Sunday, May 24, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Excerpts from Oklahoma’s resolution include:
WHEREAS the right of the parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right protected by the Constitutions of the United States and the state of Oklahoma; and …
WHEREAS, by virtue of the federal Supremacy Clause all Oklahoma law regarding children would be overridden if there is a conflict with this treaty if ratified; and…
WHEREAS, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child at periodic intervals publishes “general Comments” which are substantive additions to the obligations of state parties already under the Convention, and…
WHEREAS, this represents a wholesale abandonment of the ultimate sovereignty of the United States on matters within the scope of the treaty…
…BE IT RESOLVED…that the State of Oklahoma hereby condemns the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and urges the United States Senate to reject its ratification.
To read more about what these states are doing and how you can encourage your state to take similar action visit parentalrights.org and view their recent article, State Legislatures Oppose UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Visit parentalrights.org to read the full article.
Parental Rights Amendment to Protect Gun Owners’ RightsMay 12, 2009
ParentalRights.org today released The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: The Impact on Private Gun-Ownership in America, a carefully considered legal analysis of the impact this United Nations treaty will have on Americans’ Second Amendment Rights. In it, author Michael Farris, J.D., establishes that ratification of the UNCRC poses a significant threat to the right of the American people to keep and bear arms:
- The U.N. believes all children have a right to grow up in a community without guns.
- The U.N. holds that the UNCRC is applicable to this issue.
- They also hold that the idea that guns are beneficial is itself harmful to children.
- The UN believes guns should never be accessible to children.
Monday, May 11, 2009
When we heard Michael Farris speak last month, he handed out papers that explained 10 things you need to know about the structure of the CRC and 10 things you need to know about the substance of the CRC. He said that we could copy that information up to about 100,000 times (or some large number like that) without asking his permission. In other words, he wanted this information to be passed around. So I am copying this from the ParentalRights.org website. Be sure to see the their full article 20 Things you Need to Know About the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to learn more.
10 Things you need to know about the structure of the CRC.
It is a treaty which creates binding rules of law. It is no mere statement of altruism.
Its effect would be binding on American families, courts, and policy-makers.
Children of other nations would not be impacted in any direct way by our ratification.
The CRC would automatically override almost all American laws on children and families because of our Supremacy Clause.
The CRC has some elements that are self-executing, while others would require implementing legislation. Federal courts would have the power to determine which provisions were self-executing.
The Courts would have the power to directly enforce the provisions that are self-executing.
Congress would have the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty. This would constitute the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.
A committee of 18 experts from other nations, sitting in Geneva, has the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty which are entitled to binding weight in American courts and legislatures. This effectively transfers ultimate authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee.
Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.
Reservations, declarations, or understandings intended to modify our duty to comply with this treaty will be void if they are determined to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.
Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.
A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
Christian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.
Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
This Sunday we celebrate Mother’s Day in the United States. If you are a mother, we thank you and salute you for the invaluable work you do in fulfilling that vital role in the life of your children, and the heritage of our nation!
Sadly, the United Nations would hold such a sentiment to be discriminatory against women. In 2000, the United Nations CEDAW Committee (named for the Convention to End All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or CEDAW) criticized the nation of Belarus for “the reintroduction of such [sex-role stereotype] symbols as a Mother’s Day and a Mothers’ Award, which it sees as encouraging women’s traditional roles.” [See paragraph 361 on page 37 of the UN document here.]
For our part, ParentalRights.org is proud to encourage women in the role of mother, as we are proud of loving fathers for the part they play. The fact is, the role of parents in directing the upbringing and education of their children is a precious and fundamental right. It should not be looked down on, nor stolen, by international governing bodies such as the CEDAW Committee, nor the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), like CEDAW, is an international treaty attempting to dictate domestic policy. Like CEDAW, it has set up a panel of UN “experts” to “advise” nations who are not in compliance with the treaty, setting international law policy which activist judges then incorporate into national law.
Unlike CEDAW, however, the UNCRC does not oppose Mother’s Day. Rather, it constitutes an attack on Motherhood itself, replacing fundamental parental rights with bureaucratic oversight at a federal and international level. Perhaps if we ratified both treaties we could just replace Mother’s Day with Social Worker’s Day, and the UN would be pleased.
The only permanent solution to prevent U.S. ratification of the UNCRC is the Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which includes the provision that “No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to [fundamental parental rights].” This would finally end the threat of UNCRC ratification in the United States. While that alone may not preserve Mother’s Day, it can at least save Motherhood from international interference.
Please, as you value your own parents and your rights as parents to raise your own children, take a moment to forward this email to every mother you know – or even everyone who has a mother – and be sure to wish them “Happy Mother’s Day!” To sign the petition or to learn more about the dangers of the UNCRC or the need for the Parental Rights Amendment, visit us on the web at parentalrights.org.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
It is not difficult to discern the legal impact of a ratified treaty on our domestic law. It’s spelled out plainly in the text of the U.S. Constitution. Article VI states that, along with the U.S. Constitution and federal law, ratified treaties “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Treaties trump state law.He also makes an excellent point about what kind of statement it makes the rest of the world when supporters of the treaty suggest that we should sign it because our signature does not make it binding or obligate us to follow it if we do.
Ratify the treaty, they say. It’s not legally binding. We can choose what to obey and what not to.He is correct, this entire series of arguments for ratification makes absolutely no sense. Why fight so hard for something you have no intention of keeping. The truth is the people that make such claims know that this treaty will be binding, they simply do not want the average American to know it. They want a law that not only trumps state law but also grants to them the authority to approve of how we all raise our children. As Farris correctly concludes in the article:
This argument is not only patently hypocritical, it is legally wrong.
The most important principle of international law is: pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept). In other words, keep your promises.
Make no mistake, whenever the United States ratifies a treaty it enters into a binding legal obligation to comply with its terms. Arguing that a treaty is a mere philosophical statement of intent with no binding legal consequences is blatant error. Besides, what message does this send to the international community the Obama administration seems desperate to please?
Arguing that America can enter into treaties and then comply on piecemeal basis undermines our international reputation. Worse, it suggests that America cannot be trusted to keep its promises.
Under this treaty, every decision made about children —whether by government or parents— is subject to governmental review. Armed with the CRC, any social worker can second-guess any parent based on an opinion that the parents’ choice was not in the “best interest” of the child. Under this subjective standard, no family is safe from governmental intrusion.You will want to read his response in its entirety at Townhall.com for it he shares information that every American needs to know about this treaty including how some judges are already applying it to their decisions before it has even been ratified. The decisions they make based upon their assumption that this treaty is binding reveals just how much power this will have if it ever is ratified. Parents will lose their right to train their children according to their own convictions and instead will begin to fear what the government will do or say about every decision they make. This is not the direction our country needs to go. Visit Parentalrights.org to find out more about the proposed amendment that will guarantee that treaties will never take away our rights to raise our children and find out what you can do to help.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
If you would like to promote the Parental Rights Amendment ParentalRights.org has some great resources for you to use.
Audio and Radio
Let us do all that we can to spread the word and protect the right of parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs and values.