What kind of monster would reject the [1] UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child(CRC)?

This question was recently [2] asked by our president and other lefties, as they recognized that Somalia–one of the worst violators of children’s rights in recent history–and the United States were the only countries in the entire world who rejected the treaty.  At first glance this Somali-American union might seem pretty strange, but lumping us both  into the same category isn’t exactly fair.  After all, the “honorable” record of signers includes

-Iran, where people can’t actually vote

-Kenya, a nation in which mobbing neighbors enjoy picking up machetes and hacking children to death

-Saudi Arabia, the place where most of our 9/11 hijackers came from, and are generally supported

-Sudan, still known for the recent [3] slave-raiding of nearby villages and the Darfur “incident”

-Vietnam, a country which is actually still communist

-Zimbabwe, in which mass starvation happened after all the white farmers and their kids were violently attacked and kicked off their land

-China, which has a one-child policy and what liberal Time Magazine reports as [4] forced abortions

-The Philippines, which actually [5] assassinates mainstream journalists for reporting about how horrible the country is

As one can see, being one of two countries that didn’t sign doesn’t exactly suggest a morally inferior position as a violator of human rights.  But the saddest part about liberal criticism on this issue is that it is unfair, since almost every country that signed [6] did so with major exceptions.  Botswana even signed with the following condition:   “The Government of the Republic of Botswana enters a reservation with regard to the provisions of article 1 of the Convention and does not consider itself bound by the same in so far as such may conflict with the Laws and Statutes of Botswana.”  In short, “we’re signing, but not really.” If this makes America one of only two evil countries in the world, it’s because you only read the title of the agreement and our position on it.

Furthermore, [7] liberal commentators have felt that a major reason the US declined to sign was because of the declaration’s demands for government-provided health care and services for youths.  But upon a deeper glance, the reader begins to get the picture that real reason the United States of America hasn’t signed the declaration isn’t because we enjoy armed Islamic militias of children being used to murder political rivals, it’s not because we hate healthy children, and it’s not because our economy depends on child prostitution like Thailand: it’s because the treaty is fundamentally un-American and fundamentally anti-Christian.  It is one of the most evil and dangerous international documents ever drafted, and the United States of America is not an entirely evil country.

For instance, the document seeks to do the following things.  Unless otherwise stated, these facts have been pulled [8] from the UN’s own charter on their website.  Keep in mind that [9] article VI of our constitution makes all international treaties the supreme law of the land, which means that the UN would have control of our government through this treaty and that provisions in the CRC would absolutely be enforceable through our courts.  Statements which are inherently unBiblical will have a link provided to demonstrate which parts of the Bible oppose it.

-It demands government intervention according to the “best interests of the child,” which is also known as the state having almost arbitrary control over parental rights (Article 3.1). Subjective terms found in the preamble, such as “atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding” should cause the reader to be alarmed: definitions vary widely. ([10] Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

-It provides mandates according to vague terms such as an “adequate” standard of living, which is code for redistribution of wealth through international law. Housing, food, recreation, and medical expenses are to be provided without exceptions (Articles 24, 26, and 27).  The parents–assumedly–would have access to these services as well, essentially creating unrestricted welfare programs. ([11] unbiblical)

-It allows “child rights” to encompass freedom of religion, also known as the potential to take parental control of religious learning away (Article 14).  Worth noting about the UN promoting “freedom of religion” is the fact that the UN has also [12] recently passed anti-blasphemy laws, indicating that the spread of politically incorrect doctrines is supposed to be controllable by this undemocratic body, with no exemptions are included for Christians schools or home schoolers (Article 29).  Since freedom of religion is already protected by other UN endeavors, the freedom of religion in the CRC cannot be about anything other than protection from parents and their right to educate and make demands of their children.  The only other catastrophe in recent history which even closely resembles the scope involved here is [13] Mao Zedong’s cultural revolution, in which the educational and parental systems were overthrown by their mocking children, which resulted in mass starvation, mass torture, mass murder, mass cannibalism, and mass suicide. ([14] Proverbs 22:6)

-It grants an undefined freedom of expression and freedom of assembly to children (Articles 12, 13, and 15).  As far as freedom of expression is concerned, the CRC only briefly explains a parent’s right to “express” their views, and that they must include children in the decision-making process (page 2 of [15] this link from the CRC).  That last part including children in the decision-making process, by the way, is undefined. ([10] Deuteronomy 21:18-21)([17] Exodus 20:12)

-It takes away a parent’s right to control the child’s media (Article 13), grants children freedom of association (Article 15), and grants children the right to privacy (Article 16).

-It ensures that states drive private media to provide diversity in broadcasting (assumedly something similar to the Fairness Doctrine) and pay particular attention to the “linguistic needs” of minority groups (Article 17)

-Article 29 actually goes as far as to state that people can establish their own schools, but that they have to teach kids the values of the UN, with an emphasis on multicultural postmodern tolerance. This education is guaranteed according to “progressive” standards on the basis of “equal opportunity,” which is code for making sure that majority kids are locked out on the basis of race no matter whom the school belongs to (Article 28).

-Article 31 hilariously makes legal demands for “appropriate” leisure time, especially for the free participation in the arts.

-According to the [18] CRC’s own site, it elevates the status of illegal immigrant children to that of citizens, including access to almost all citizen-funded services (p.6).  This will essentially erase borders. 

-Also according to [19] the CRC’s site, it has “optional” protocols regarding the banning of child soldiers and child prostitution, [20] both of which the US signed, but which aren’t mandatory for the rest of the world (p.6).  Their optionality is bizarre, since child-trafficking and child military inscription are probably the two most offensive abuses against children.

-Children must stay with their parents, but [21] only as long as it isn’t “bad” for them (p.2 of this link)

-The UN is [22] completely against corporal punishment, including spanking (p.4 of this link) ([23] Proverbs 22:15)

If you’re interested in getting even more scary information about the treaty, you can go to [24] www.parentalrights.org for even more detailed and scholarly legal implications.

In short, although many may claim that Americans are cruel to children because we declined to sign, there is absolutely nothing good covered by this document that isn’t already covered by other international laws for all people, and so we can safely conclude that its purpose is not to protect children.  The purpose of this international treaty is to allow un-Christian and anti-capitalist international bodies to have power over parents and political structures. It is to ensure the homogenization of member states into a multicultural, globalist, leftist benevolent dictatorship.  It is to further prevent the solidarity of national culture, to divide nations into a cacophonous and atheistic existence, and drive the world into the hands of an unelected international liberal elite.  According to the Bible and this country’s foundational principles, this is as evil and dangerous as a movement can get, not a mere matter of differing opinion.

But as founding father William Penn once said, “Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.”  If we are the kind of people who elect a man who agrees with the evils presented in the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child, perhaps it is time for us to meet our new masters.