Who Stole the Cookie…? How the UN Is Robbing Us of Our National Sovereignty and Individual Liberties

by Cynthia Toney, Contributing Writer and Editor, The Bold Pursuit

In the Declaration of Independence, the founding patriots declared that we would “assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle” us.

Separate—that is a key word.

We, as a nation, are entitled by God to be separate from all other nations—geographically, politically, economically, ideologically. As an independent nation, the United States of America is free to make its own laws in accordance with its own Constitution. Furthermore, it is free not to make laws or to comply with laws that are designed to support a global entity.

The United Nations doesn’t see it that way.

In the children’s song “Who Stole the Cookie from the Cookie Jar?” participants sing along in an infinite loop in which the blame for a stolen cookie is passed from one accused to the next.

“Who, me?”

“Yeah, you.”

“Not me.”

“Then who?”

Through its resolutions for the past 65 years, the UN has endeavored to steal—piece by piece, cookie by cookie—the freedoms that we have assumed are protected by our Constitution. Just as in the children’s sing-along, all members of the UN are complicit in the game; no single nation can be accused of thievery. This group of governments, often with cooperation from our own, can challenge the rights of American citizens and eradicate those rights without our knowledge, all in the name of global peace and prosperity. While it is possible that there may be delusional members of the UN who believe that a Utopian planet is attainable, it is safe to assume that others use the system in a scheme to bring down the most influential and powerful nation of the world—the United States.

That Was Then

The term “United Nations” was first used in the Declaration by United Nations on January 1, 1942, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their governments to continue fighting collectively against the Axis Powers during World War II (www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm).

If only those nations had stuck to that single objective.

In 1945, representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco at the United Nations Conference on International Organization to draft the United Nations Charter. It was signed by all of them on June 26. Poland, which was not represented at the Conference, signed it later and became one of the original 51 Member States. The United Nations officially came into existence on October 24, 1945, when China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, France, and “a majority of other signatories” ratified the Charter.

Since then, the UN has dictated policy with ever-expanding authority, to encompass every aspect of human existence. In the interest of time, I will address four current issues that have been in the forefront of the minds of conservative Americans.

Parents: Who’s In Charge Here?

In 1989, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) was adopted by the UN General Assembly and opened to nations around the world for ratification. This treaty is an umbrella for children’s rights covering food, safety, public education, and other rights of survival and development.

In 1995, under President Clinton’s administration, The U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Madeleine Albright, signed the UNCRC. However, the U.S. Senate did not ratify the treaty, and there has been an ongoing debate as to whether international law in such a treaty can override the Constitution.

In November of 2009, on the twentieth anniversary of the UNCRC, the annual resolution was approved by consensus (without a vote) for the first time in eight years—this time with support from the United States—and recommended to the General Assembly. However, members from a number of western nations, the U.S. included, expressed reservations about enacting some of these guidelines (that is all they should be) into law in their own countries (www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gashc3968.doc.htm).

One area of concern was in the Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children, i.e., the care of children without parents. Perhaps we should be grateful for such reservations about who should be allowed to raise our children, if in the future we are given no voice in the matter. On the other hand, there should be just as much concern over guidelines present in the UNCRC that would affect the rights of parents to make decisions about their children’s education.

The UNCRC has caused an outcry from parents who home-school or who refuse to allow sex education to be taught to their children. The Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) has opposed the UNCRC because it would “strip parents of much of their authority to educate, train, and nurture their children according to the dictates of their conscience” (www.hslda.org). The HSLDA has also been concerned that liberal judges in the U.S. may rule in favor of education guidelines set forth in the UNCRC even though it has not been ratified here.

Such fears were confirmed when American homeschooling was attacked in several states, including California, where a judge in 2008 thought that the U.S. was already supposed to be complying with the UN doctrine. Fortunately, that particular ruling in California was later overturned (http://californiahomeschool.net/howTo/updates.htm).

In Botswana, families were forced by the country’s government to stop homeschooling their children under the resolutions of the UNCRC. The treaty had not been ratified in Botswana either, but it was enforced there. A judge ruled that under the UNCRC, a country’s governing authorities have the right to determine the best interests of the child.

In England, a report on home education made the case that homeschooling should be extensively regulated, to the point of allowing authorities access to the home and to the child, to question him or her without the consent or presence of a parent.

Germany and Sweden have also enacted several measures against parental homeschooling due to their enforcement of the UNCRC.

Barack Obama, during his 2008 campaign for President, revealed his intentions of pursuing ratification of the UNCRC for the United States. To combat such an attempt, the HSLDA and ParentalRights.org advocated a proposed “Parental Rights” amendment, currently a joint resolution in the U.S. House and Senate. In addition, several state legislatures have adopted their own resolutions against the UNCRC.

The UNCRC, whether ratified or not, is widely accepted by governments around the globe because it introduces more than 50 articles of children’s rights. However, it remains unclear who—family, national government, or international community—has the final word in decisions affecting the child. Some articles of the UNCRC have merit and reflect sorely needed changes in the care and treatment of children in a number of countries outside the United States; yet, many guidelines have been unsuccessful in producing change in critical areas—sex slavery, genocide, slave labor, mutilation of girls’ genitalia, and denial of education to girls.

Next, Part Two: Their Hands in Our Food Supply 

© The Bold Pursuit, All Rights Reserved

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Who Stole the Cookie…? How the UN Is Robbing Us of Our National Sovereignty and Individual Liberties

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s