Connect with us


UN is after our kids – again!



The United Nations, and especially its General Assembly, is chief instrument of globalism and international government today, and precursor of world government. (And zero population growth) The UN works against the sovereignty of nation-states.

The United Nations is at it again. They are once again doing all in their power to come between parents and their children – in true Hitlerian form. Whether it be through Common Core or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), global elitists must lie awake at nights trying to figure out ways to turn out kids into slaves and neutralize the sacred bond between parent and child. Their latest ploy is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

Recent vote on UN treaty

On December 4, 2012, the U.S. Senate voted on the CRPD and fortunately fell short of the 66 votes that were needed to ratify it – a close 61 were cast in approval. Like the UN’s CRC, this treaty will also strip parents of their rights over their disabled children and give those rights to the UN. Senator Harry Reid believes he now has enough votes to ratify the treaty and we have reason to believe that he is planning to put the CRPD up for a vote on the Senate floor before the U.S. Senate breaks for Christmas.

Through the weeds on the UN CRPD

The UN is after your kids again

The flag of the United Nations. (Public domain as per UN policy.)

I would like to thank Michael Farris of Parental Rights, who assessed the treaty and listed its most egregious points and Victoria Jakelsky, our NJ representative, who contributed to this article. For more details information please click go to Highlights of Michael Farris’ points are listed below.

  1. Article 4(1)(a) demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of the UN. Our God-given parental rights may be taken away and given over not to our government (as bad as that could be), but given over to the United Nations! These would include the right to make decisions regarding medical care, education, and upbringing.
  2. Because Article 4(1)(a) of the treaty demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of the UN, this may mean that countries such as Iran, Russia, Libya, Syria, and China will have a direct influence on our system of law, since they are members of the UN.
  3. Article 4(2) requires the US to use its maximum resources for compliance with these standards. The UN has interpreted similar provisions in the UN CRC to criticize nations who spend too much on military issues and not enough on social programs. There is every reason to believe that the UN would interpret these provisions in a similar fashion. The UN believes that it has the power to determine the legitimacy and lawfulness of the budget of the United States to assess compliance with such treaties.
  4. Article 7(2) makes it clear that the “best interest of the child” standard provides courts and government agencies (rather than parents) the authority to decide what is best for children with disabilities. This can cover children who wear glasses or are hyper-active as having special needs).
  5. Article 23(4) implicates this “best interest of the child” standard in all cases involving the removal of children with disabilities from their parents’care. Under current United States law, the government is authorized to determine what is best for children only if parents have been determined by a court to be “unfit,” or if there is a dispute between two parents. The CRPD would give the government this presumption of power in all cases involving children—removing the necessity of first proving that the parents have acted in a harmful manner. This dramatically increases the authority of government to remove children from their homes and to override parental decisions by doing away with the current high standard of protection for parents’ rights. (Note: that with a hostile government, such as we now have, this is frightening.)
  6. A parent’s prior right to direct the education of their child disappears under the CRPD. Article 24 on Education omits the right of parents “to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children” found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 26(3)) and in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In law, what is excluded is often as important as what is included.
  7. Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” is the exact same language used in the UN CRC, which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to…inhuman or degrading treatment.” This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States. (Note: The language that mentions “degrading treatment or punishment” can be interpreted to extend to anything that makes your child “feel bad” which would include depriving them of just about anything as a means of punishment, by extension this means that parents will lose the right to discipline their children in any manner.)
  8. The United States, as a wealthy nation, would be obligated to fund disability programs in nations that could not afford their own programs under the dictates of Article 4(2). This is what “the framework of international cooperation” means.
  9. There is no specific definition of “disability.” This is a departure from the American’s with Disabilities Act, which provides at least a general definition of “disability.” Instead we are told that the definition of “disability” is an evolving concept. (Note: this allows the UN total freedom over exercising authority over any child they deem necessary. For instance, a Muslim country very well could deem a child disabled if they live in a Christian or Jewish home.)
  10. Ratification would sanction on ongoing supervisory role by the UN in the governance of virtually all areas of American life, as provided for in Articles 34-37.
  11. Articles 23 and 25 include language that establishes an obligation for the government to provide and fund abortions.
  12. Any Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations (RUDs) adopted by the U.S. Senate could be rejected by either the UN Committee or by the American Courts if they find that our RUDs are contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty.

Is this UN treaty binding?

Many believe that international treaties are not binding upon us. That is true if they are in direct conflict with our Constitution. Unfortunately, our Constitution does not include any fundamental language protecting parental rights. Parental Rights are a natural God-given right; however this right is only implied in the U.S. Constitution. Our Founders probably could not imagine a time when parental rights could be stripped. We also need to understand that under these circumstances, once the treaty is ratified by the US Senate, it becomes binding upon us.

What can we do about it?

We need to make sure our U.S. Senators know that we want them to vote against ratifying this treaty. We need to call, email, fax, and write letters. To be clear – it’s time we get active and inundate the elitists who would come between us and our kids with every means possible – and not just once. By the way, I always recommend that we burn up our representatives’ fax machines. You can send repeated faxes very easily and I’m sure it is quite annoying to them, which makes it kind of fun for us. Hey, who ever said we couldn’t have a little fun in the process!

The message can be very simple:

I urge you to oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). This treaty violates God-given natural parental rights and is an assault against our national sovereignty. You have been elected to protect the rights of your constituents and to uphold our Constitution. Voting in favor of this treaty violates your oath of office as well as your fiduciary responsibility to the people of this great nation. I will remember how you vote in this matter on Election Day, and I will be sure everyone within my sphere of influence will remember as well.

If you think that calling, emailing and writing our representatives doesn’t make an impact on how they vote, just remember the very liberal Senator Diane Feinstein was moved to the center recently on a healthcare issue when her offices were inundated with calls, letters, and emails from her constituents. Our Founding Fathers had to pick up swords and muskets to win their liberty; all we have to do is pick up the phone, pen or hit the old keyboard to keep ours. On behalf of all future Americans, I hope you will not think this is too trivial an action. I can assure you that it is not.


For more comprehensive information, please visit: And please be sure to thank Michael Farris for once again bringing this to our attention and decoding the language of treaties such as this.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Website | + posts

RoseAnn Salanitri is a published author and Acquisition Editor for the New Jersey Family Policy Council. She is a community activist who has founded the Sussex County Tea Party in her home state and launched a recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez. RoseAnn is also the founder of Veritas Christian Academy, as well as co-founder of Creation Science Alive, and a national creation science speaker.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nathaniel Roubideaux


this treaty will also strip parents of their rights over their disabled children and give those rights to the UN.”

This is objectively false.

There is no provision in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that provides the least basis for the claim that anyone is coming for anyone’s children, that the UN could under any circumstances possibly gain custody, or that parents would under any circumstances lose their “rights” over their children.

I challenge you, being the good journalist you are, to state the basis of this claim.

In fact, after having read this Convention, it occurs to me that it doesn’t even go as far as a plethora of sometimes very old federal and state law that prohibits far more misconduct against children and persons with disabilities.

Prior to Bush signing the Americans with Disabilities Act, most states or cities had for many years building codes that required renovations and new construction to make certain accommodations to persons with disabilities. I’m sure you’ve saw handrails in hallways and stairwells; designated parking; entrances, water fountains, ramps, toilet stalls, and the like design to accommodate people in wheelchairs well prior to 1991.

Thus, in some sense the ADA merely formalized some requirements states and cities already provided for, as well as expanded more rigorous requirements to all government entities, including the federal executive (which is why you’ll even see accommodations in federal court buildings because they’re run by the GSA).

Further, state law has at least since the early 20th century extensively provided for the safety and wellbeing of children. Federal law does as well, to some degree. Children below a certain age should not be permitted to work under most circumstances. You *should* lose your children if they’re born with illicit substances in their blood or there’s been a pattern of abuse or neglect. You *should* be prosecuted for abusing or neglecting children.

These laws are uncontroversial. The ADA was passed unanimously by the House and 76-8 by the Senate. State law protecting children and people with disabilities have been nearly universally embraces and you will struggle in Ayn Rand world to justify any softening on state law requirements. You’ll succeed at humiliating yourself publicly taking a totally unsupportable position.

Unremarkably, the UN Convention does not state exactly how nations are to implement the Convention. At most, it resembles the aspirational “findings of facts and statements of purpose” that you’ll find every single time our Congressman introduce new legislation, as it must justify such legislation under some Constitutional grant of authority.

So, the foundational error (I’m assuming good faith) this article is based requires retraction. The Convention does not under any circumstances do anything the author claims.

Nathaniel Roubideaux

a. You’re repeating what the article says, but haven’t responded to the points I made about the article being factually incorrect. The Convention doesn’t do what Ms. Salanitri (and now you) says it does. There is not one single word about stripping anyone of rights, and as with every single other convention, it’s up to the signatory nations to implement them consistent with their own law.

b. What comments would make you think something rotten like that? I comment very rarely and usually only on legal issues that are reported incorrectly.

c. The article doesn’t say what changes you fear beyond incorrectly stating that parents’ rights will be “stripped”. I don’t advocate taking people’s children away except under circumstances that I think would make most people of conscience cringe. Children are vulnerable and dearly need to be protected. Parents who abuse children should be prosecuted and have those children taken away where appropriate. My ex has been a state’s attorney prosecuting abuse and neglect cases for more than 10 years. Having seem quite a lot of how the system works, I can confidently say that the law is fine in principle, even if the system isn’t perfect.

Let me reiterate that the convention itself doesn’t do anything. It must be both ratified and implemented by law that’s consistent with our own legal standards, whether that’s being consistent with the Constitution and existing law.

You guys are getting worked up about nothing.


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x