Because I Said So!

The UN Convention on the Right of the Government to Raise Your Child

May 30, 2023 John Rosemond Season 1 Episode 9
Because I Said So!
The UN Convention on the Right of the Government to Raise Your Child
Because I Said So! with John Rosemond
Become a supporter of the show!
Starting at $3/month
Show Notes Transcript

This is what One World Government will look like.

ParentGuru: Better Parenting Starts Here
Thousands of stressed parents are finding their way to better parenting with the help of ParentGuru.

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.

Support the show

Thanks for listening! Subscribe to my newsletter and follow me on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.

Hello, this is your host John Roseman. And this is another episode of because I said so I'm glad you're listening, because I'm going to be talking today about what I believe to be, I am convinced is the greatest ever threat to the sovereignty of the family. In 1993, several weeks after taking office, President Bill Clinton signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I bet you've never even heard of it. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is an international treaty that after he signed it, Clinton then sent to the Senate for ratification. That is the constitutional procedure concerning international treaties. The President signs it, and then sends it to the Senate to be ratified. This particular signing a decidedly pivotal event, as you will surely see, was held without announcement to the press or the public. I don't think there's historical precedent for that. Significantly, this secretly held occasion was attended by First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who had been a children's rights activist since her student days had Harvard and Yale and was one of the children's rights movements, most prominent strategists. When the treaty reached the Senate, the Honorable Jesse Helms, senator from the great state of North Carolina, God rest his soul blocked ratification and so there it sat collecting dust until 2009, when Barbara boxer's senator from the once a great state of California, tried to push it through the ratification process, but was unable to secure enough guaranteed votes. And so the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child sits in legislative Limbo today 30 years after it was signed by President Clinton. Mind you. Should the Democrat party ever again gain a 60 plus majority in the Senate the likelihood of its ratification would loom large, it would definitely be toward the top of their foreign policy agenda. So one might ask why shouldn't the United States join the rest of the world in guaranteeing the rights of children? Especially given that the only other country that has not entered into the convention is none other than Somalia? I mean, do we really want to align ourselves with Somalia concerning anything? Good question, fully informed answer to which requires knowing that once a nation state recognizes the convention, that nation state becomes obligated by international law to conform its laws, to the conventions articles which move the planet toward Karl Marx's dream of One World socialism. Marx, who is the ultimate pragmatic realist went on record saying that for socialism to succeed, required dismantling the traditional family by force if necessary, and transferring the raising of children to the state. Thus guaranteeing as we've already seen happen in Nazi Germany in the former Soviet Union, that the first loyalty of children would be not to their parents and families but to the state. They're a sensible protector and provider said concern Cisely the implementation of a totalitarian socialist state requires stripping parents of their natural right to direct and manage the raising of their children. Likewise, the implementation of a totalitarian socialist One World Government requires stripping parents in every nation state of the world of their natural right to direct and manage the raising of their children, which is precisely what the convention was designed to bring about. Its purpose, underlying, but obvious to anyone who reads the full document with a jaundiced eye is to render moot the notion that parents have rights at all. Yes, the language of the convention is replete with references to respecting parental rights, parental responsibilities and parental values. But when all is said and done, the supposed rights of parents under the Constitution are subject to definition. And those definitions are clearly assigned to the authority of the state or in this case to the United Nations. The first red flag is found in the conventions preamble which says and I quote, The equal and inalienable rights of all members, all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. Well, that almost sounds like a paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, doesn't it? Don't be fooled. According to the explicit language of the convention, the equal and inalienable rights in question apply not just to all law abiding adult members of the human family, mind you, but to all members of the human family, including children. The declaration of independence of the United States of America says that all men are created equal. But read the Constitution folks, especially the Bill of Rights. Clearly, the founding fathers did not believe children should enjoy the same rights as law abiding adults. Children were and have always been regarded as dependents, unable to vote unable to hold off us, and clearly barred from participation in certain adult privileges and duties. Historically, no culture that I'm aware of ever thought that all legal rights should be enjoyed equally by both adults and children. But that is precisely what the convention in its preamble strongly implies. Let's take a close look at some of the articles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child where one will discover its true purpose. Let's take article one. To begin with article one defines a child as quote, every human being below age 18. Which means that the rights of children as set forth in the articles of the convention apply to children from birth. They apply to toddlers, they apply to five year olds, 10 year olds, 14 year olds. Keep all that in mind as I share with you the specific language of certain articles. Take article too, for example, it says and I quote, States Parties shall take all appropriate measures and states parties means every country that signs on to the Convention, which remembers only not been signed on to by the United States and Somalia. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against To 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 to get that according to the conventions signatory nations, which again is the meaning of States Parties are obligated by international law to protect the child, all children within their borders against all forms of discrimination or punishment, regardless of their parents values and beliefs. That language is why nearly every country that signed on to the convention is outlawed by statute. Parental spanking, okay. Well, the significance of a spanking is much overblown, by both the left and the right, but the language of the convention goes further, much further than simply outlawing spanking. It specifically outlaws and again, I quote, all forms of punishment. All forms of punishment. Remember folks, that since the 1960s, the mental health professional community in America the biggest punch of posers, and con artists in recent history, and remember, I am a psychologist, licensed by the state of North Carolina's psychology licensing board. The mental health community in America for more than 50 years has demonized not just spanking, but punishment per se. Claiming without a shred of confirming evidence, as usual, a punishment of any sort is equivalent to psychological abuse. In fact, since the 1960s, the mental health professional community is also demonized the traditional exercise of parental authority. And also remember, please again, that the person who is telling you all this, me I know exactly what I'm talking about here. Again, I'm licensed I'm going to stress this I'm licensed to practice the bogus science of psychology by the state of North Carolina psychology licensing board a license that is recognized in all 50 states. So when I tell you something about psychology in the mental health professions in America, I know precisely what I'm talking about. Article Two also forbids and again, I quote, all forms of discrimination and quote against children based on their parents values and beliefs. Okay, so a parent's values and beliefs suddenly have no bearing whatsoever on what children can and cannot do. So if the parents of a seven year old do not allow him to read a book that promotes the LGBTQ plus lifestyle, and that boundary is based on the parents beliefs as Christians. Those parents are discriminating suddenly, unlawfully according to the convention in which state in which case the state can intervene and force the parents to provide said book to their child. Okay, if you're not outraged, yet, stay with me it gets it gets worse. Much worse, believe me. Article Five, article five of the convention is worded very cleverly to make it sound as if parents have all the rights they have traditionally enjoyed. But it actually says something quite different. Article Five says, quote, States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or where applicable the members of the extended family or community is provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child blah, blah, blah, blah, 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. Parents have rights, that their duty is to provide to the child appropriate direction and guidance and the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the president convention. And quote, and as we will see, the child's rights, Trump any definition of parents rights? You may have missed the clever turn of phrase Hello, let me repeat. A child's parents are responsible for providing said child with appropriate direction and guidance and the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the convention. So the child's parents can't say to the child that is not your right in our home. And within this family. They can only provide the child with and again I'm quoting, direction and guidance in exercising the rights granted to him by the Constitution. Well, folks effectively that all means parents must submit themselves to the articles of the convention, whether they agree with them or not. Which means said very explicitly. Parents have no natural rights. Their children have rights. But they the parents do not. Article Nine of the Convention states the children should not be taken from their parents unless the state determines, according to standards, unspecified beings taken from his or her parents is in a child's, quote, best interests. Well, what Pray tell are a child's best interests and say, Iran, according to the convention of authorities in Iran, determine that Christian parents are not competent to raise Iranian children. Does the convention allow those authorities to play said Christian children in Islamic homes? Well, yes, it clearly does. So extending the argument if in the United States, government authorities should ever determine that fundamentalist Christians are not competent, asked to act in the child's best interests, however, said government defines the term best interests, does that allow those authorities to take those kids from their parents and place them with secular atheist parents? Yes, it does no doubt about it. The convention and plus empowers the state to remove a child from his or her parents home. If the state determines that the parents are not acting in something very nebulous, called the child's best interests, the definition of which according to the convention is controlled by the state. Okay, but here's where the terms of the convention get really evil. Article 13 says, and again, I'm quoting, I'm quoting you the actual words that convention folks so there's no misunderstanding about this whatsoever. And nobody can accuse me of twisting the language of it. Article 13 says, quote, the child shall have the right to freedom of expression, semi colon. This right shall and 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. Let me read that again. 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 and writing or in print in the form of art or through any other media of the child's choice. So according to the unit Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child children of all ages have the right of freedom of expression. As well as the right to access any media, they choose to access. regardless of frontiers. That last phrase, regardless of frontiers, means that if the United States Senate ever ratifies the convention, parents in the United States will have no say in how their children express themselves, and will have no say in what media they want to access. Your 10 year old wants to watch homosexual pornography, you would have to let him if you don't, he could report you to the authorities. And per Article Nine, the state could take your child from you and place him with people who would allow him to watch homosexual pornography. If you don't think that whatever happened in the United States, you have not been paying attention to the direction in which our culture has been moving. Slowly but surely over the last 50 years. For example, few seem to have noticed the Child Protective Services a government agency acts in a manner that clearly violates the United States constitutions prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, as well as the right of the accused to confront the accuser. Those constitutional violations violations are justified as being in the what best interests of the child in question meaning that the government's definition of a child's best interests already in the year 2023. In the United States, overrides the Constitutions protections of individual liberty and choice. Moving on Article 15, of the convention extends to children of all ages, the rights of again and I am quoting, quote, freedom of association and freedom of peaceful assembly, I admit to not getting the freedom of peaceful assembly part because at least in the US have a children can already assemble peacefully. But the bit about children having the right to quote freedom of association and the quote I get that is yet another sucker punch to parents rights, the natural right of parents to forbid their children from associating with certain people, especially people who do not support and would in fact, undermine the parents values to the child stretches back to the beginnings of human history. And yet, here we have a bunch of international elites who would do away with that right with the stroke of a pen. Can you just imagine your 13 year old tells you he's going to spend the weekend? Two nights with an adult he's recently met? Who is a known transgender activist, you tell your child no, sorry, I'm not going to allow that. And your 13 year old replies. Under the articles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which I've been studying in my public school, I can spend the weekend with him if I want to. And I want to and I'm going to, and he does, because the child would be correct international law under those circumstances would prevent you from laying down any sort of social boundary for your child. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the wrong name for this document, in fact, it's an oxymoron it should be renamed the United Nations Convention for stripping parents of their natural rights or the United Nations Convention for destroying the innocence of children are the United Nations Convention for destroying the traditional meaning of family? I mean, use your imagination. You become I'm aware that there's a family living down the street from you. And you discover that the children in this family ranging in age from five to 17, are allowed to watch explicit pornography and read books that glorify the LGBTQ lifestyle. The kids and said family talk to their parents disrespectfully, they even curse at them. The parents give them anything they want. They let them play video games all weekend long. Would you let your kids spend time in that household? Let's hope your answer is no. I would not. You might even consider reporting the family for toxic parenting. Now, consider that sort of negligent, completely irresponsible parenting is what the United Nations Convention permits, even forces parents into cooperating with. I mean, this stuff is right out of a George Orwell novel, folks, it's so unbelievable. I think some folks who are listening to this podcast probably think I'm exaggerating. If so, Google, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and read it word for word cover to cover. It'll take about 30 minutes of your time. 30 minutes that will blow your mind and clarify the totalitarian, egalitarian direction in which we are headed if we the people. Don't wake up and act now. But wait, I'm not done. This next one gets the cleverness award article 16 states that, quote, no child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy. family, home or correspondence. So note how they throw family and home in there no child should be subjected to interference with his or her privacy, family home or correspondence? How does one interfere in a child's family or home what a burglar breaks in there are laws against that sort of thing. Ah, the inclusion of the words family and home are meant I have to believe to conceal What article 16 is really all about. I mean, let's face it. The convention itself interferes in family. But in this context, they are meant to conceal What article 16 is really all about to wit stripping parents of their right to conduct a search of a child's room and monitor a child's communications, which is to say, the right of parents to do what parents are supposed to do if they think their child is up to no good. And so according to Article 16 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, even though the parents pay the mortgage on their home and the taxes on their home, and the utilities on their home, the child pays nothing. They can't go into a certain room that they own and search it if the room has been assigned to a child. And they can't supervise the child's texts and emails and check out the websites he visits. Because the UN convention says that's an invasion of a child suppose it right to privacy. I'm telling you folks, the convention reduces parents to caretakers who are forbidden to treat their kids as anything but some sort of privilege class. The next article 18 is nothing but an out and out lie. It says quote, parents or as the case may be legal guardians have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. That's a lie. Under the articles of the convention, the state becomes the de facto parent while the child's biological or legal parents become babysitters. Then article 18 goes on to say quote again, the best interest there's the term of the child will be their basic concern. And that's about as disingenuous as it gets. Because who's going to have the final word concerning what is and is not in the best interests of the child. As I pointed out earlier, government representatives that's who The convention even extends more power over the definition of best interests to the child than it does his or her parents. Folks, I could go on but going through every article in the convention would become tedious and redundant, I've told you enough. The important thing to remember is that if the Senate should ever ratify the convention, international law concerning children and parents rights would prevail over state and federal law in the United States of America. That translates to the current right of American parents to direct the upbringing of their children being completely null and void. Homeschooling would no longer be an option. Church affiliated schools would no longer be an option. The discipline of children would be regulated by international law and any form of punitive discipline, including timeout would no longer be allowed. Your child would be free to express himself in any old way that popped into his immature brain he would be free to associate with whomever he pleased, when and how he pleased. He'd be free to access any website he felt like as accessing and you the child's parents would not be able to do anything except stand there and wonder how we in the land of the free and the home of the brave. How did we get here? The looming possibility of Senate ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is the greatest threat to our constitutional freedoms. Since our country's founding in 1776. This is a coming battleground folks and patriotic Americans need to act now. By doing two things. First, go to the website, parental, that's parental And educate yourself concerning the proposed Parents Rights Amendment to the Constitution. I happen to sit on the governing board of parental and bear first hand witness to the urgent need for an amendment to the Constitution that protects the integrity of the American family from government overreach, and especially from the tyrants at the United Nations. The traditional family whether one parent or two is America's most valuable commodity. It must be protected. At parental You'll learn what every carrying citizen can and should begin doing today to protect that most valuable commodity from the totalitarians. Second after you have fully educated yourself, phone or write your federal and state Congress person and your federal and state senators and encourage them to pass the parental rights amendment has recently happened in the great state of Iowa. Nothing is more crucial to the preservation of our freedoms which begin and end with the right of parents to direct the raising of their children according to their values and beliefs. To put an exclamation point on the Democrat party's utter disdain for parental rights. It was recently reported in The Wall Street Journal that Nevada State Assembly Woman and state Democrat Party chair Don Yee, Danielle Monroe Marino recently went on record as saying, quote, I wish I could legislate what parents do. And quote, she speaks for nearly the entire Democrat Party folks. But even more outrageous is a recent quote from America's demon Kratt in chief. Sleepy Joe Biden during a ceremony honoring Teachers of the Year all of whom were from government schools, also known as public schools. Biden said quote, There is no such thing as someone else's child, our nation's children are our all our children who is no such thing as someone else's child, our nation's children are all our children. Folks, Karl Marx is rolling over laughing uproariously in his grave. Okay, well that's been another episode of because I said zone again. I'm your host John Roseman heretic psychologist. I hope you'll continue to join me on this weekly podcast. For more information about me and my ministry to America's families. Go to parent where you're gonna find a lot of information to assist you in your parenting journey. See you next week. Until then, keep on rockin in the free world