If you've landed on this blog by mistake, please follow this link:


Please update your bookmarks and the links on your sites.

Join our forum at:

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

International Laws are U.S. Laws?

I received this email update today from ParentalRights.org, where I have an email subscription for their updates. They are an organization that belives children are protected when parents are empowered to rear and educate their children without interference from government.

They have an update from 16 June 2009 entitled: International Law versus Army Recruiters - here's the quote from their site:

A U.S. District Court in Oakland last week declined to hear oral arguments in a case pitting international law against U.S. military policy. Judge Saundra Armstrong announced Tuesday that she would decide the case based on briefs and other documents presented to the court for that purpose. “No matter the outcome,” Arcata counsel Brad Yamauchi says, “we’re going to appeal to the 9th Circuit and possibly the Supreme Court.”

At the heart of the case are local ordinances from Eureka and Arcata, two northern California cities, which would prohibit U.S. armed services recruiters from initiating contact with youths under 18, anywhere within city limits. The U.S. Department of Justice first filed suit against the towns, claiming that these Youth Protection Acts fail under Article VI of the Constitution, which makes federal law supreme over contradictory state or local legislation.

In response, the cities filed countersuits claiming that current military policy violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child’s Optional Protocol on Children in Armed Conflict, which the U.S. ratified in 2002. (This is a separate but related treaty to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); the U.S. has not ratified the main CRC.) “When the government enters into an international treaty or protocol, that becomes the law of the United States,” says Yamauchi, also citing Article VI. The cities claim that the U.S. military is in violation of the Protocol’s prohibition on the recruiting of children for military service. Current federal law allows representatives of the armed services to educate high school and college students on military career options, alongside other educational and vocational recruiters at job fairs and the like. To actually enlist, however, one must be 18, or close to 18 with parental consent. This countersuit constitutes the first time since the 2002 ratification of the protocol that the federal government’s compliance with the treaty has been legally questioned.

Judge Armstrong’s decision to forgo oral arguments is widely considered favorable to the federal government’s case. “[I]f anything, it is a negative sign for us because we obviously have the steeper hill to climb,” admits Eureka City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner. However, Armstrong’s decision, which could come at any time, is not likely to be the end, nor is it safe to guess how the 9th Circuit might rule if the case is appealed.

That this case exists at all is evidence of the threat that international law presents to our American way of life. Should the full CRC be ratified, not only federal law, but even state, local and individual family decisions will come under the authority of the United Nations when children are involved. The Parental Rights Amendment is the only guaranteed method to permanently stop international law from interfering with family and state laws.

This case is very important for us to watch, because at the heart is the argument that part of an international treaty that was ratified by the U.S. in 2002 is now law of the land here. And all the more reason why we parents need to fight with all we have against allowing the U.S. to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights Of The Child. You can read more about the UN Convention on the Rights of The Child at the link and find out for yourself exactly how dangerous this treaty is to dissolving your parental rights.

IF THIS isn't enough, Britain is using the same UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to argue for an END to homeschooling for British parents - something that could very well happen in the U.S. if the Convention is ratified here. Those of you who homeschool are well aware of the opposition we have out there and this Convention, if ratified, would indeed be used against us by the NEA and others to take away our homeschooling rights. You can read more about what's happening in Britain here: UN Treaty Jeopardizes Homeschool Freedom in Britain.

Stay alert, stay informed.


TC said...

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is serious threat to homeschooling and God-fearing families. This is something that everyone who cares about their child's future needs to read and understand. Please let your Congressional representatives know that you oppose ratification of the UN CRC and that you support the Constitutional amendment to limit the impact of this treaty, and others like it, on the rights of families to be families free of intrusion from the government.


Anonymous said...

They want all children attending the government brainwashing camps...aka...public schools.

Kentucky Preppers Network

Tennessee Preppers Network Est. Jan 17, 2009 All contributed articles owned and protected by their respective authors and protected by their copyright. Tennessee Preppers Network is a trademark protected by American Preppers Network Inc. All rights reserved. No content or articles may be reproduced without explicit written permission.