Obama and the UN

Friends,
As you know, I am no fan of the United Nations. Now, it looks like President Obama is becoming more of a Globalist than an American; I will not get into the birth certificate issue. The president wants badly to be seen as a “good guy” by the international community.

Last month, he traveled to Europe, and the Middle East looking for good will. At every stop he apologized for perceived wrongs of America, such as our arrogance. Not to put too fine a point on the issue, but is it arrogant to point out that twice in forty years this country saved the world from the despotism of megalomaniacal tyrants? Is it arrogant to point out that when Europe was in shambles after World War II it was the United States that funded much of the recovery from the utter devastation of that war? Is it arrogant to point out that America, along with our good ally England was able to face down the Soviet Union and end the cold war? Is it arrogant to point out that when Saddam Hussein invaded an ally, it was an American president who built a coalition of world nations to remove him? I might also point out that in none of these circumstances did the United States benefit financially. We did not take over the manufacturing base, agricultural base, or oil production base of any country we assisted. But I digress.

The president even went to Saudi Arabia to pay homage to the Saudi King. For an American president to bow to a foreign head of state, or for him to bow to anyone, for that matter, causes me to question whether he fully understands the role he has accepted. Let’s look at the relationship the United States shares with the international community, specifically the United Nations.

After World War II, this country joined with our war-time allies to establish a body that would prevent war and other international “man-made disasters.” The problem with the concept is that we made the pact with two devils, the Soviet Union and the Peoples’ Republic of China, not to mention the questionable friendship of France.

Over the history of this body, only one action that I can find has resulted in a victim of aggression being even partially protected, that being South Korea. Even that “police action” has never been finally put to rest. UN presence often results in either complete inability to accomplish the job or deploying thugs that terrorize the local populous, such as has been reported in numerous locations in Africa, or both. Seldom are these failures or abuses addressed by the whole body.

With this kind of track record what is the justification for President Obama to want to snuggle up to the UN? The Obama administration is attempting to gain a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. This is one of the agencies that is advocating for ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). As we all understand, any ratified treaty has the force of law over established US law.

The aforementioned treaty sounds wonderful until you start to dig into it. The UNCRC seeks to raise the best interest of children to a higher level. Who could argue against that? Well, it seems that the Supreme Court could. The Supreme Court held in Reno vs. Flores in 1993 that “‘the best interests of the child’ is not the legal standard that governs parents’ or guardians’ exercise of their custody.”

The main problem seems to be who will determine what is best for the child. According to the UNCRC it is not you, the parents. This is a major “nanny state” advocacy program. The UN will become the determiner of appropriate discipline of your children. Not only does it supplant US law, it supplants your parental rights.

President Obama may be comfortable turning his daughters over to the state to determine how they are to be reared, but are you ready to do the same?

One of the provisions of the Convention is that if a child does not like the way his or her parents are exercising their responsibilities, the state must provide legal representation for that child in court against the parents. I have a problem with the concept that a child can take the parents to court if the child objects to being grounded for staying out after curfew, of if he or she objects to having a curfew in the first place.

Those countries that have signed this treaty must go before the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child on a regular basis to report their progress toward implementing the treaty. This just adds another layer of bureaucracy to our already bloated federal government.
This is the direction our president wants
to take our country. With each passing day, we are losing more and more of our national identity. Our president is spending an inordinate amount of time and energy denigrating our standing in the world community, not to mention our sovereignty. It is incumbent on all of us to tell him that he is on the wrong track. We are a nation of laws decided upon by our elected officials, not those of other nations.

In Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address he warned, “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations–entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration.”
President Obama’s desire for ratification of the CRC tracks very well with his disdain of all things culturally American. This is the kind of man elected by those wanting “change.” Well, how is this change working out for you? How is this global lack of respect sitting with you? How is the loss of your parental rights going to work out for you?

If you would like to read more about this problem I would like to direct you to here

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Also, I would like to thank Shyrl for her diligent research in support of this Discourse.
Dan