Perm Dude
      ID: 6151512
      Thu, Feb 05, 2009, 23:03
#3: I'm sure you are aware of the process: The Executive Branch first negotiates the treaty, which must be ratified by the Senate to become binding.

Your post #3 makes you sound ignorant of the process.
6Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Fri, Feb 06, 2009, 03:00
I don't need to answer someone who obviously wants a dictator over us.

well, to give credit where credit is due, at least you have a new excuse now for not even having the balls to back up your own point or bother reading the actual document.

but, that's so typical of you at this point. pathetic.
7Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Mon, Feb 09, 2009, 16:53
figured as much.
8Baldwin
      ID: 3112216
      Mon, Feb 09, 2009, 17:51
Has anyone here besides myself ever actually read 'Goals2000' documents?

This is accepted as a done deal, something worldwide policy planners are implimenting incrementally every day for well over a decade, [starting in 1973 as far as I can trace it back] and not a one of you 'know-it-alls' even has a clue.

They right in your face descibe how they will turn your children into full bore government stazzi informants narcing on your most intimate thots and actions.

And you guys appeal to your ignorance like it was the voice of authority stepped down from a marble pillar beyond question.
9Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Mon, Feb 09, 2009, 18:46
nice subject change. guess you don't have much to go on in regards to your original thesis, but again, this is par for the course when it comes to your postings.
10Baldwin
      ID: 3112216
      Mon, Feb 09, 2009, 23:06
They are part and parcel of the same agenda and both shed light on each other. In this case both dealing with removing parental rights. [which flew right over Tree's head naturally] The UN is very close to achieving world government agenda items even before they achieve full world dictatorship.
11Baldwin
      ID: 3112216
      Mon, Feb 09, 2009, 23:37
Well that's an understatment, now that I think about it. They already control a HUGE chunk of USA territory and they managed that without anyone noticing or making a peep. I pointed it out at the time and it was like everyone was under anesthesia.
12Razor
      ID: 56038210
      Mon, Feb 09, 2009, 23:40
"Everyone's crazy but me"
13biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Mon, Feb 09, 2009, 23:47
I have read Goals - at least their public health agenda. Pretty bland. No over-throwing governments and installing world leaders. Not even universal health care. Moderate.
14Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Mon, Feb 09, 2009, 23:51
i like how Baldwin is so insecure, he can barely make a post without hurling an insult.
15Baldwin
      ID: 3112216
      Tue, Feb 10, 2009, 17:09
If anyone actually has the curiosity and mental ability to recognise and understand what is being done to you right under your noses.
You are witnessing the erasing of the Westernized middle-class, and in the very near future, you will witness life, and all its rules and regulations, governed by foreign courts, foreign militaries, and foreign decision makers. America, our Constitutional Republic, and our children are being forcibly dismantled and re-programmed.
And a great deal of it starts with schools with missions unlike anything you understand.
 If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com 
RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours11
Last 7 days22
Last 30 days44
Since Mar 1, 20071233622