Senate Democrats Quietly Revive Radical UN Disabilities Treaty Written
by Alex Newman Monday, 21 July 2014
After being
defeated in 2012, Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee quietly
announced that they would be holding yet another vote on
ratification for the widely
criticized United Nations “Convention on the Rights of Persons With
Disabilities.” The radical planetary agreement, known as UN CRPD for
short, purports to grant oversight of U.S. policies on disabled Americans to an
unelected global “committee” of self-styled “experts.” While the latest bid to
ratify the scheme has flown largely under the media radar so far, the
opposition is once again gearing up for a fight to stop it.
Opponents across the political spectrum have been
warning for years that the treaty represents a major attack on U.S. national
sovereignty, parental rights, self-government, and more. All of it is being
done under the supposed guise of protecting people with disabilities in the
United States, who already have among the most robust protections on the
planet. Claims that U.S. ratification would “encourage” other governments to
protect the disabled are largely dismissed as baseless propaganda. Another
concern among critics is that there is no definition of “disability” in the
scheme, potentially allowing UN bureaucrats and dictatorial member regimes to
run wild.
The plot to internationalize disabilities law at the
UN level was first approved by the dictator-dominated global outfit’s General
Assembly in 2006. President Obama, having apparently never met a UN power grab
he did not support, signed on to the CRPD regime in 2009 and sent
it to the Senate for ratification in late 2012. Due
primarily to a grassroots uprising among pro-life activists, home educators,
disabilities advocates, and more, a coalition
of GOP senators was able to block the agreement, which
requires a two-thirds majority for ratification. However, after the scheme was
defeated by a six-vote margin, extreme pro-UN Democrats vowed that the fight
was not over yet.
Since that failure, there have been several quiet
efforts to revive the UN scheme, which critics blast as a “dangerous” and
“unnecessary” treaty threatening the United States. It did not come to a vote
again, however, until now. In a quiet announcement posted on its website, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, currently
chaired by embattled Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), said the body would take up
the treaty again on Tuesday, July 22, at 10:00 a.m. The upcoming committee vote
has received virtually no press coverage — likely for a good reason.
Last time the scheme was considered
by the Senate, a tsunami of opposition rose up and flooded the Senate with
phone calls and e-mails demanding that the UN plot be rejected. This time, with
the sneak attack proceeding under the public’s proverbial nose, the grassroots
army that killed the UN CRPD has not yet risen up in full force. Still, some
elements of the opposition are already gearing up to do battle once again.
“Now is the time to let the Senate
hear loud and clear that Americans are firmly opposed to surrendering our
sovereignty, parental rights, and the rights of people with disabilities to
unelected, unaccountable UN bureaucrats,” said attorney Michael Farris,
president of ParentalRights.org, in a recent e-mail asking supporters to
contact their senators. “We need every single parent and concerned citizen to
make their voice heard.”
One of the main problems with the
scheme for parental-rights advocates is that the CRPD could allow government
officials to usurp decision-making authority from parents of disabled children.
Like the even more radical
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the disabilities treaty uses a
particularly controversial phrase that critics say is an open invitation for
abuse. “In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best
interests of the child shall be a primary consideration,” the agreement states.
Of course, by “best interests of the
child,” the UN and its member regimes are referring to the “best interests” as
defined by bureaucrats — not parents. And it is hardly a hypothetical fear: In
other countries, the worst nightmares of critics have already been confirmed in
horrifying detail. In Scotland, for example, openly seizing on the language in
the UN CRC about “best interests” of children, Parliament passed a law this
year mandating an individual social worker to oversee every single Scottish
child throughout his or her childhood and adolescence.
Because “disabilities” are not
specifically defined in the treaty, meanwhile, critics also warn that the CRPD
represents an open invitation for bureaucratic abuse. According to the
agreement, “disability is an evolving concept.” If it is “evolving,” that means
literally anyone could someday find their parental rights under attack from the
UN “committee of experts” charged with overseeing the treaty’s implementation
and enforcement. It also means busy-body global bureaucrats could radically
expand the non-definition at any time, granting themselves vast new powers over
whole classes of humanity.
Another major concern of critics is
pro-abortion machinations found in the UN agreement. “With the disabilities
treaty, already in the short time of its existence, the committee that oversees
its implementation has pressured two countries regarding abortion: Spain and
Hungary,” Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) Vice President
Wendy Wright told CNSNews.com, adding that there was also no good reason to ratify
it. “The issue of abortion is something that should be dealt with by countries
— not by some unelected, unaccountable body at the UN.”
Even many activists for the disabled
are up in arms about the latest Senate move. “As the mother of a child with
disabilities, you'd think I'd be happy about government action to help people
with disabilities. Think again,” wrote columnist and advocate for the disabled Helen Middlebrooke in Pacific
Daily News on July 19. “I am angry, and a bit scared, over the Senate's
reported reconsideration of the U.N. Convention for the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities.”
Under the CRPD, Middlebrooke
continued, “The state would have final say over my daughter, Deborah, and could
keep me from homeschooling her and from becoming her legal guardian.” The
treaty represents a “power grab of the United Nations, an unelected body that
thinks it can tell sovereign nations and free people how to treat each other,”
she added. “Under the CRPD, Deborah will belong to the state. Over my dead
body!”
Also particularly troubling to
critics is the assault on U.S. sovereignty and self-government from the UN and
its oftentimes brutal member regimes represented by the agreement. Indeed, the
UN CRPD, like other global treaties, is simply another power grab by planetary
bureaucrats hoping to gradually increase their control over domestic law and
policy in as many fields and nations as possible, critics say. It is also part
of a long-term trend
that is accelerating quickly.
“As can be seen in the UN’s official
documents and in the conduct of the UN since 1945, the world body is constantly
accumulating power,” explained President John F. McManus with The John Birch Society, a constitutionalist organization
with grassroots activists across America that has firmly opposed the UN and its
scheming for over five decades. “It has already gained much and CRPD is another
step toward total power.”
Sen. Menendez, who is currently
embroiled in a massive corruption scandal but still chairs the Foreign
Relations Committee set to consider the scheme this week, announced his plans
after the recent Supreme Court ruling United States v.
Bond. In that
case, the high court ruled that prosecutors could not use a UN treaty on
Weapons of Mass Destruction to prosecute a woman accused of using toxic chemicals
in an attack on another woman. Menendez and other pro-UN Democrats are claiming
that ruling ensures that the disabilities treaty cannot be abused to usurp new
powers.
“Ratification of the Disabilities
Convention requires no change to, and places no obligation upon U.S. law, but
would instead break down undue barriers for disabled Americans who study and
travel abroad, expand markets for American businesses that sell accessible
products, and showcase American leadership on disability rights,” claimed Menendez
in a statement issued last month. “Today’s decision in the Bond case removes any fears
that the Convention could ever be used to expand federal authority beyond the
limits of the Constitution, undermine state sovereignty, or allow lawsuits to
be filed in U.S. courts.”
However, legal experts pointed out
that concurring opinions
issued in the case by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito prove that the opposite of what
Menendez claims is actually true. For now, despite past Supreme Court rulings
stating that the federal government could not expand its powers beyond
constitutional limits simply by adopting a “treaty,” the issue remains in
dispute — especially among rabid supporters of UN power and Big Government who
believe Washington, D.C., should be able to usurp any authority merely by
signing agreements with other governments or institutions.
Activists say the latest UN scheme
is likely to get through the Democrat-controlled Senate committee. However,
getting the UN power grab ratified in the full Senate is expected to be a much
tougher battle — particularly because it is an election year where
conservatives are predicted to turn out in force. Opponents are urging
Americans to contact their senators now to demand that the UN CRPD and other
international power grabs be buried once and for all.
Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering
economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com . Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.
Comments
These treaties are
dangerous, because they bypass Congress and State Legislatures. They are passed by the U.S. Senate and result
in federal regulations.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody
GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment