United Nations atrocities continue to be in the works, and though many constitutional politicians are attempting to get the United States off the United Nations Council with the support of millions of citizens, it will not happen soon enough to stop the agenda which this current administration supports.

A Jefferson County Tea Party member-blogger has already informed you of “Agenda 21 in Jefferson County”   and what must be done to stop it.    There is another ‘agenda’ in the works that, as a parent, is near and dear to my heart.   I have been working to help stop it since last year.   This UN resolution is supported by Hillary Clinton, and the proponents are pushing for the United States to accept in November of this year:  It is called the “UN Resolution Convention on the Rights of the Child.”  Also see the UNICEF web site supporting the CRC.

The United States Congress has in the works to ratify this UN Contract.   Once ratified, the “government would have the right to intercede or supersede if officials believe the parents are doing something that is not in the best interest of the child based on a UN Council.”

ParentalRights.org started a campaign “to secure a constitutional amendment that defends the rights of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.   At ParentalRights.org, we believe that no government, regardless of how well-intentioned it might be, can replace the love and nurture of a parent in the life of a child. It’s a relationship worth protecting.”

Germany, which is one of the countries who has ratified this contract, have had to ban parents from homeschooling their children.  As reported by pediatrician Rosemary Stein of Burlington, North Carolina, and a spokesperson for the Christian Medical Association, a “16-year-old girl in Great Britain who asked her parents to let her boyfriend move in and share her bedroom.  When the parents said no, the teen filed suit and won.”

Another news report was of a parents in Switzerland that were move to another country in order to be able to home-school their child.  The government successfully prevented the child from leaving with their parents referring to the U.N. resolution they adopted.  (See additional articles at Parental Rights.org News )

They have done exhaustive research concerning the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child” (UNCRC).

For example, here is a list of ten things you ought to now about the structure of CRC:

1. It is a treaty which creates binding rules of law. It is no mere statement of altruism.
2. Its effect would be binding on American families, courts, and policy-makers.
3. Children of other nations would not be impacted or helped in any direct way by our ratification.
4. The CRC would automatically override almost all American laws on children and families because of the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause in Article VI.
5. 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.
6. The courts would have the power to directly enforce the provisions that are self-executing.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.
10. 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.

The US Supreme Court is already referencing UNCRC and other international law to “buttress its constitutional interpretation” (Graham v. Florida, released May 17, 2010).

Michael Farris, President of ParentalRights.org, recently sent out this alert:

Target Date Set for CRC Ratification

Proponents of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) have set a target date by which they would like to see it ratified in the United States: November 20,2012. That date is the anniversary of its adoption by the UN General Assembly back in 1989.

Last month the Child Rights Campaign began pushing online petitions calling on the President to move for CRC ratification. Tuesday, Time ran an online opinion piece by Lawrence Cohen and Anthony Debenedet calling for the United States to ratify by November 20. In the piece, they name our organization and then provide some misinformation to convince readers we are wrong.

Clearly, our opponents have no intention of letting up. They are pressing to make ratification happen before Obama – and their best opportunity – are gone.

That is why we must continue to stand against them. And we need your help.

The CRC purports to protect children, but would replace fit parents with government bureaucrats and judges as the first line of defense for our kids. In addition, it would take family law authority away from our states and make it an international treaty obligation at the federal level.

This is because under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, any ratified treaty becomes the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state are bound by it, regardless of conflicts with federal law or state laws or constitutions.

Cohen and Debenedet cite Reid v. Covert to contend that our concern is false because “no international treaty has the power to override the U.S. Constitution.”  But this ignores the fact that parental rights do not appear in the Constitution; they are implied rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court in Reid v. Covert addressed rights not expressly in the Constitution, such as parental rights, thus: “To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their authority to the National Government, and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier” 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

Sadly, the CRC is supported by international organizations with billions of dollars in assets (and with access to outlets like Time magazine).

We must continue to fight for free families and free U.S. courts, no matter how deep the pockets of those who oppose us. As they are turning up the heat, we need your help to meet strength with strength.

 

Several states have introduced legislation/resolutions to oppose ratification of the UN CRC, and/or urging Congress to pass the Parental Rights Amendment to the States for ratification.

In Missouri:  Rep. Tod Akin (R), Rep. Sam Graves (R), Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R), and Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer cosponsored a resolution opposing the UN CRC.  Unfortunately, it never made it through Congress.
Now, ParentalRights.org is working with volunteers to find a lead sponsor to champion a 2012 resolution.   More help is needed, especially since the proponents have moved up their timeline to November!

If you would like to be part of passing a resolution in Missouri, or any other state, please email jonathan@parentalrights.org to learn more.

We cannot be complacent.  As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently stated:

“The election, she said, is going to “suck up a lot of the attention from following areas that we think are so important,” including “trying to resolve frozen conflicts” and “trying to build up America’s reputation” in the world.
But that might be good thing, she said, because “maybe we can even get more done” if the rest of the country is fixated on the polls.”