The
liberal, secular humanists have
long had their agenda -- one-world
government. We can already see
how this will work out, with
what is happening say to the
EU, and their trying to force
their agenda on sovereign nations.
And such domination will promote
liberal personal rights -- to
abortion, same sex marriage,
euthanasia, and so on. And of
course, religion, and especially
the Catholic Church, will be
suppressed and persecuted.
Is
the anti-Christ on the scene?
God
have mercy on us all.
frank
Global
Radicals Will Have Free Rein to
do Whatever They Wish Under Obama
Presidency
It is likely a whole slew of left-leaning
treaties will be ratified and
global governance movement will
advance
Analysis
by Austin Ruse
(Article originally published
Oct. 24 on )
October
28, 2008 (thecatholicthing.org)
– The international social
radicals do their best work
away from the public gaze. These
are the ones who want a global
right to abortion, global same-sex
marriage, and who generally
want to give increasing power
to international bureaucrats
at the United Nations and the
European Union. These people
prefer it when attention is
focused elsewhere.
With
the global economic crisis and
with war and the continuing
threat of war, few are focused
on their agenda. All they need
to make great advances is a
great leader. Enter
Barack Obama. If he is the next
president of the United States,
the international social radicals
will have free rein to do whatever
they wish. And
here is what they wish.
First,
they need the United States
to sign a bunch of treaties.
It embarrasses the left that
we – almost alone in the
world – have not ratified
the UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child (CRC), the UN Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW), the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR), and the International
Criminal Court (ICC) There are
other treaties they want the
US to ratify, like the Land
Mines Treaty, but here let’s
concern ourselves only deal
with social policy.
These
are among the most widely ratified
treaties in the world. The Convention
on the Rights of the Child,
for instance, has been ratified
by every country in the world
except the United States and
Somalia. Talk about embarrassing,
to the left anyway.
Each
of these treaties has been signed
by an American president: Carter
signed CEDAW and ICESCR; Clinton
signed CRC; Bush signed and
then "unsigned" the
ICC. But none has been ratified
by the Senate whether under
Republican or Democratic control.
Here
is a snapshot of the problems
with each treaty. CEDAW
is used to promote abortion.
CRC undercuts the rights of
parents. ICESCR
introduces things like a right
to health and certain economic
rights that Americans have found
off-putting and that come with
hefty price tags.
Lack
of merits aside, the United
States views its treaty obligations
seriously. Many other countries
ratify these things simply to
get the United Nations off their
backs. Those governments sign
these treaties and promptly
ignore them. We incorporate
treaty obligations into our
domestic laws, which can then
be litigated in the federal
courts. So we are cautious,
but our resolve to resist may
be growing weaker.
There
is growing pressure both internationally
and domestically for the United
States to get with the new international
program. The charge that America
is isolationist rests largely
on our refusal to ratify these
treaties. Ignoring them is now
seen as a remnant of the widely
discredited Bush days.
Obama
has endorsed CEDAW as has his
vice presidential running mate
Joe Biden. Both are in favor
of the ICC, too. It
is likely that, with a larger
and more left-leaning Senate,
a whole slew of left-leaning
treaties will be ratified.
Besides
existing treaties there is also
the threat that an Obama administration
will rejuvenate what has been
a fairly sleepy United Nations.
In the Clinton years, there
were repeated global conferences
on social policy. That died
out in the Bush years. There
is a lot of pent-up energy that
will explode if Obama takes
the oath of office.
But
there are even larger issues
than these particular treaties
or new UN conferences. There
is larger mischief afoot. It
is called global governance.
The
traditional understanding of
international relations and
international law is that they
regulate behavior among and
between sovereign states. By
contrast, global governance
holds that international relations
and international law should
have more to do with regulating
the behavior of individual citizens
within each state and that these
decisions should not be left
to sovereign states, but to
international bodies like the
United Nations and its various
commissions and committees.
Harold
Koh, a high-ranking State Department
employee under President Clinton
and currently the dean of the
Yale Law School, writes that
national sovereignty as we used
to know it no longer exists.
It has been replaced with a
notion of sovereignty that says
nations hold it as long as they
are actors in good standing
in the new international order.
The only way to do this is to
accept all of these new treaties
and cede your sovereignty to
international bodies. Koh will
likely be high on the list for
the Supreme Court under Barack
Obama.
Whether
Koh is elevated to the Supreme
Court is not as important as
whether Obama himself holds
these views. Given his support
of these treaties, and given
the legal and ideological milieu
in which Obama travels, one
suspects that Barack Obama has
no problem with any of this.
Austin
Ruse is president of the New
York and Washington DC-based
Catholic Family and Human Rights
Institute (C-FAM).
(c)
2008 The Catholic Thing. All
rights reserved. For reprint
rights write to: info at thecatholicthing
dot org
"For
to me life is Christ, and death
is gain." (Phil 1:21)