This is what they want...
Go here for more information.
Posted on 08/27/2006 11:37:30 AM PDT by SFCGeraldRTostensen
The United Nations is expected to pass an international treaty that will give disabled people more rights. The idea is to replace charity with rights to be enforced by an international government.
Critics in the United States believe this move is part and parcel of the United Nations goal of creating more international power over nation-states. Recently, in another power grap, the UN proposed an international tax on businesses and individuals in order to feed, clothe and house the impoverished.
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was adopted and the treaty is likely to be adopted by the UN General Assembly during their next session.
This is the first human rights treaty to be passed in the 21st century and will serve an estimated 650 million disabled people in the world. Currently only 45 countries have special legislation protecting the disabled, including the United States with its Americans with Disabilities Act.
Ambassador Don MacKay of New Zealand said, ''It [the convention] will force states to develop a different way of thinking about disability issues. Once you get the paradigm shift... and people adopt a 'can do' rather than a 'can't do' approach, a whole lot of other things flow from there."
Parking and accessibility are a part of the treaty but the real goal is to have all countries agree to ensure the disabled equal rights to others.
While cloaked in compassion, this power grab would give the United Nations jurisdiction over American businesses, especially small business owners who will have to pay for the UN's standards such as wheelchair accessibility and special accommodations for the disabled.
The United States, however, reportedly will not be signing the treaty, stating that the laws and regulation contained in the ADA are comprehensive enough. Conservatives are loath to give an organization that is ineffective at best, dangerous at worst, more power over citizens within the US.
"I believe this is a trojan horse designed to get Americans and other countries' citizens accustomed to an international government, " said political analyst Mike Baker.
"They start off with so-called "solidarity taxes" and laws to help the disabled that clears the way for other international laws that will impact upon US citizens," he said.
However, Maria Raina, coordinator of the international disability caucus, said she believes the US will probably end up signing the treaty. She claims signing the treaty is more about agreeing to the principles, not the laws.
But Ms. Raina's comments are deceptive. If the US signs the treaty, organizations representing the interests of the disabled will be able to bypass the US government and bring their cases to the United Nations headquarters located in New York City, which will make it more convenient for Americans to file frivilous lawsuits.
The powers that exist within the UN have already proven themselves hostile to the United States which increases the probability of punitive actions against the US government and individuals residing and doing business in the US.
Representatives from the US, Australia, Canada, Japan and Israel objected to the treaty's text in a separate vote. The Israeli representative called it “a clear attempt to politicise the convention”.
References to sexual and reproductive health -- which conservatives in the US believe will include abortion -- with regard to health care, as well as other language, such as the definition of disability, have also drawn opposition. For instance the US and Japan had problems with listing drug addiction as a disability.
The phrase "reproductive health" is controversial at the UN. The phrase is defined by radical groups and rogue UN committees to indicate support for legal abortion, although the General Assembly has never given approval to that interpretation.
The US mission to the UN has stated that it opposes to the convention on the grounds that it would dilute the strength of US legislation. But it said, "Washington fully supports the improvement of international standards for the disabled."
“In the beginning, the US was silent,” Grandia said of the nearly five-year process leading to a treaty draft.
“Since then, the US has contributed a lot with negotiations, but we know they won’t ratify,” she added.
Can we remove the UN Protected Sites signs from our national parks?
Delusional at best, outright lying at worst.
We need to get out of the UN. It is a dangerous organization.
Things are improving, though, in a somewhat curious way. Their lies are becoming far more transparent over time.
D'ya think they'd get the message if some good citizen just shot a few holes in them?
UN wants taxarion rights, a standing army, and lots more.
Ah, yes, for the good old days when everyone thought the John Birch Society was nuts for railing against our UN involvement.
"... said she believes the US will probably end up signing the treaty. She claims signing the treaty is more about agreeing to the principles, not the laws. "
The RATS are going to jump on this. It shouls be at that point thatthe US pulls out of the UN on the grounds that we are funding a terrorist supporting world body that is anti-American.
On my way up to Pa from Fl on I-95, I passed through one of those areas, but it was not identified as a UN project.
It was Labeled "International Forest preserve area" or some such nonsense.
Cute.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.