Saturday, December 28, 2013

Parents Beware: The United Nations Looking To Give Children of Connecticut Special "Rights"

The United Nations wants to give your children "rights".  You may think your child already has "rights", but the kind of "rights" that the UN wants to legally provide children are the kind that would bring a government agent to your house if you decide to home school your children, bring them to a religious function, or even punish them.  This agent would decide if your actions are, or were, appropriate, and in line with the child's "rights".

The plan to give all of the children of the world the same "rights", is known as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, or CRC).  It is important to understand that this plan is actually part of a much larger United Nations plan called "Agenda 21."  I have previously written on Agenda 21, and found the document to be a plan by the United Nations to gain more decision making power, or sovereignty, from countries, and create a world in which every resource, water, animals, food, etc., even human resources, and population size, is tracked, and controlled, by a group of non-elected bureaucrats at the UN, working in conjunction with big corporations, and non-governmental organizations (NGO's).  In Article 25, Section 14 of Agenda 21, governments are required to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In this analysis, I will detail a brief history of "child rights", explore the actual text of this document, the effect this convention has had on countries that have ratified it, and trace its attempted ratification in the United States, down to our own Connecticut state legislature.

History of the CRC

Decades before the UN held a convention on the rights of the child, there were various declarations made, in regards to giving children special rights, even dating back as far as 1924, adopted by the predecessor of the United Nations, the League of Nations.  In 1989, The UN General Assembly adopted the Convention and opened it for signature.  It came into force in 1990, after it was ratified by the required number of nations.

In the United States, under the administration of Bill Clinton, the CRC was signed, but the treaty was never submitted for Senate approval, due to opposition from some members of the Senate.  More recently, in 2009, the Obama administration revived efforts to have the United States sign onto the CRC, according to former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice.  The following year, thirty-one Republican senators cosponsored a resolution opposing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.  The United States is only one of a few countries yet to ratify the treaty.

Important to note, potential future Presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a strong supporter of the treaty.

In Their Own Words

Let us examine the actual text of the treaty.  This "Convention on the Rights of the Child" treaty is 15 pages, consisting of 54 Articles, detailing the assertion that children have special rights, and the ways to implement the bureaucracy that is needed to insure that governments are "protecting" these children's rights.

When dealing with the United Nations, as with any government organization, it is important to critically examine the grammar used, see past the happy, positive sounding rhetoric, and be able to understand the actual details of a plan.  The CRC opens with a preamble that emphasizes the importance of "the protection and harmonious development of the child".  Again, this sounds nice, but we must remember, this could mean anything, and is coming from an organization that calls their violent military army, "peace keeping" troops.


Before getting into the details of the document, it is important to know that the articles of this Convention are intended to be imposed on every single child in the world, as the CRC states, "a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years." [emphasis added] (Article 1)

To make certain that no child born in the world will evade the oversight of the United Nations, and to ensure that all of the children are accounted for, the Convention wants to make sure that every child is "registered immediately after birth." (Art. 7, Sec. 1)  It is not made clear which organization the United Nations would like your child registered to.

Also in the preamble of the document, the authors state their belief that "the child should be...brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations."  Persuading the children to follow in the "spirit of the ideals" of the United Nations, and convincing them they have special "rights", is an important aspect of the CRC.  As with many United Nations programs, propaganda through mass media, children's literature, and more, will play a major role in shifting the public's, and mainly the children's, attitudes in favor of the CRC:
  • "Encourage the mass media to disseminate information and material of social and cultural benefit to the child" (Art. 17, Sec a.)
  • "Encourage the production and dissemination of children's books" (Art. 17, Sec c.)
  • "Encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being..." (Art. 17, Sec. e.)
If you think you will be able to keep your child away from this indoctrination, by home-schooling, you are wrong.  Home-schooling will seemingly be outlawed as Article 28 clearly states that the goal is to "Make primary education compulsory and available free to all."  The definition of compulsory is "required by regulations or laws; obligatory".  Every child will be forced to go to the "free" government schools, receive the UN propaganda, and learn all about having "rights".  Later in this analysis we will learn how national governments are citing the CRC to oppose home schooling in their country.

Another important aspect of the CRC is ensuring that there is nothing that interferes with the child from being being able to exercise their "rights", including the child's parents.  The second article of the convention states that governments are to respect and ensure all the rights set forth in the Convention regardless if they conflict with the religious, ethnic, or political views of the parents of the child:
"States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status." [emphasis added] (Article 2, Section 1)
A critical thinker, at this point, may question, if the goals of the CRC are to promote the "harmonious development" of the child, why the rights of the child would differ from the parent's beliefs?  What are these "rights" that the UN wants children to have, and why would they conflict with the parent's beliefs?  A deeper look into the language used in the Convention may reveal some clues as to why this is.

One aspect of the convention that may come in disagreement with parents is the UN's belief that children should be excluded from punishment by the parents, and be allowed to participate in whatever activity, or express whatever opinion, they choose, even if it is contrary to the rules laid out, or beliefs, of the parents.
"States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members." (Article 2, Section 2)
The way this is written can be interpreted as, in an extreme case, your child having the right to join a Satanic cult, practice devil worship in your home, and you, as a parent, have no authority to interfere with, use "discrimination", or "punishment" against, your child, or his beliefs.  We will learn later in this examination how courts, and child right's lawyers, are involving themselves into family matters, such as a parents decision to punish their child, and citing the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to justify their actions.

Under the CRC, the state will assure that parents are not hindering their child's capability of forming their views, or expressing those views freely, in all matters.
"States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child..." (Article 12)
Hypothetically, if your teen daughter believes, contrary to your beliefs, that it is her right to use drugs, or have sex, in her bedroom, in your house, and you attempt to put to an end to it, you could be viewed as discriminating against your child's views and their "right to express those views freely."

The convention also states that children have a right to express themselves, "regardless of frontiers", like parents:
"The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice." (Article 13)
With this right, your child can post, what you deem to be, inappropriate material, online, or be looking for adult material, and you will be violating the law, if you attempt to stop, or punish, your child, because you will be interfering with your child's "right to freedom of expression"

Also, your child can call up a government agent, if they don't feel like doing their chores, once they learn about their right to be "protected from...performing any work that is likely to be hazardous...to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral, or social development." (Art. 32, Sec. 1)

Even if your child wants to perform specific chores, the UN can consider the task to be "economic exploitation", and you will be in violation of the treaty.  The CRC expects all governments to have the same laws on "minimum age", "hours and conditions of employment", and "penalties or other sections to ensure the effective enforcement of the present article."  This could effect small family farms, where children learn farm work, through performing small chores everyday.

If you find that your child is hanging around a bad crowd, like an extreme political organization, you better not try to stop that, or you will be violating your child's right to freedom of association, under United Nations Convention on the Right of the Child:
"States Parties recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly." (Article 15)
Under the CRC, children have a right to keep their communications private, and away from inquisitive family members:
"No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation." (Art. 16, Sec. 1)
I am not sure how a government agent will decide whether you attacked your child's honor, or reputation, but from this passage we see that parents will not be allowed to find out who their child is talking to.  A child predator that lurks online, will have a much easier time capturing children, if he can convince the child that their parents do not have the right to find out what they're talking about together, and even give the child a phone number to call, of some government agency, that will ensure the child's right to keep his "correspondence" private.

In Article 19, Section 1, the UN says that governments should take "all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures" to protect children from "mental violence", inflicted on them, by their parents.  This is an interesting term.  I could not find the definition of "mental violence" in this document, or anywhere online.  This is surely more of the ambiguous language intentionally used by the UN, which could later be interpreted to encompass things as minute as raising your voice to your children.

The Convention states that governments will ensure the protection, and care, of children, "taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents."  From this passage, we understand that there are specific "duties" expected, by the United Nations, to be performed by parents, as well as "rights" attributed to parents.

One doesn't have to read much further on into the Convention to learn that the "rights" and "duties" attributed to the parents, are nothing more than the right, and duty, to follow the articles of the CRC:
"States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents...to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention." (Article 5)
The Convention states that parents have a "primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child's development" (Art. 27, Sec. 2), therefore you will be in violation of the CRC, if you cannot afford to provide your child, with what the Convention refers to as "a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development."  (Art. 27, Sec. 1)

Protective Measures

Now that we understand the "rights" that children have, according to the CRC, let us look into the repercussions that will be brought against parents who violate their child's "rights".

The state will take "protective measures" against parents, who violate their child's "rights".  Under CRC, parents will be forced to go to "social programmes", which are designed to make it easier for the state to further identify, and investigate, the parents into the future:
"Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement." (Art. 19, Sec. 2)
If you, as a parent, fail to follow the articles of the convention, the state, operating in "the best interest of the child," of course, will ultimately take your child from you.  The Convention assures us that "the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration" whenever intrusive action is taken against the parents, by government agencies.  This assumes that government agencies know what is in "the best interest of the child."  This assumption is used as a justification for many of the actions recommended in this convention, including the separation of children from their parents:
"States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child." [emphasis added] (Art. 9, Sec. 1)
From this passage we learn that your child can be taken from you, by, what the United Nations refers to as, "competent authorities".  These global politicians at the UN, who you did not get to choose, or vote for, will be deciding who these "competent authorities", that have the power to take your children away, are.  These "competent authorities" will be hand selected, non-democratically, and be "subject to judicial review" only.  The United Nations has made it clear that once a country signs onto the UNCRC, the standards and obligations in the treaty are "non-negotiable".

After the "competent authorities" take your child, The United Nations says that parents will still be able to maintain contact with their child, but of course adds the caveat, "except if it is contrary to the child's best interests":
"States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests." [emphasis added] (Art. 9, Sec. 3)
This stipulation at the end of the section voids any "right" of the parents, that this Article pretends to convey.  You can not have a right to something, if an arbitrarily selected bureaucrat can just take that right away, based on their personal belief that you were not meeting the ambiguous goal of meeting your child's "best interests."

Having contact with your child, after he/she is taken from you, can become even more difficult, as the UN believes placing your child, in a foster home, IN ANOTHER COUNTRY, is a proper "alternative means of child's care":
"Recognize that inter-country adoption may be considered as an alternative means of child's care..." (Art. 21, Sec. b)
Most incredibly, if the state does decide to take your child, you will be forced to pay for the maintenance cost, of the state, for keeping your child in their care:
"States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to secure the recovery of maintenance for the child from the parents or other persons having financial responsibility for the child, both within the State Party and from abroad" (Art. 27, Sec. 4)
Though everything in this convention seems to be focused around "the best interest of the child", and the convention defines a child as "every human being below the age of eighteen years", quite contradictory, the Convention still allows for a fifteen year old to engage in war:
"States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities." [Emphasis added] (Art. 38, Sec. 2)
Interestingly, under the CRC, there could be no death penalty, or life sentences, imposed on a person under the age of eighteen:
"Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age" (Art. 37, Sec. a)

Finally, the Convention establishes a "Committee on the Rights of the Child, which shall carry out the functions hereinafter provided."  This committee will be selected by "secret ballot".


After the CRC

The "child rights" movement has been hard at work since the CRC was ratified.  Because the language used in the CRC is vague, by following the actions, and publications, of the United Nations, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, and these other child rights "experts", we can learn how the CRC is being interpreted since the ratification.

Children are getting closer to having their own international court to complain to.  In December 2011, an optional protocol was added to Convention on the Rights of the Child, the purpose of which was to "encourage State parties to develop national mechanisms enabling children whose rights have been violated to access a system through which their voices and complaints can be heard."  According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, "Children will now be able to...bring their complaints about human rights violations before an international body...”

According to UN.org:
"the Committee on the Rights of the Child will examine all complaints and determine whether the Convention on the Rights of the Child has been violated in each specific case.  The committee will then examine the complaint and may request that the State enforce interim measures preventing any further damage to the complainant."
Religious organizations are concerned that the CRC will impede on their right to bring their children up in the parents belief system.  This concern appears to be justified.  In an animated guide put out by the government of Scotland, in 2008, titled "The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Guide for Children and Young People", the dubious language of the UN is used to show that the parents ability to bring their child up in whatever religion they choose, is not protected by the UNCRC.  Children are told:
“You have the right to choose your own religion and beliefs.  Your parents should help you think about this.”
Notice the language used; your parents should help you think about this, implying that the parents can only help the child "think" about it, not that they have any rights in this department.

In the following 30-second video clip, "young people from the island of St. Lucia speak out about the rights of children...that are based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child":


This clip does not seem that interesting, until you come to the understanding that these children seem to be addressing their parents, as one young man explains, "I have the right to a private life, for instance I can keep a diary that other people are not allowed to see."  Parents may extend the courtesy of allowing their children to keep a private diary, but do children have a RIGHT to prevent their parents from reading their writings?  Remember that if you believe that children have a right to keep their communications, and writings, private, away from their parents, this right will come with a court system, judge, and legal power.

Abortion

The United Nations appears to be very much pro-abortion, mainly as a means to population control.  Convincing women to have less children, or hopefully no children at all, is part of the previously discussed grand plan of the United Nations, Agenda 21.  Having all nations recognize a woman's right to birth control, including abortion, is a main goal of Agenda 21, and it appears that the CRC will be used to advocate children having the right to receive abortions as well, without the parents consent.

Writing for the Texas Journal of Women, Attorney Katie Hatziavramidis published an article titled "Parental Involment Laws for Abortion in the United States and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Can International Law Secure the Right to Choose for Minors?"  The purpose of this publication, according to Hatziavramidis, was to discuss "reproductive rights in the United States and whether ratification of the UN Children's Rights Convention could serve as an avenue for domestic and international rights recognition."  Hatziavramidis eventually concludes that children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.:

“The unmistakable trend in the United States is to consistently increase anti-choice legislation, particularly with respect to minors. Ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child by the United States holds a strong possibility of assisting minors who seek abortions without parental interference.  [*203]  The Convention may offer the best hope for securing adolescent reproductive freedoms on a global level. If enough diplomatic pressure were exerted on the United States to compel it to ratify the treaty, the CRC could provide significant improvements in the outlook for reproductive freedom for minors.” [emphasis added]
At the 42nd Session of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, held in 2006, the Committee openly encouraged abortion, and promoted it as a way to reduce the population:
  • "The Committee notes with appreciation...the partial decriminalization of abortion"
  • "The Committee takes note of the ruling...to liberalize the criminalization of abortion in certain cases, which is likely to lower the maternal mortality rates among adolescent girls. Nevertheless, the Committee is seriously concerned over the high and increasing rate of teenage pregnancies and at the lack of adequate and accessible sexual and reproductive health services"
At the 44th Session of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, held in 2008, the Committee again shows their preference for abortion, as a way to deal with teen pregnancy issues:
"The Committee...is concerned over the high rate of teenage pregnancies, the criminalisation of the termination of pregnancies in all circumstances, and the lack of adequate sex education and accessible reproductive health services" [emphasis added]
Spanking 

Spanking your children as punishment, even in the lightest form, is a violation of the UNCRC.  Article 37, Section (a) states:
“No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
We know that the United Nations considers spanking as "cruel" and "degrading" treatment, because in 2006, at the 42nd session of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the committee issued a general comment, focusing on "the right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel
or degrading forms of punishment."  The Committee included their own definition of "corporal" punishment:
"The Committee defines “corporal” or “physical” punishment as any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light.  Most involves hitting (“smacking”, “slapping”, “spanking”) children, with the hand or with an implement - a whip, stick, belt, shoe, wooden spoon, etc."
The Committee also reminds "States parties" that it is their "obligation to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment."  To combat "spanking", States are required to "take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures", with a goal of "eliminating it, in the family."

Implementation

The language used in the the Convention is intentionally ambiguous, many of the clauses could be mean anything, and nothing is specific.  A critic of my analysis of the CRC may say the claims I make are exaggerated, or the scenarios put forth are not at all likely to occur.  When we take a look at some events that have occurred since the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and how government courts, and agents, have been interpreting the treaty, one can easily see the the threat to liberty that is upon us.

We have some examples of courts, in countries that have ratified the CRC, making rulings against parents, and citing the CRC.

In the African country of Botswana, four families were facing imprisonment, for home schooling their children, and according to the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), "social workers cited the UN treaty as the primary reason for initiating the court action."

From the HSLDA report:
"On May 24, 2010 Judge I.T. Molobe, a magistrate court judge in Mahalapye, ordered the families to enroll their children in public school and to cease home education. The written decision also ordered the families to forfeit their teaching materials to the state; these were subsequently taken by the police in a raid in July of this year."
Also from the HSLDA report:
"The only reason the four families are facing this situation is because a judge is using the UNCRC to impose his subjective view regarding education and to substitute his opinion as to what is in the “best interests” of these children over the views of the parents. HSLDA has stated that the UNCRC opens the door for judges to make sweeping determinations about how children are educated. This and other cases from around the world increasingly demonstrate the truth of this assertion."
In England, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has been cited as a reason to restrict parents right to home-school their children.  Graham Badman, a former Managing Director of Children, Families and Education in the County of Kent, was asked by the Secretary of State to review the home schooling policy in England, and report his findings.  You can read his report here.  Badman cites the previously mentioned Article 12, of the CRC, about the child "forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child", as a reason for the state to require registering, and mandatory reports from homeschoolers.  Badman also advocates for states to have "the right of access to the home", and "the right to speak with each child alone."  For more information on Badman's report, and how the CRC jeopardizes home schooling in England, read this article by the Home School Legal Defense Association.

Also in the United Kingdom, Article 13 of the Convention, which states, "The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers … ", is being cited by organizations who are pushing for children in schools to receive "good, high-quality sex and relationship education."

In Canada, a country which ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child Treaty in 1991, the courts have intervened into family affairs, in matters that would be considered an extreme intrusion into family rights, in America.  In one incredible example, a superior court judge in Quebec, ruled that a father did not have the right to prevent his twelve-year old daughter, from attending a school trip, as a punishment, for the young girl posting pictures of herself on a dating website.  The judge ruled that the punishment was too severe, and the girl should be allowed to attend the three-day trip.

While the CRC was not, to my knowledge, specifically mentioned in this case, the language, and "spirit", of the Convention are definitely present in this case, as well as throughout Canada.  One example is, in 2003, youth criminal laws in Canada underwent major changes resulting in the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), an act that specifically references Canada's different commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Kathy Vandergrift, chair person of the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children, an advocacy group that pushes for stronger child rights laws, as well as provides "public education materials about the Convention on the Rights of the Child", in Canada, speaking on the case of the twelve-year old being punished, said that she relies on two basic principles when deciding where to stand on cases:
"The first is what's in the best interest of the child, the second is that in decisions that impact the child, the child's views should be taken into consideration...It certainly should not be the case that the parental decision, regardless what it is, should be the dominate one." [emphasis added]
As previously mentioned, "the best interest of the child", that is cited in the Convention, can be interpreted to mean anything that a government agent wants it to mean.

According to one family lawyer in Quebec, Miriam Grassby, referring to this specific case of the twelve year old being punished, "Under Quebec family law, it is not uncommon for a child in a high-conflict situation between two parents to have an attorney appointed to protect his or her best interests, as was the case here...In Quebec, no matter who has custody, we have joint parental authority," [emphasis added]

For further proof that the concept of the child's "best interests" is being used by government agencies to subvert the rights of the parents, let us look at the writings of international law "expert" Professor Geraldine Van Bueren.  Professor Van Buren is one of the original drafters of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and has since been awarded "the Child Rights Lawyer Award", an award sponsored by UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund.  In a quote attributed to Professor Van Bueren, from the research of Parental Rights.org, the reader comes to the understanding that Van Bueren seemingly believes that the state should challenge the concept that family life is always in the best interests of the child:
"Best interests provides decision and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the child's or the parents', providing it is based on considerations of the best interests of the child. Thus, the Convention challenges the concept that family life is always in the best interests of children and that parents are always capable of deciding what is best for children." [emphasis added]
Also in Canada, in 2008, acting once again in the spirit of the CRC, an "anti-spanking" bill passed the Canadian Senate to make "corporal punishment" against children, illegal.

CRC in CT

The United Nations is not only attempting to push the CRC through the Federal government, but the pressure is being put on our local state legislatures to support the Convention.

Even before the Convention was signed by President Clinton, in the United States, Connecticut superior Judge Charles D. Gill was pushing ratification of the CRC to residents of Connecticut.  In a promotional news piece, that is written as if it is actual news, the Hartford Courant published, in 1991, an article titled "Judge Presses Constitutional Amendment To Protect Children's Rights", which chronicles a short history of Judge Gill's fight to "protect children" by proposing an amendment be made to the United State Constitution that "could protect children from the people to whom they are most vulnerable -- their parents."  From the same article:
"Gill , who has two grown sons and a 13-year-old daughter, says the passage of such an amendment would make the United States consistent with resolutions passed by the U.N. General Assembly in 1989."
Judge Charles D. Gill has written in the past about his belief that parents should be licensed to have children, the way you need a license to go fishing, or drive a car.  Gill has been criticized by Catholic organizations, such as CatholicCulture.org, for his obstructive views on parental rights:
"In Gill's view, the totalitarian complexion of licensing for parents is too small a part of "the issue" to outweigh the pragmatic need for such a step.  This ignores the fact that every totalitarian system in history has relied on the argument of necessity to justify its oppression of human rights."
Judge Gill's involvement in questionable activities concerning the "rights" of children is vast, and a more in depth analysis on this topic is planned for the future.

More recently, in the 2013 session of the Connecticut State Legislature, a bill, sponsored by State Senator Dante Bartolomeo, and State Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, titled "H.B. No. 6499 - AN ACT CONCERNING CHILDREN'S RIGHTS AND THE RESULTS-BASED ACCOUNTABILITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM", was introduced in the Children's committee, with the stated purpose:
"To explore the effectiveness of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and determine whether the state's children would benefit from the United States Congress ratifying the convention."
While, to my knowledge, the bill presented never obtained any direct effect on local law, it is important to understand the significance of another government, the United Nations, attempting to take the decision making power away from local, elected, representatives, as the CRC does.  It is also important to take note of who these local "representatives" are, that introduced, and supported this bill.  It would be interesting to ask Senator Bartolomeo and/or Representative Minnie Gonzalez, which organization persuaded them to present this piece of legislation.

To see which representatives of Connecticut, in the Children Committee, voted in favor, or against, this bill, click here.

While looking into submitted testimony, relating to this specific piece of legislation, H.B. 6499, I noticed that support came only from three groups:
  • An organization named NAMI (the National Alliance on Mental Illness) that is funded by big pharmaceutical companies, like Eli Lilly and GlaxoSmithKline, and big insurance companies like Cigna
  • Representatives of the University of Connecticut School of Social Work
  • A government agent representing the OCA (Office of the Child Advocate)
As can be seen from the list of submitted testimony, pressure from the average person on the street is not the reason for this bill being presented.  Support for the CRC comes strictly from special interest groups.  

For instance, Aimee Stupak, who submitted testimony in support of this bill, and is a masters degree candidate at the University of Connecticut of Social Work, was an intern at Connecticut Voices for Children, an organization funded by various non-profit organizations, including the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF).  The RWJF is an agent of big pharmaceutical companies.  According to the RWJF website, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation was established with funding from Johnson & Johnson, the largest pharmaceutical company in the world.

Why would the largest pharmaceutical company in the world, be interested in promoting the CRC?  Excerpts from the testimony submitted by Stupak may give us an idea:
"The UNCRC speaks to the reality that effective child protection begins with social policies that promote prevention, including the provision of sufficient services related to health, nutrition, housing, safety, and education" [emphasis added]
The CRC will be used to pass laws, or "social policies", that require "sufficient services related to health."  According to Article 25 of the CRC, after the competent authorities take your child for failing to uphold their "rights", the state assumes the authority of giving your child "protection or treatment of his or her...mental health", also known as, giving your child pharmaceutical medication.

Studies have revealed that youth in foster care are force medicated with psychotropic medicine at a rate three times higher than of children not in foster care.  This is why big pharmaceutical companies push to get more government control over children, to get more customers for their drugs.

This is not the first time I have exposed The Robert Wood Johnson fund for endorsing legislation in the state of Connecticut that would give government more control over children, and, at the same time, increase the profits of Big Pharma.  Earlier in the year, a bill was proposed to require all school aged children to undergo mental health assessments, and one of the organizations that was lobbying the state for the passage of this bill was the CT Association of School Based Health Centers, which is an organization that launched as part of a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF).  The effect of this bill would obviously increase the number of children on pharmaceutical medications, thus profiting Johnson & Johnson, but this conflicting connection is rarely, if ever, mentioned in the state legislature.

The other organization that is lobbying for the passage of the CRC, NAMI (the National Alliance on Mental Illness) is asking the state to "expand and improve access to school-based and school-linked mental health services", as well as recommending that "every child in every neighborhood attends a school staffed by a full-time school social worker and school psychologist." [emphasis added]

The fact that NAMI believes "every child in every neighborhood" should attend a school that has a social worker and psychologist, should raise questions among parents who home-school their children.  Does NAMI believe that home-schooling should be outlawed, or that the state should intervene in the affairs of home schoolers, to make sure the children have access to a "social worker" and a "psychologist"?  This question is not addressed, to my knowledge, by NAMI, and should be further explored in another report.

We must remember that NAMI is funded by big pharmaceutical companies, and big insurance companies, that would greatly profit off of this type of action taken by the state.

In what appears to be an obvious scam, NAMI wants the state to "mandate reimbursement for early childhood mental health services without requiring that the child have a formal diagnosis." [emphasis added].  Your child does not even have to have a diagnosis, and Big Pharma/Big Insurance still want to make money off of them.

Finally, according to NAMI, "in order to protect children generally, and those with mental health
concerns specifically, Connecticut must urge the United States Congress to ratify the UNCRC."  As witnessed from the testimony submitted, the UNCRC will be used by the government to reform the health care system for children.

In a related connection, the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, recently passed in the United States, ties in superbly with the UNCRC being used to get more government control over children.  In an interview with InfoWars.com, Dr. Russel Blaylock exposed how the recent federal government intervention into the health care system, or ObamaCare, was really about forced medication, including the forced drugging of children.  When the government gains control over everyone's health care, it will be much easier for these insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies, to involve themselves, and make major decisions, in our lives.

The connections to corruption continue with the "architect" of ObamaCare, Elizabeth Fowler.  After working for WellPoint Inc, a large company in the health-insurance field, Fowler went to work for Montana Sentator Max Baucus, where she was credited for laying the "foundation" and the "blueprint" for what eventually became ObamaCare.  Even worse than an agent of the insurance companies actually writing a law that forces everyone to buy insurance, after ObamaCare was passed, Fowler went to work for Johnson & Johnson, obtaining a senior-level position leading 'global health policy' at the companies government affairs and policy group.

Also interesting to note, Johnson & Johnson, through its contributions to the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America lobby (PhRMA), directly supported the passage of ObamaCare.

Organizations funded by Johnson & Johnson are playing a significant role in the reformation of "health care" in this country, and the obvious conflict of interest should be exposed.

Another organization operating in Connecticut with dubious connections to the CRC is The Connection Inc., "a Connecticut-based nonprofit Human Services and Community Development agency."  The Connection, Inc., is a member agency of the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA).  The CWLA is a group of child advocates which "convened the first meeting of the Campaign for US Ratification of the CRC in August 2002."

Connecticut is not the only state legislature discussing the CRC.  Representatives in the Pennsylvania state legislature, contrary to the representatives of Connecticut, presented a resolution urging the U.S. Senate to reject the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.  The official resolution says that "The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child would drastically alter the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children."

We need to be aware that there are people who subscribe to the anti-family philosophy laid out in this examination, and some of these people are in positions of power, attempting to change laws that will directly effect your life.  Taking action to stop the Convention on the Rights of the Child from being ratified in the United States should be done, but is only a small step in this battle.  Just fighting one bill, one treaty, or one group, is not enough, we have to be able to intellectually defend ourselves against the whole philosophy of tyranny.


Related Examinations:
  • A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action - November 1, 2013 (link)
  • Agenda 21 in Connecticut: The Tri-State Transportation Campaign - August 22, 2013 (link)
  • Red Light Cameras In Connecticut; Corruption, Agenda 21 & the Rockefellers - March 01, 2013 (link)
  • United Nations Agenda 21 In Connecticut; New Britain-Hartford Busway, CTFastrack - February 18, 2013 (link)