I often reminisce on the days when a child's every remark to an elder was precluded or capped off by a very solemn, respectful, "yes, ma'am; no ma'am' or "yes, sir; no sir," and youths would not dream of forming their lips to utter a profanity in the presence of adults. This was a time when parents' authority and rightful ability to discipline their child in the home was not usurped by authoritative figures and lawmakers.
As I examine the current state of our society and its acceptance of blatant disrespect masked in the adornment of "urban culture" and "children's rights," I realize that such respect is nothing more than a distant memory. And if one attempts to seek and restore this natural order, you, the parent, are likely to be cussed out by a six-year-old, your child--whose right to do so is lawfully protected--and prosecuted in the United States courts.
This shift toward basically retiring parental rights or diminishing parental authority brings to mind the UN treaty on Children's Rights. This treaty, signed by the Clinton Administration in 1995 but never ratified into law, has been pulsating for more than 20 years; 193 countries have signed onto it, leaving two countries yet to sign it--the US and Somalia. The treaty sets international standards for government obligations to children in protection from abuse, exploitation, and ensuring a child's right to free expression.
Experts who have studied the document say: the treaty, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion'" and outlaws the "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy," intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference."
Representative Pete Hoekstra recently introduced a bill that would amend the U.S. Constitution to permanently "enshrine" a set of parents' rights into American society. The bill is aimed at blocking U.S. adoption of the treaty. Hoekstra asserts that the UN treaty would have far-reaching results, some of which include:
- Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
- 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.
- Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
And even though Hoekstra's efforts are to be applauded, because of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, all treaties are rendered "the supreme law of the land," superseding preexisting state and federal statutes. Any rights or laws established by the U.N. convention could then be argued to hold sway in the United States.
So, who will determine how Americans rear and teach their children? A round table committee appointed by the UN, and sitting in Switzerland, will make the parental decisions for the parents of children in ALL countries signatory to the treaty--including the US--rendering the US Constitution totally useless and robbing the U.S. of sovereignty.
Even in lieu of this treaty's prevailing adverse effects, some still adamantly support the treaty. Sen. Barbara Boxer, California, Democrat, is pushing the Obama Administration to review the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
This treaty seems to tie in with what is referred to as the New World Order Movement. As it pertains to the international relations theory, Wikipedia defines "new world order" as "a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. However, in conspiracy theory, the term "New World Order" refers to the advent of a cryptocratic or totalitarian world government.
At the core of most theories, a powerful and secretive group of globalists is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign states and other checks and balances in international power struggles.
Credible sources note that the Obama Administration will likely not approve the treaty, but one still can't help but wonder if the governmental system is heading toward what appears to be a fascist-controlled world government. Are there clandestine groups plotting against the masses of humanity to obliterate the socioeconomic middle class? Is the threat of children's rights to override parental rights real, and if so, where is it going to lead? No, the sky isn't falling just yet, but based on the climate the current atmosphere is perpetuating, one can't help but wonder if the forecast for the future will prove to be ominous or propitious.
H. Lewis Smith is the founder and president of UVCC, the United Voices for a Common Cause, Inc., a writer for the New England Informer Online, and author of Bury that Sucka: A Scandalous Love Affair with the N-Word. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP2U0jmZjec
