Friday, November 19, 2010

ALERT: United Nations CEDAW: Open assault on everything we believe in

Greetings my readers,

I need everyone's attention on this one, so please, listen up.

Sorry I'm late on this; I hope it isn't too late to call now. As of this afternoon, I was able to make my calls (one attendant even asked me before I got a word out, "Are you opposed to CEDAW?"), so it was at least undecided then.

It's called the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? Anti-women ideology is something I particularly hate; few things disgust me more. So might I be in favor of this international treaty? Should you be?

The answer is as easy as one word: NO! Let me tell you why; please bear with me. This is some of the most important information you've heard in a while.

First and foremost, you need to get informed on this issue, and fast. See this article here; please check it out, it's quick and informative.

Second, I have a copied-pasted email from PRO below (yes, the good folks at are making moves on this issue as well, due to its massive implications on all families everywhere); it has the calling information.

Third, if you aren't convinced yet, let me condense the issue for you. Or rather, let me allow Michael Farris to condense the issue for you, via an excerpt of the article.

The Preamble of the CEDAW treaty boldly proclaims: “A change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family is needed to achieve full equality between men and women.”

That is not the only megalomaniacal goal of this treaty. Its Preamble also calls for a “new international economic order” and “general and complete disarmament” both of which are deemed necessary to “contribute to the attainment of full equality between men and women.”

It is a “modest” agenda. Restructuring the family. A worldwide socialist economy. Total disarmament. All neatly packaged in a handy little treaty on women’s rights.

The UN CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women)

A "complete disarmament" (this time, they actually came out and said it). A reversal of Biblical family life, a reversal of Biblical family roles. An enforced feminist and socialist agenda. All conducted from the oversight of the United Nations (which means the sacrifice of American sovereignty). Is this what you want?

If that doesn't convince you, then nothing will. I don't know the status of CEDAW as of Friday night/tonight, but perhaps some calls Monday morning are in order? (And how about some prayer, as well?)

After all, it's only everything that's at stake.

And here's the original PRO email, with accompanying calling information:

The United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is being considered today in a Senate foreign relations sub-committee hearing. urges you to call your senators and instruct them to oppose this treaty.

Here is a link to Michael Farris’ paper regarding the dangers of CEDAW, in which he warns, “Feminist internationalists intend to use international law to coerce the restructuring of the institution of the family and the role of every man and every woman on the planet.”

Understand, this is not the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), of which we have been warning you for so long. Like that treaty, however, CEDAW seeks to establish U.N. authority over American domestic law, and to redefine forever the role and function of the family in American society. Like the CRC, CEDAW also contains obligations far beyond its beneficent title. And like the CRC, CEDAW is part of a net of international human rights treaties which strengthen and play off of each other, so that ratification of any one leads in part to the adoption of all the others.

For instance, the CRC’s aim to make “reproductive health services” an undeniable right of adolescent girls regardless of parental involvement would be realized just as securely through ratification of CEDAW as it would through ratification of the CRC.

Perhaps most dangerous, the CEDAW committee has claimed, just as the CRC committee has, that their convention is a “dynamic instrument,” and that the committee has the ability over time to clarify the broad obligations of the treaty with an increasing degree of specificity as they progress toward their own world-wide agenda.

While the ratification or defeat of CEDAW is not the primary focus of, we must acknowledge that its ratification would be damaging to parents in the United States, while its defeat would be a victory for ourselves and for our allies.

So please, take a moment and read Michael Farris’ article here.

Then, call your senator if he is on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Human Rights Law, or chairman Senator Durbin if yours is not. Urge them to oppose ratification of CEDAW and any other U.N. human rights treaty.

The members of the Subcommittee on Human Rights Law include:

Richard Durbin (IL), Chairman: (202) 224-2152
Russell Feingold (WI): (202) 224-5323
Benjamin Cardin (MD): (202) 224-4524
Chris Coons (DE): (202) 224-5042
Arlen Specter (PA): (202) 224-4254
Al Franken (MN): (202) 224-5641
Lindsey Graham (SC): (202) 224-5972

Senators Tom Coburn (OK) and John Cornyn (TX) are also on the subcommittee but do not need to be called, as they both oppose CEDAW already.


Michael Ramey
Director of Communications and Research

So please, take a moment to call on Monday (or, if you like, leave voicemail messages over the weekend). If you do call, then I thank you heartily, and I'd ask you to please let me know in the comments section. If you do not comment, I will have to assume that you did not call.

Also, I beg you all to please tell everyone you know about this, ASAP, via whatever method you choose (blogging, email, facebook, twitter, or anything else you use).

Let's cut off this viper's head, shall we?




Thanks for the information. I'll pass it on.


guitargirl said...

Hey-ya. I got your email and saw your comment on my blog and thought I'd come over to see what's happening.

One of the first things you should know about me is that I hate talking on the phone. I actually hate talking. Period. I'm a better writer than I am a talker and at a party I'm generally the awkward one who hangs around listening to everyone else.

So instead of calling my government-type people (which would be less than fruitless seeing as how all I'd do is stutter and make a moron of myself) I searched the name for my state, found a contact form, and sent an email:

To whom it may concern:
First of all, thank you for taking the time to read this. I would like you to know that I am opposed to the new CEDAW laws that are being discussed and would please ask that you oppose them. It's very important to me (as a woman) that our country not put these kinds of laws into effect that will eventually cause more harm than they are worth. This country does not need a "Change in the roles" of men and women. It needs to get back to the principles that it held before the financial hardship and problems in the work force that we're currently facing. Please do not think that I consider every bad thing that has happened over the past several years a punishment or some lightning bolt sent down from heaven or something. I don't, I honestly believe that America has chosen its own course. So but doesn't it make sense that a country is made up of families, and if the families are in turmoil the problems will only worsen?
I believe that CEDAW is headed in the wrong direction generally. Money does not need to be spent to “re-educate” the country. It needs to be spent getting us out of debt. Families don't need to be restructured, they need to decide for themselves what paths and roles to take and then do it themselves. Allowing this kind of freedom is the same idea that made this country great.
Thank you for reading.

There you be. I've never wrote to anyone from the state before, so I honestly don't know if I did it right, but the ball is in their court now and hopefully they've got a lot of other messages from people who are opposed to this as well.
Thanks for the email, btw. Sorry for the novel I seem to have typed. ;)

covnitkepr1 said...

It may just be too late to stop this atrocity from happening. The idiot in the presidents office wants to sign on with the UN on this junk.

This is the most Godless administration America has ever had.

By the way...they will NEVER take my weapons fiorm me unless I'm dead...and that's a fact.

Paradox said...

Thanks for this post. Will call/email senators as soon as I get a moment.

fuzzys dad said...

I will be calling and emailing these knot heads.I will cross post.

The Warrior said...

Ron: Thank you, much appreciated!

Covnitkepr1: Thanks...and that makes two of us.

Paradox: Thank you so much!

And yes, I should have said that emailing the correct officials on the committee would work as well as calling.

And for more interest, here's my new post:

And here's the actual text of the treaty:

Thank you all! Together we stand.


Katherine Sophia said...

Thanks for letting me know! Even when I'm not on blogger, comments are e-mailed to me, so I was able to e-mail this to people and cross post. Now to go e-mail my senator... gag...

olde.fashioned said...

Cross posted!

Jonas said...

Well, in addition to reading and linking to sites of fervent enemies of this Convention, you might also wish to at least read the Convention itself:

Actually doing that might calm you down a bit ;)

Then again, whatever have any UN Conventions done anyway...?

The Warrior said...

KS: Thank you, very very much!

OF: Per our verbal communication...thank you again!!!

Jonas: Perhaps you missed where I have already linked the text of the treaty in its entirety?

It still says "general and complete disarmament"! (And that's not even the half of it...)

So if UN treaties do nothing, why ratify them? Why not spit upon them as the wretched evils that they are?

Strong words? Yes! But when they're trying to get rid of me, my religion, my family, and the means to defend all of this, I get just a little bit cranky.


Nuttycomputer said...

I read the article and I read the convention text and I have to agree with Jonas that we are jumping ahead of the boat.

First you caught by attention with the disarmament part. However when I read the actual convention that was no where in their goals. The only time it appeared was at the beginning where they were noting why the U.N. was formed in the first place and "Nuclear Disarmament" is one of those reasons.

Secondly, the United States has already met the requirements of Article 1 - 5, 7-16, and the articles after 16 are administrative provisions for the committee. The only Article we don't meet is Article 6 on prostitution as we leave that decision up to the States. All in all the provisions mentioned seem more directed at 3rd world countries where women are literally treated as property. If passed the U.S. wouldn't need to change anything to meet all these provisions.

Thirdly, I know the religious one was pointed out as a big one so I'll address it. Article 2(e) does not apply to a religious organization as religious freedom is a fundamental freedom that women should have equal access to as emphasized in Article I.

However, for sake of argument lets say they did want to target religion and the U.S. signed on to this. It would not pass the 1st amendment test. The U.S. Constitution is above international treaties and therefore Gun Bans, Religious Bans, Free Speech Bans, and anything else the U.N. wanted to come up with are still subject to the same constitutional tests that ALL federal laws are.

Finally, I feel I must hit this one as the article by Mr. Farris threw out the abortion scare saying "Roe v. Wade would become permanently enshrined in American law under the provisions of Article 12, which protects full 'reproductive rights.'"

I found that interesting that he quoted reproductive rights as article 12 doesn't actually use that word. In fact Article 12 seems largely pro-life focusing on making sure women have access to medical care during and post pregnancy as well as preventing the need for an abortion through access to family planning. Also Roe v. Wade is pretty well already enshrined in America Law so I don't see how that would change.

Overall it seems that the articles you presented did another of these pick and choose scare tactics.

Despite the fact that the U.N. actually isn't any good at enforcing their provisions I don't see anything wrong with this one.

T. Paine said...

Spencer, may I have your permission to put your article as a guest post on my blog (


The Warrior said...

Guitargirl: That's perfect, raw and straightforward, just what we need, thank you! (Email is fine, again, friends!)

Nuttycomputer: Thank you for stopping by; as always, you are welcome to express your thoughts here, but I am forced to resoundingly disagree with you here. I wish I had the time at the moment to deeply engage in conversations with you on this, but let's suffice it to say this: I still see the above issues. It still says "general and complete disarmament". The fact that it doesn't expressly state some things in literal language that we might fear is part of the point; with the UN, or any Big Brother-esque monster, you have to "read between the lines" for lack of a better phrase to see what their intent is. If anyone thinks that our guns, our religion, our families, our children, our freedom or our country is safe with the UN constantly looming than I'm impelled to ask, "Do you pay attention to the UN at all?"

And let's say I don't know what I'm doing; I'm confused perhaps, or I've misunderstood something.

Then I'm going to trust Michael Farris, thank you very much. I've followed his work for some time now, and I find that I am in agreeance with his usual method of interpreting legal documents or what have you.

Mr. Farris, after all, started the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, as well as, both are pro-Christian, pro-family, pro-America groups that I relentlessly support.

It would seem, my friend, that we differ in our analysis. I hope that you can understand where I am coming from on this. I simply must agree with Mr. Farris on this one.

T.Paine: If by guest post you mean copy and paste my text and link me and my blog for author's credit, then please do! I would be very appreciative, thank you!


The Warrior said...

We've got four cross-posts so far. Thank you all so very much! Keep 'em coming, I'm thinking we've only got until tomorrow morning!

Once again, I heartily thank all of you who have helped! God bless you!


Jonas said...

"Jonas: Perhaps you missed where I have already linked the text of the treaty in its entirety?"

Oh, it seems I did. And I don't think I have much to add besides what Nuttycomputer said.

I must say that I find your trust in Michael Farris a bit awkward though. Not that I know anything about the man exceot what you've said, but the whole idea of trusting someone on issues you're not really sure about for the simple fact that he has done good things before feels kind of alien to me. Whatever he says, the "general and complete disarmament"-part of this whole issue has nothing to do with the articles of this convention.

T. Paine said...

Posted your article as a guest post this morning, sir. Thanks for your excellent work, Spencer!

The Warrior said...

Jonas: As to trusting Mr. Farris, remember that I did state that I already strongly oppose CEDAW of my own mental faculties. The part about trusting his professional interpretation was a back-up sort of comment, so-to-speak.

T. Paine: Whoo! Thank you, thank you! That makes five crossposts now, kiddies!

Stay tuned, I will see what news I hear of CEDAW (still nothing yet).


Nuttycomputer said...

No problem in disagreeing. The world would be boring if everyone agreed on everything.

My problem is the overreaction when there are far more pressing concerns. For example, while U.N. treaties can't override the constitution themselves, our leaders seem to have no problem doing it on their own. (TSA, Patriot Act, etc.)

Therefore given a limited amount of time in the day I would prefer people focus on more immediate closer to home threats of liberty than international organizations who have very little say in US Law. Especially when the actual terms of the document are already being met by the U.S.

Chowder said...

Hey there. Thanks for answering my comment on Lizzy's blog. Can you go into more detail on how these people are trying to force feminism on people?

And also, I don't think they'll succeed in taking away firearms in the U.S. The idea of something like that would send people in rural areas into an uproar.

The Warrior said...

Nuttycomputer: I understand. :-) I always appreciate your comments, even if we don't agree, NC (you always seem to bring something to the table even for me). I'm just an all-encompassing sort of guy, and a few CEDAW phone calls took me less than five minutes.

Chowder: Thanks for stopping by! I wish I had more time, or even more expertise, to hammer out this answer for you (re: feminism), but it's really far too broad of an issue to outline just here. If you're familiar with legal texts and UN-ese, then you can clearly see it even in the title of the treaty. If you want to get a good broad understanding of feminism, what it means, and why it's a threat, I'd first recommend two things. An easy approach is to consistently visit and read Then, following to teachings of Douglas Phillips and co. at will help you flesh things out further.

Sorry, no simple answer here. :-P

Re: guns, you are correct, as it should be. But it doesn't mean they won't try (ever seen that statue outside the UN of the twisted-barreled revolver?). Just look at guns today--legal restrictions on when, where, and how you can carry a firearm are everwhere. You can only carry certain kinds, and under certain conditions. You can only purchase certain kinds, under certain conditions. (Some states are better than others, though.)

Now let's go back to when America started, before our own Revolution even. In New England, it was an offense for the man of a household to not own a military-grade firearm (musket at the time). The 2nd Amendment was put in place to preserve our freedom of all weapons, for personal use, protection, and defense of liberty from tyranny. Going on original intent...I say I should be able to take an M-16 everywhere I go.

Thanks again, friends!


Jonas said...

[i]If you want to get a good broad understanding of feminism, what it means, and why it's a threat, I'd first recommend two things. An easy approach is to consistently visit and read Then, following to teachings of Douglas Phillips and co. at will help you flesh things out further.[/i]

Sort of going off-topic here but... again, Spencer, sources! You're perfectly free to hate all sorts of feminism (and believe me, there are many sorts) but you can't urge anyone to try to get a "broad understanding of feminism" without reading feminist writings..

The Warrior said...

Jonas, I hope this doesn't come across poorly but may I remind you that, (1, this is my blog, and (2, we are already aware of your opinions on the subject. That being said (with no hard feelings, I hope) might I ask if you actually visited the site? LAF, I mean--it's an editorial site mostly. I've read more horse-mouth feminist works there than anywhere else on the web, I'll wager. They aren't afraid to show/link the other side. Before you write them off, please make sure to check it out beforehand.

And yes, I technically "can"--it's exactly what I recommend doing on the subject, at least to start with. For myself, I am always digesting the works of "the other side" but it's not always the best thing for other people. I do not know Chowder as this is her first visit to my blog, therefore I cannot assume anyone will easily operate under my own practices.

...and I guess I'm finished now 'cuz I'm just trying to figure out why you HTML didn't work. Hmm...oh, you need <>! :-D


Jonas said...

Well, my opinion on the subject of feminism wasn't really important here, it's just my opinion in general: if you want to learn something about anything, you shouldn't only listen to what their enemies say. And yes, I've seen LAF, and I'll reserve my opinions for another time.

The Warrior said...

And yes, I've seen LAF, and I'll reserve my opinions for another time.

All right, sounds good. :-)