Senators line up to tell U.N. to leave kids alone 31 already committed to oppose treaty giving world

Originally posted by paraphi
I fully and whole heartedly support the work United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and this particular initiative - Convention on the Rights of the Child.

It is habitual that US politicians react negatively to many international initiatives and in so doing cede the moral high-ground to other more enlightened nations, but weaken the initiative because of it e.g. the Kyoto Protocol or the Ottawa Treaty to name but two.

In this particular initiative where the US has little to hide by the way it treats its children, the focus is on those nations who have such shoddy contempt for life and rights that children have zero protection. Only the US and Somalia has not ratified this Convention.

I do wonder whether US politicians have lost the plot sometimes and are so stuck up their own backsides that cannot see past their own small-town mentality. They defend their decisions by over analysing and imaging how things will be. Sad really.

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Regards

www.foxnews.com...

NEW YORK — The United Nations is recommending that children as young as five receive mandatory sexual education that would teach even pre-kindergarteners about masturbation and topics like gender violence.

The UN cannot be trusted to raise your children.

How many with kids would like their school nurses to teach this to your 5 year old?

reply to post by boondock-saint


I'd say it wasn't tough love that kept you out of prison, it was common sense and the desire to participate in society! Fear keeps me out of prison, not being beaten as a child.

edit:
reply to post by ohioriver


OH MY GOD CHILDREN MASTURBATING????

[edit on 22-8-2010 by SmedleyBurlap]

If people want to believe that the UN is an evil monolith hellbent on stealing their kids and turning them into gay communists, they will. No amount of evidence can overcome someone's intent to believe a viewpoint.

Personally, I haven't paid much attention to this treaty issue, but from what I've read, it doesn't look like too much to be scared about. But, think what you will about it. It's your opinion.

reply to post by ohioriver


First of all - these are recommendations, NOT laws or enforceable in any way, and the message is being misrepresented.

Second - Kids today are hitting puberty at 7 and 8 years of age - with breasts, periods and everything.

It's ALL scary.

I'd try to figure out how the hell to explain it all to an 8 year old - and suspect I'd still flounder... So I might appreciate some help and back-up. How do you explain such things to little children? How many people are truly ready to face our brave new world? ...and how do we prepare the children?

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Wrong, our Constitution specifically incorporates international treaties. Always has; that's one of its original provisions. That's one reason perhaps that rulings of constitutionality don't make any sense any more. Because they're really ruling on compliance with international treaties.

So for example any violation of NAFTA is unconstitutional. That's my understanding. The domestic court won't tell you it (some NAFTA violation) violates NAFTA, allowing you to say "who cares". The court will say it's unconstitutional, then you respect it, even though you don't see what's unconstitutional.

Can't we get any Democrats to oppose this treaty? Not a single freakin' Democrat? The Republicans want to fight wars, the Democrats want to give UN more rights over how we raise our children. There are no good choices.

reply to post by ohioriver

Thank you for pointing out the sexualization of children that goes along with this type of control.

I'd also like to point out that the Treaty itself states:The four core principles of the Convention are non-discrimination; devotion to the best interests of the child; the right to life, etc.

All other rights of humans come from this basic Right to Life


[edit on 2282010 by Starbug3MY]

Originally posted by wcitizen
reply to post by Common Good

 

Now, why doesn't that same rule apply to Afghans or Iraqi's???

Why doesn't US get the h--l out of their countries and let Afghans and Iraqi's police and run their own countries???

Oh no, America has the right to interfere anywhere in the world, to bomb and kill at will whenever it wants - the world is there to serve America, right?

But NO-ONE has the right to interfere with America, right?

The only people who have the right to police Afghans are Afghans. End of story.

The only people who have the right to police Iraqis are Iraqis. End of story.

Or does hypocrisy rule OK for US?



[edit on 22-8-2010 by wcitizen]

If you know me at all, or read anything I have ever said on this site, you would KNOW that I am constantly saying we need to let the world take care of itself and get the hell out of these nations.
Next time you attack me, know wtf you are talking about.

reply to post by soficrow

I'd advise trying to feed all-natural or organic food, ESPECIALLY milk and meat. The growth hormones probably have a lot to do with the early puberty. Vegetables aren't so critical because you can wash off pesticides with vegetable wash, although I try to avoid GM corn.

reply to post by Starbug3MY

So ... does the treaty oppose abortion? That's our most common interpretation here of "right to life."

Guess not ... the treaty lets you abort your children, but then once they are born, the treaty makes it so hard to raise the little hellions you won't even dare to try.

Originally posted by oniongrass
reply to post by soficrow

 

I'd advise trying to feed all-natural or organic food, ESPECIALLY milk and meat. The growth hormones probably have a lot to do with the early puberty. ...

I agree - that's how I live. And don't forget the estrogen-mimickers in personal hygiene products, water, etc.

...but the fact is, the world has changed.

And the question remains: How do we prepare the children?

Originally posted by ohioriver

Originally posted by paraphi
I fully and whole heartedly support the work United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and this particular initiative - Convention on the Rights of the Child.

It is habitual that US politicians react negatively to many international initiatives and in so doing cede the moral high-ground to other more enlightened nations, but weaken the initiative because of it e.g. the Kyoto Protocol or the Ottawa Treaty to name but two.

In this particular initiative where the US has little to hide by the way it treats its children, the focus is on those nations who have such shoddy contempt for life and rights that children have zero protection. Only the US and Somalia has not ratified this Convention.

I do wonder whether US politicians have lost the plot sometimes and are so stuck up their own backsides that cannot see past their own small-town mentality. They defend their decisions by over analysing and imaging how things will be. Sad really.

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Regards

www.foxnews.com...

NEW YORK — The United Nations is recommending that children as young as five receive mandatory sexual education that would teach even pre-kindergarteners about masturbation and topics like gender violence.

The UN cannot be trusted to raise your children.

How many with kids would like their school nurses to teach this to your 5 year old?

"The United Nations is recommending" thats what the treaty does. It recomends and encourages. PERIOD. When Europe, Iran, North and South Korea, Russia, all the Muslim nations, Israel, all of Africa except Somalia, all of Asia, All of Central and South America agreed and signed on and only The USA has not what does that tell you? That the UN will not be raising anything. We have the most advanced nation on Earth with some of the most backward people. It boggles my mind how people do not bother to get facts before blathering on with an opinion on something.

reply to post by oniongrass


I am absolutely pro-life.This is the most basic right that a human has, and all other rights are moot points when held up to the standard
of the Right to Life.

Abortion is discrimination (the Death Penalty) based on a child's place of residence - her mother's womb.

[edit on 2282010 by Starbug3MY]

This thread is just another example of how xenophobic this country is.

Many of us want nothing to do with "furriners," especially ones that try to advise us on what we do.

We have no problem in minding other countries' business, mind you; we have in fact got a sense of entitlement to interfere in their affairs, with force if necessary.

Ever since the U.N. began there have been Americans who have been afraid of its supposed "power." Every president has had to face a faction that doesn't even want the U.S. to pay our dues, much less sign treaties.

Let me just ask those of you who are taking fright at this U.N. treaty: give me an example of an instance in which the U.N. took control of any country? Forcibly enforced its mandates?

We have had U.N. "advisors" in places like Bosnia but they have no authorization to actually fight and they NEVER do. They just serve as a presence to hopefully remind people of world opinion about what they are doing.

I personally wish the U.N. had more power to exert its treaties, but the truth is they don't have it and never did. Especially with the world's biggest superpower essentially laughing at its efforts.

What a great organization it might have been.

reply to post by Sestias

The UN doesn't do the fighting directly, but it causes fighting or other actions to be done. Wasn't it a UN force in Somalia, where we try to impose a government on a place that doesn't want it? Didn't the UN take a side in the war between the Hutus and Tutsis? Didn't the UN decide that Charles Taylor's side was "bad bad bad" and that his diamonds are "blood diamonds"? Wasn't the UN involved in putting Radovan Karadzic through years and years of trials for being a head of state who opposed it? The UN is nice until it disagrees with you.

If this treaty would have no force, why do you want us to sign it?

Did you ever think that once everyone's signed on (and everyone but Somalia is probably close enough) then the enforcement would start?



[edit on 22-8-2010 by oniongrass]

Originally posted by oniongrass


Did you ever think that once everyone's signed on (and everyone but Somalia is probably close enough) then the enforcement would start?



[edit on 22-8-2010 by oniongrass]

Read through the link I provided a page back. It is already being "enforced" all around the world. The "enforcing" in this case merely consists of having the legal ability to referr to the convention in a trial if you are in a court of a signatory state.

I don't know where this idea comes from that the convention has anything proactive to it. I provided the link to the full treaty a page back - wouldn't it be more advisable to actually read the thing before condemning it?

I find it quite absurd that in this thread everyone tends to discuss his own personal phantasma associated with "UN" while no one actually cares about what the treaty says and what it would change. Isn't it more productive to look these things up than to merely speculate about the worst consequences you can imagine coming from it?

It seems that i) nobody cares what the treaty really says and that ii) most anti reactions are based on a knee-jerk anti-UN gut feeling. I find that deplorable. The liberty lobby sure did its. It's funny how conspirational thinking always ascribes absolute power and nefarious intentions to those institutions that are neither very powerful nor independent - half the things the UN is accused of in this thread are things that are clearly demonstrateable to be the creations of individual national or regional interests.

Is this because the article is so ridiculously biased or because no one really knows what the treaty entails? Or both?

Originally posted by Common Good
WTF is this world comming to?

LEAVE OUR FAMILIES ALONE.

The only people who need to police Americans, are other Americans.

End of Story.

Exactly. This is why I spy on my neighbors and report ALL suspicious activity to the government.

reply to post by inforeal



A lot of youth in America today sadly, use the mantra that the reason they are like they are today is that "Mommy sat me on the potty crooked."

It is a pathetic, dribbling excuse to shuck personal responsibility for your own emotions, thoughts, actions and position in life.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


OK you insulting little twirp

I did read through it. As you say, ratifying would allow courts to refer to it in a trial. In other words, the ratifying country's own enforcement mechanisms would implement the treaty.

If we don't like the treaty, we shouldn't ratify it. And I don't like the treaty.

Originally posted by Common Good
WTF is this world comming to?

LEAVE OUR FAMILIES ALONE.

The only people who need to police Americans, are other Americans.

End of Story.

Yeah but they don't, and they don't care. When was the last time any of you have helped a teen or younger out that wasn't family/job related? Yeah thought so. Most families don't care in any meaningful way either about relatives.

Even the medical profession doesn't screen kids in home life, or quality of life in order to change anything. They wait until they can prescribe antidepressants, that's the kind of intervention we have in America. Nothing preventative, after the damage has been done, then we'll help.

Originally posted by oniongrass
reply to post by Sestias

 

The UN doesn't do the fighting directly, but it causes fighting or other actions to be done. Wasn't it a UN force in Somalia, where we try to impose a government on a place that doesn't want it? Didn't the UN take a side in the war between the Hutus and Tutsis? Didn't the UN decide that Charles Taylor's side was "bad bad bad" and that his diamonds are "blood diamonds"? Wasn't the UN involved in putting Radovan Karadzic through years and years of trials for being a head of state who opposed it? The UN is nice until it disagrees with you.

If this treaty would have no force, why do you want us to sign it?

Did you ever think that once everyone's signed on (and everyone but Somalia is probably close enough) then the enforcement would start?



[edit on 22-8-2010 by oniongrass]

So you think they have waited over 30 years now for the US to sign on to suddenly come out with some secret part of the treaty that allows it to be enforced? And you think everyone who signed the treaty has been fooled or they are all working together to get the US to sign on and then.... well then they enforce the treaty? Who would do that? How? Why would they bother? We have you now America you must take care of your children. We have waited 30 years for this!!!! Seriously?