Posts Tagged ‘United Nations’

U.N. Contemplates Forced Migration of Californians

united_nationsted Nations
Never let a good crisisgo to waste, especially if you caused it in the first place.

Isn’t that the motto of modern liberalism?

We’re definitely seeing that slogan put into action by leftists, from the White House to the State House to the City Hall in the case of the border crisis.

As wave after wave of illegal immigrants — at least a fifth of whom are gang members and assorted criminals rather than innocent “children” — have invaded our country, politicians on the left side of the aisle have been whining and sermonizing about how we need to grant them all amnesty.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi just yesterday was crying about the “meanness” of people who didn’t want to support amnesty as it became apparent that John Boehner’s toothless border bill was going down to defeat.

Pelosi, from California’s Bay Area, has been on her high horse of late, rediscovering her alleged Catholic faith as she preaches to everyone within earshot about the poor suffering children coming across our border and how we have to take care of and nurture them and their families. My guess is either she needs a new staff for her mansion or she’s being subsidized by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which sees the border crisis as an opportunity for businesses to underpay even more employees who are motivated not to speak to the authorities.

You’d think that politicians from California would be more circumspect on immigration, given the state’s history with illegal immigrants and the attendant crime rates and drug trade. But the border has been virtually open for so long that generations of illegal immigrants have raised families here and insinuated themselves into positions of influence until the state’s only real law on immigration is lawlessness.

Governor Moonbeam, Jerry Brown, has gone so far as to criticize Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who actually believes in protecting his state and country, by saying illegal immigrants prefer California. This week, Moonbeam was in South America when he suggested that global warming was behind the flood of illegal immigrants into the United States.

All of this Democratic talk is just to push amnesty, which the Left thinks will guarantee it stays in power for the next century, but will incidentally destroy what remains of the American way of life, culture and spirit.

But as insidious as the Left’s plotting is, the United Nations may have outdone even some of America’s traitorous politicians.

In addition to its immigration problem, California is in year umpty-ump of a manmade perpetual drought, brought on by poor water management and destruction of reservoirs and making resources off-limits in the name of environmentalism. For the past couple of years, nature has piled on California’s back with exceptionally low rainfall and snow.

Now, the United Nations is lurking in the wings, waiting to pounce.

The latest U.S. Drought Monitor Map shows 58 percent of the state is in “exceptional drought” stage, the highest level and up an amazing 22 percent from a mere week ago, when 36 percent of the state was in exceptional drought conditions.

If that’s not enough to signal a plot afoot, along comes Lynn Wilson, academic chair of Kaplan University by day and member of the United Nations climate change delegation by night.

According to her, the drought conditions in California are so bad, that the United Nations might have to step in.

Recently, the U.N. has been eyeing Detroit for intervention because that city has been cutting off the water supply to a large chunk of its poor residents. But now, the U.N. is thinking of moving up to an entire state.

And the plan this time isn’t just to bring in water. That would be too easy and sane.

According to Wilson, as reported by CNBC, the U.N.’s solution may be forced migration of the California population to somewhere else.

“Civilizations in the past have had to migrate out of areas of drought,” Wilson said. “We may have to migrate people out of California.”

Call me a worry-wart, but I become concerned when bureaucrats start spewing sentences where “people” are the object of the verb rather than the subject.

Wilson added that of coooouuuurrrrrssse there would be other measures tried first, such as importing water, but “migration can’t be taken off the table.”

If we had representative government in California like they have in Texas, that Wilson’s words would be the cue for the governor to tell the United Nations to pound sand, but Moonbeam, Pelosi, et al, probably consider Wilson’s comments as signalling more room for the Chosen People (illegal immigrants and drug cartel employees).

Well, if the U.N. is going to take over and start shipping people out of the state, per Agenda 21, I would suggest starting with anyone registered Democrat. That would really fix up the place.


Rand Paul: UN has secret plot to ‘CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL’ of America’s guns


Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Saturday warned President Barack Obama was working on behalf of “anti-American globalists” in the United Nations who were plotting against the U.S. Constitution.

In a fundraising email sent on behalf of the National Association on Gun Rights, Paul alleged the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty was a secret plot to completely
American civilians.

“Ultimately, UN bureaucrats will stop at nothing to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU,” Paul wrote. “So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept many of their schemes under wraps. But looking at previous attempts by the UN to pass global gun control, you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Saturday warned President Barack Obama was working on behalf of “anti-American globalists” in the United Nations who were plotting against the U.S. Constitution.

In a fundraising email sent on behalf of the National Association on Gun Rights, Paul alleged the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty was a secret plot to completely disarm American civilians.

“Ultimately, UN bureaucrats will stop at nothing to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU,” Paul wrote. “So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept many of their schemes under wraps. But looking at previous attempts by the UN to pass global gun control, you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.”

Paul said the United Nations would “CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL” of civilian firearms in the United States and ban the sale of all semi-automatic weapons. He also alleged the United Nations was controlled by “petty dictators and one-world socialists” who were plotting to usurp American sovereignty.

“These anti-gun globalists know that as long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they’ll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide power they crave,” Paul wrote.

The United States voted with 153 other nations to approve the treaty in April, but it still needs to be ratified by the U.S. Senate. Republicans have vowed to block the treaty.

The UN wants rich countries to eat less meat so poor countries can eat more

United NationsA new United Nations report says that people living in rich countries should eat half as much meat as they usually do in order for people in poor countries to eat more without harming the environment.

UN scientists said that billions of people in poor countries should be allowed to eat more animal protein, reports the Guardian. But in order to protect the environment, the increased consumption of meat products poor countries must come at the expense of meat consumption in rich countries.

“Eat meat, but less often — make it special,” Professor Mark Sutton, the author of a UN Environment Program study, told the Guardian. “Portion size is key. Many portions are too big, more than you want to eat. Think about a change of culture that says, ‘I like the taste, but I don’t need so much of it.’”

The growth in meat consumption in rich countries has diverted large amounts of grain to raising livestock and required the extensive use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides which has helped cause “a web of water and air pollution that is damaging human health,” according to the UN report.

The Guardian reports that “[t]he run-off from these chemicals is creating dead zones in the seas, causing toxic algal blooms and killing fish, while some are threatening bees, amphibians and sensitive ecosystems.”

“The attention this meat scare has drawn [highlights] poor quality meat. It shows society must think about livestock and food choices much more, for the environment and health,” Sutton said.

Sutton told the Guardian that he wants Europe to pioneer the change in diet because it will be harder to change people’s minds in the US.

“Unless action is taken, increases in pollution and per capita consumption of energy and animal products will exacerbate nutrient losses, pollution levels and land degradation, further threatening the quality of our water, air and soils, affecting climate and biodiversity,” warns the report.

Follow Michael on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact

Read more:

U.S. Taxpayers Will Continue to Pay More Than One-Fifth of U.N. Budget

Joseph Torsella, deputy ambassador for U.N. management and reform, speaks at U.N. headquarters in New York City in this September 2011 file photo. (UN Photo by Evan Schneider)

( – In one of its last actions of the year, the United Nations General Assembly on Christmas Eve agreed to extend for another three years the formula that has U.S. taxpayers contributing more than one-fifth of the world body’s regular budget.

No member-state called for a recorded vote, and the resolution confirming the contributions that each country will make for the 2013-2015 period was summarily adopted. The assembly also approved a two-year U.N. budget of $5.4 billion.

The U.S. has accounted for 22 percent of the total regular budget every year since 2000, and will now continue to do so for the next three years.

The U.S. representative for U.N. management and reform, Joseph Torsella, expressed satisfaction that the U.S. contribution had not been raised above that level.

“The United States is very pleased to have maintained the critical 22 percent ceiling for U.S. contributions to the U.N. regular budget, protecting U.S. taxpayers from the additional bills – estimated to be at least $300 million annually in both the regular and peacekeeping budgets – that would have resulted from an increase in the U.S. ceiling level,” he said.

Two months ago, when the General Assembly’s budget committee was meeting on the issue, Torsella noted that since the last time the budget contribution formula was reviewed, “developing countries have continued their impressive economic growth.”

“Countries whose economies have grown should welcome the opportunity to become a larger stakeholder in the work of the organization,” he said.
Torsella also reminded that meeting that since the creation of the U.N., a fundamental principle that has governed the budget contribution process has been “the avoidance of overreliance upon any one contributor.”

What constitutes “overreliance” is not defined, however. Between them the U.S. and Japan contribute one-third of the total budget – and roughly the same as the next seven countries combined.

The 193 U.N. member-states’ contributions are assessed according to their relative “capacity to pay,” based on population size and gross national income (converted to U.S. dollars at market exchange rates). The ceiling is 22 percent while the bottom level is 0.001 percent, which over the next three years will apply to more than 30 of the world’s poorest countries.

Whether a country contributes less than $25,000 a year towards the budget or more than $500 million – as the U.S. does – it has the same voting privileges in the General Assembly.

Moreover, as Heritage Foundation scholar Brett Schaefer has pointed out, countries that together pay less than 1.3 percent of the total are able, under U.N. voting rules, to pass the budget over the objections of countries that contribute a combined 98 percent.

According to the resolution adopted on Monday, the biggest contributors after the U.S. for the 2013-2015 period are Japan (10.83 percent), Germany (7.14 percent), France (5.59 percent), Britain (5.18 percent) and China (5.15 percent).

The next tier includes Italy (4.45 percent), Canada (2.98 percent), Spain (2.97 percent), Brazil (2.93 percent), Russia (2.44 percent) and Australia (2.07 percent). No other country pays as much as two percent, and most pay below one percent.

Some developing countries have seen relatively significant increases in their assessments: China, the world’s second-largest economy, will pay 5.15 percent, up from 3.12 last time; the Russian contribution has risen to 2.44 percent from 1.60 percent; Brazil’s 2.93 percent is an increase from 1.61.

China’s year-on-year GDP growth rate last year was 9.2 percent, Russia’s was 4.3 percent and Brazil’s 2.7 percent, according to CIA World Factbook data.

India’s increase in U.N. contributions is more modest – from 0.53 to 0.66 percent – while Japan, Canada and European countries including Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain will contribute a smaller percentage over the next three years than they have over the past three.

Before 2000, the U.S. contributed 25 percent of the U.N. regular budget, but it was reduced to 22 percent in line with legislation passed by the U.S. Congress in 1999. The U.S. still pays 25 percent of the separate peacekeeping budget.


Obama Administration Partners With the UN to Attack the Second Amendment

by katie Pavlich

Not shockingly, immediately after President Obama was reelected for a second term, his administration reinforced its support for the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty [ATT], also known as the “Small Arms Treaty.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been expressing full support of the treaty on behalf of the United States for years now while for political reasons, President Obama sat back. Now, the entire administration will be out front in support of ratifying it.

Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected, the United States backed a U.N. committee’s call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade.

U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies.

The month-long talks at U.N. headquarters broke off after the United States – along with Russia and other major arms producers – said it had problems with the draft treaty and asked for more time.

But the U.N. General Assembly’s disarmament committee moved quickly after Obama’s win to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. It passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions.

U.N. diplomats said the vote had been expected before Tuesday’s U.S. presidential election but was delayed due to Superstorm Sandy, which caused a three-day closure of the United Nations last week.

An official at the U.S. mission said Washington’s objectives have not changed.

“We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout,” the official said.

So what is the ATT? And is the argument from the U.N. that it won’t suppress Second Amendment rights an honest one?

The general stated goal of the ATT is to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on guns and military equipment (no, really). I wrote about this in my book:

The alleged purpose of the treaty is to prevent crime, terrorism and even war by regulating the sale of guns, but it is a rarely noted irony that some of the biggest supporters of the treaty are also the world’s most brazen supporters of terrorism, such as Iran, Syria and Cuba. Its proposed regulations extend to the level of firearms accessories, including scopes and magazines. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed her support for the treaty in October 2009, saying, “The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area by seizing the opportunity presented by the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty at the United Nations…. The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons. We look forward to this negotiation.”

The final draft of the treaty is scheduled to be completed by summer 2012. The State Department, Department of Justice, and ATF have taken a leadership role in pushing the treaty. The Bush administration refused to participate ion the negotiations, but the Obama administration has been a willing participant in drafting the treaty, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the helm. Obama has said he would like to see the treaty ratified as a way of demonstrating American’s respect for “international norms.”

Because the UN’s definition of “criminal activity” in the treaty is so broad, American gun owners could find themselves prosecuted if UN officials deemed owning some firearms a crime. If the treaty were to be effective, it would imply the necessity for strict regulation of individual firearms ownership. Mexico wants the treaty to regulate hunting rifles, because it claims hunting rifles are used by drug cartels. But of course any weapon that can be used for sport of self-defense could also be used in ways that the treaty might regulate.

The treaty calls for international reporting measures that would require countries to trace and keep track of weapons sold and transferred. Not only would this consume a massive amount of government resources, it would also be intrusive. Many Second Amendment advocates regard the creation of a nationwide database of lawful gun owners and a catalog of every firearm they own as an ominous expansion of government power. The most vocal supporters of the treaty in the United States are gun control organizations such as the Brady Campaign and the Joyce Foundation (the anti-gun organization that once counted Obama as a member).


And it’s our tax dollars that fund the United Nations, we pay almost 25% of their yearly budget.

Via Free Beacon:

The Washington Free Beaconhas obtained a report soon to be released by the United Nations that calls for an international campaign of legal attacks and economic warfare on a group of American companies that do business in Israel, including Hewlett-Packard, Caterpillar Inc., and Motorola Solutions Inc.

The Human Rights Council (HRC), a body dominated by Islamic countries and known for its hostility to, and heavy focus on, the Jewish State, issued the report. The George W. Bush administration refused to participate in the HRC, but President Barack Obama joined it soon after taking office.Members of the HRC include infamous human rights abusers such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Libya, China, and Cuba.

The Obama-approved body maintains a “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories [sic].” The current rapporteur is American college professor Richard Falk, a 9/11 “truther ” who once posted an anti-Semitic cartoon on his personal blog.

In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, the Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman blasted the report and the HRC’s special rapporteur: “We believe you should have prevented the Secretariat from being a party to Mr. Falk’s anti-Israel agenda. Mr. Falk’s entire tenure as Special Rapporteur has served to undermine the credibility of the institution of the United Nations.”

The report attempts to instigate a campaign of boycott, divestment, sanctions, and legal action against a litany of international companies doing business in Israel. In addition to American companies, the U.N. targets include major European firms such as Veolia Environnement, Group 4 Security, the Dexia Group, the Volvo Group.

“The costs to companies and businesses of failing to respect international humanitarian law are considerable,” the report warns, “including damage to a company’s public image, impact on shareholder decisions and share price and could result in employees being criminally responsible for rights abuses.”

The report warns American employees of targeted companies that they face legal risks.

“Employees of companies can face investigation and prosecution for human rights violations committed irrespective of where the violation was committed.”

In addition to legal action against American employees of targeted companies, the Special Rapporteur “concludes that all companies that operate in or otherwise have dealings with Israeli settlements should be boycotted.” The companies should ”be prepared to accept any consequences—reputation, financial, or legal—of continuing operations.”

Should the companies continue doing business in Israel, the Human Rights Council “calls on civil society to actively pursue legal and political redress against non-complying business” and “to vigorously pursue initiatives to boycott, divest and sanction the businesses highlighted in this report” and “calls on the international community to consider requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice” to punish the businesses.

When the Obama administration joined the Human Rights Council in 2009, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice pledged , “Working from within, we can make the council a more effective forum to promote and protect human rights.”

U.N. treaties mean LOST U.S. sovereignty -INHOFE AND DEMINT

Liberals intent on imposing backdoor globalism and Soros’S One World Government

For years, liberals and misguided State Department officials have pushed for the U.S. Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). This treaty would convey ownership of the oceans to a United Nations agency and give international bureaucrats veto authority over U.S. naval operations and could force the United States to comply with international carbon emissions caps.

Last week, we defeated LOST by securing commitments to ensure it cannot gain the 67 votes needed for ratification.

However, no sooner had the 34th Republican senator signed a letter opposing LOST than the surrender of American sovereignty was put back on the table by foreign diplomats and their internationalist allies in the federal government.

With LOST dead, the new treaties being promoted to take its place include the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Disabled, which calls for government agents to supersede the authority of parents of disabled children and even covers abortion. Also, the Obama administration has begun negotiations on a new U.N. treaty to create international gun control rules that could slowly erode our Second Amendment.

The globalist ideologues behind these treaties are either ignorant of or hostile to the universal human experience that problems are best solved by the people and institutions closest to them. So assured are these masters of their mandate to direct the lives and wealth of other people that they see their routine failures to do so efficiently at the local, state and national level merely as reason to ascend to new heights of international command and control.

Our nation’s founders understood this hubristic temptation of public officials. Thomas Jefferson stated in his inaugural address the principle of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” Instead, America sought to constrain our actions within the confines of the consent of the people. It is this measure of accountability that fetters both policymaking and policymakers. This is precisely why internationalists prefer to elevate authority wherever possible above democratic accountability.

This explains the feverish effort to join the United States to so many international treaties and conventions on every subject under the sun. It is a backdoor effort to impose extreme liberal policies on Americans who would never vote for them if given the choice.

That was precisely the motivation behind President Obama and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John F. Kerry’s effort to ratify LOST in a lame-duck session of Congress, when public scrutiny and accountability would be minimal.

They argue that we need this treaty, which the Senate correctly has ignored since its original completion in 1982, to ensure America’s access to the world’s shipping lanes. Of course, we already have such access, no thanks to a piece of paper, but to the world’s most powerful navy.

In exchange for gaining something it already has, then, the United States would, under LOST, surrender billions, possibly trillions, in royalty payments for oil and gas produced from our Outer Continental Shelf. At the same time, the treaty would expose our citizens to frivolous lawsuits in international courts.

LOST would trade in our Constitution for a vague 200-page compact drafted by foreign diplomats. It would trade in our Founding Fathers for the United Nations, and “we the people” for “you the foreign secretaries we’ve never heard of and didn’t elect.”

This desire to substitute the received wisdom of international committees, led by nations like Sudan and Russia, for the electoral judgment of the American people is the motivation behind LOST and every other sovereignty-peddling treaty making the rounds.

It explains the Kyoto Protocols, which would have handed over American energy policymaking to international green-ocrats. It explains the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which would supersede federal, state and local laws, mandating choices and decisions best left to parents.

The same is true for the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which would empower international bureaucrats to set local laws concerning abortion, marriage, day care and even Mother’s Day.

In the end, for all their titles and credentials, the globalists are just liberal politicians with well-worn passports. It is not some new form of international harmony they seek but just larger institutions from which to impose their old, discredited agenda.

They see the U.S. Constitution as an obstacle to progress and so seek to supersede it by any means available to them. The debates about these treaties are not about the legalistic minutiae they contain but the sovereign citizenry they threaten.

The American people’s God-given and constitutionally protected right to self-government must be protected. The fact that our people remain skeptical toward the schemes of international diplomats is a sign of their enduring wisdom.

LOST is dead, for now. But new efforts to hand over American sovereignty to international authority already are under way. Only with the ongoing help and vigilance of the American people can we hope to defeat the next generation of unnecessary, unrepublican and undemocratic treaties.

Sen. James M. Inhofe is a Republican from Oklahoma. Sen. Jim DeMint is a Republican from South Carolina. They both serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Agenda 21 for Public Officials

[youtube][/youtube]LISTEN TO THIS HIDDEN PLAN OF THE UN!!! It is most likely at WORK and well advanced now in your City!!!

‘What is agenda 21? What is Smart Growth? What is sustainable development? This video provides a description of Agenda 21/sustainable development and how it affects your property rights.

While it is important to be good stewards of our planet, the sustainable development movement has been co-opted by an aggressive agenda to rewild America (The Wildlands Project) and reduce automobile usage and unnecessary travel by gradually shifting people into high density urban areas supported by mixed use dwellings (Smart Growth.)

Often the planning process to meet these objectives confiscates private property rights through imminent domain or conservation easements. The outcome is not a safer planet, but rather, an unrecognizable nation most would strongly oppose. When advanced community by community, most do not realize the bigger picture.

Please share this video with your friends and get the word out that our American Freedoms are being threatened!’


Yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the U.N.’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

As multiple experts—including The Heritage Foundation’s Steven Groves—testified, it is both unnecessary and unwise for the United States to become a party to the Disabilities Convention.

The rights of Americans with disabilities are already protected under a number of federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, and the Fair Housing Act as amended in 1988. Any modification or expansion of such protections can and ought to be achieved through the legislative process.

However, U.S. ratification of the CRPD is more than merely superfluous; the CRPD threatens American sovereignty in a variety of ways.

As with other human rights treaties, the CRPD established a treaty body composed of unelected “experts”—the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities—that evaluates the compliance of state parties to the treaty every four years and issues recommendations for how they might improve in fulfilling their obligations. Too often these U.N. treaty bodies seek to broaden the scope of the treaties that created them, redefining terms and expanding language that had been painstakingly negotiated by the U.N. member states that initially signed onto them—and blatantly disregarding national sovereignty.

Among the most noteworthy of these treaty bodies are the committee that deals with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and the one that polices states in their compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

The U.S. has ratified CERD treaty and has therefore been subjected to browbeating and extreme liberal moralizing on the part of the committee’s so-called experts, whose recommendations have included restoring voting rights to convicted felons and promoting multiculturalism in grade school curriculums.

Thankfully, despite extensive efforts on the part of its advocates, the CEDAW treaty has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate. However, the CEDAW committee’s recommendations to other countries provide ample evidence of the sort of directives it would give to U.S. policymakers should the U.S. ever become a party to CEDAW.

If the U.S. were to ratify the CRPD, U.S. policies would be subjected to the oversight and commentary of the CRPD committee, which could issue unlimited recommendations that the U.S. would be expected to implement. This prospect should be especially concerning to the parents and caregivers of disabled Americans, whose decision making authority would be subjected to the pronouncements of international “experts” and whose rights would be undermined by the CRPD’s language concerning the “best interests of the child” and its lack of explicit protection of parental rights.

Other language in the CRPD is troubling, too, such as its lack of a clear definition of disability, which it defines as “an evolving concept.” Although seemingly beyond the scope of a treaty dealing with rights and protections of the disabled, the CRPD also revisits the recurring and contentious U.N. debates surrounding the definitions of “reproductive health” and “reproductive rights” as they relate to so-called abortion rights.

In spite of specific statements made by CRPD signatories that the inclusion of the phrase “sexual and reproductive health” is not intended to include abortion, U.N. officials and other abortion advocates have pointed to the CRPD to further build their case in favor of abortion as a human right.

The U.S. Senate should decline to ratify the CRPD, as ratifying it would subject the U.S. to untold threats against its sovereignty and invite further intrusion by U.N. officials into sensitive social and domestic policies. If the rights of disabled Americans need further protection or clarification, Congress and state governments should seek remedies through the appropriate legislative processes.

SEO Powered By SEOPressor