From TN Preppers page...worth paying attention to

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 believes 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.

I highlighted the main point here...on the surface, this isn't such a bad-sounding thing. I know I prefer that Recruiters don't just approach my children while we are out and about. We are not in the government school arena, so those assemblies and classes aren't a concern. Should my children have an interest in the Military, they are more than capable of searching out the Recruiters themselves.

Plain and simple, that isn't the point. The big concern here for all of us should be the underlying statement this makes...what does an international treaty have to do with our laws concerning U.S. citizens? Are we not in charge of our own laws anymore here? If we aren't, what's the point in voting for or against anything?

Paranoid that I am, I see this as just another of those 'little steps' the government is taking toward that One World Order. No more lines in the sand it seems...there aren't any "their laws" and "our laws" with something like this. But, like I said, I'm paranoid I suppose. Read for yourself.