Creation of an International Tribunal for Children
by Michael Farris
On April 1, the Islamic nation of Maldives proudly announced a breakthrough in long-stalled negotiations to create an international tribunal to receive complaints from individual children. For twenty years, internationalist efforts to create a new world tribunal for children to challenge the actions of their own governments have been thwarted by political division. But, after a month of negotiations led by Maldives a unanimous agreement was reached on the components for a new optional protocol to be added to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Maldives is a curious choice to lead negotiations on a human rights treaty. When Maldives signed and ratified the CRC in 1990-91, it boldly rejected any semblance of religious freedom—a central “right” in the CRC. The Maldivian reservation proclaims: “The Government of the Republic of Maldives expresses its reservation to paragraph 1 of article 14 of the said Convention on the Rights of the Child, since the Constitution and the Laws of the Republic of Maldives stipulate that all Maldivians should be Muslims.”
What will this new protocol accomplish? According to Miadhu, a Maldivian news agency, the “protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), will create a procedure whereby children who are being abused or their representatives (such as national child protection NGOS, lawyers, and doctors) could seek assistance from international human rights protection mechanisms when domestic institutions are failing to offer protection.”
This means either a child on his own or a group like the Children’s Defense Fund (formerly headed by Hillary Clinton) or a local social worker could file a petition before this new international tribunal seeking to overrule the decisions of American courts regarding the rights guaranteed by the CRC.
An important principle of international law makes it clear how dangerous such tribunals can be. Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides, “A nation may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.” Thus, if the United States Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of a parent to engage in corporal punishment, for example, the losing party could then turn to this international tribunal to argue that America is failing to comply with the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Constitution of the United States would provide no defense in such a hearing. International law would be the exclusive authority for resolving the dispute.
This scenario only becomes a reality if the United States decides to become a party to the CRC and to this new protocol. The Obama administration has publicly announced its desire to obtain the ratification of the CRC itself. And at a conference at Georgetown Law School in 2009, the American advocates of the CRC announced their support for this new optional protocol.
For those who cannot imagine the United States accepting these dramatic changes in our law, please remember that it was not long ago that it seemed unthinkable that the federal government would take over General Motors, major banks, and the American healthcare system. Global socialism marches at a quick pace.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
The Return of the King
Peter Heck
4/5/10
The night ObamaCare passed, Nancy Pelosi bragged about how the Democrats in Washington were fulfilling the words of the founders as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. I wholeheartedly agree with her, though undoubtedly for different reasons.
After reading a thought-provoking column from Human Events author Connie Hair (one in which she highlighted a few of my forthcoming examples), I was inspired to read back through the commonly ignored portion of that pivotal document – the list of grievances against the King of England. We typically regard this section as a recitation of complaints germane to the late 1700s, not something that's pertinent today. But as Hair points out, tyranny is timeless. Look at the words and see for yourself:
"He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures."
ObamaCare creates 100 new bureaucracies through which all of your personal health decisions, costs, payments, and approval will be facilitated and managed. Wish to complain? Take a number and have a seat.
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices..."
The Obama administration has named at least 32 unelected czars...and counting.
"...and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."
Currently, the Justice and Education Departments are sending out hordes of new attorneys to begin an aggressive crackdown on what they deem "civil rights violations." Meanwhile, with the passage of ObamaCare, the IRS is in the process of hiring at least 17,000 new stooges to find ways to fine and penalize people and businesses for their lack of compliance.
"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation."
Just days after the inauguration, Obama's administration gave signals that it was considering a move to place the United States under the authority of the International Criminal Court (allowing foreign governments to try Americans for what they consider "atrocity crimes"). And let's not forget Obama's determination to subject us all to some asinine international climate legislation.
"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent."
Despite knowing that three-fourths of Americans opposed it, the Democrats pushed through a healthcare plan that will result in a truckload of new taxes. And Obama specifically campaigned against many of the very provisions his healthcare bill creates – in other words, even those who voted for him didn't consent to this.
"Obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners..."
Up next for the Democrats in Washington: providing a path to citizenship for foreigners who have broken the laws of immigration and naturalization, thereby punishing those who have patiently and faithfully sought citizenship.
"He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."
Okay, maybe not judges. But how much worse is it that after erasing decades of law that established debtor rights, Obama's administration has made huge portions of the auto and banking industries completely dependent upon his will for their tenure and salary?
"He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies..."
Though it hasn't yet been realized, here's Barack Obama from July of 2008: "We cannot continue to rely on our military....We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
"Altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments. For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever."
From healthcare to education reform, the Democrats in Washington are committed to usurping power that was never intended for the national government, and instead reserved to the states. By doing so, they fundamentally reshape the nature of our government to one the Constitution does not prescribe.
"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."
Could there be more perfect words to describe the feelings of millions of angry constituents who wrote, called, faxed, and begged their Congressmen to oppose ObamaCare?
The effort towards authoritarian control is timeless. Does this mean it's time for armed resistance? Of course not. But it does mean that Americans should wisely recognize the uncomfortable reality that our government is increasingly coming to resemble not the kind our Founders established, but the one they pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to war against.
Peter Heck
4/5/10
The night ObamaCare passed, Nancy Pelosi bragged about how the Democrats in Washington were fulfilling the words of the founders as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. I wholeheartedly agree with her, though undoubtedly for different reasons.
After reading a thought-provoking column from Human Events author Connie Hair (one in which she highlighted a few of my forthcoming examples), I was inspired to read back through the commonly ignored portion of that pivotal document – the list of grievances against the King of England. We typically regard this section as a recitation of complaints germane to the late 1700s, not something that's pertinent today. But as Hair points out, tyranny is timeless. Look at the words and see for yourself:
"He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures."
ObamaCare creates 100 new bureaucracies through which all of your personal health decisions, costs, payments, and approval will be facilitated and managed. Wish to complain? Take a number and have a seat.
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices..."
The Obama administration has named at least 32 unelected czars...and counting.
"...and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."
Currently, the Justice and Education Departments are sending out hordes of new attorneys to begin an aggressive crackdown on what they deem "civil rights violations." Meanwhile, with the passage of ObamaCare, the IRS is in the process of hiring at least 17,000 new stooges to find ways to fine and penalize people and businesses for their lack of compliance.
"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation."
Just days after the inauguration, Obama's administration gave signals that it was considering a move to place the United States under the authority of the International Criminal Court (allowing foreign governments to try Americans for what they consider "atrocity crimes"). And let's not forget Obama's determination to subject us all to some asinine international climate legislation.
"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent."
Despite knowing that three-fourths of Americans opposed it, the Democrats pushed through a healthcare plan that will result in a truckload of new taxes. And Obama specifically campaigned against many of the very provisions his healthcare bill creates – in other words, even those who voted for him didn't consent to this.
"Obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners..."
Up next for the Democrats in Washington: providing a path to citizenship for foreigners who have broken the laws of immigration and naturalization, thereby punishing those who have patiently and faithfully sought citizenship.
"He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."
Okay, maybe not judges. But how much worse is it that after erasing decades of law that established debtor rights, Obama's administration has made huge portions of the auto and banking industries completely dependent upon his will for their tenure and salary?
"He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies..."
Though it hasn't yet been realized, here's Barack Obama from July of 2008: "We cannot continue to rely on our military....We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
"Altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments. For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever."
From healthcare to education reform, the Democrats in Washington are committed to usurping power that was never intended for the national government, and instead reserved to the states. By doing so, they fundamentally reshape the nature of our government to one the Constitution does not prescribe.
"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."
Could there be more perfect words to describe the feelings of millions of angry constituents who wrote, called, faxed, and begged their Congressmen to oppose ObamaCare?
The effort towards authoritarian control is timeless. Does this mean it's time for armed resistance? Of course not. But it does mean that Americans should wisely recognize the uncomfortable reality that our government is increasingly coming to resemble not the kind our Founders established, but the one they pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to war against.
Racism and ObamaCare
Star Parker
4/5/19
Like chewing gum stuck to the heel of your shoe, racism seems to be stuck forever to American public discourse. No matter what we do or what happens, somebody will find a racial motive.
Democrats have passed government healthcare with no Republican votes. Their leadership threatened and bribed their own members to eek out a majority. They resorted to an arcane procedure that maybe 100 people in the whole country can explain in order to pass a massive bill that polls show a majority of Americans don't want.
The federal government, for the first time ever, will force every American to buy, with a big chunk of their income, a product designed by government bureaucrats, with an army of IRS agents snooping on each of us to make sure we did it.
And how are many liberals explaining why so many Americans are ticked off?
It's because our president is black. It's about racism.
Even me. I'm steamed. And even though I happen to be black – I've even spoken at some Tea Party rallies – I still must be a racist.
Obama's approval rating has dropped from 70 percent when he was elected to 50 percent today. His disapproval has skyrocketed from 10 percent when he was elected to 42 percent today.
Per the Washington Post, in January 2009 58 percent of Americans said that the Obama presidency helped race relations. By January 2010, this was down to 40 percent.
Has this wave of disillusionment with Obama been driven by a sudden realization that the man Americans elected president is black?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's approval has dropped from 41 percent in January 2009 to 36 percent today and her disapproval has risen from 42 percent to 54 percent. Is she black?
Were the raucous townhalls last summer – which gave birth to the Tea Party movement – where irate constituents gave their representatives a piece of their mind about ObamaCare, racially motivated?
Care to understand what all this is really about?
Consider a powerful observation about a former time by one of America's great historians, Jacques Barzun. Barzun was a professor and dean at Columbia University and a Presidential Medal of Freedom winner.
"We make a great mistake in calling the American War of Independence, the 'American Revolution,'" he wrote. "In 1776 the Americans rebelled against recent rules and impositions. What they wanted was not a new type of government, but the old type they enjoyed. They were used to many freedoms, which they claimed as the immemorial rights of Englishmen. Once they defeated the English armies and expelled the Loyalists, they went back to their former ways, which they modestly enlarged, and codified in the Bill of Rights."
In a similar fashion today, Americans are rebelling as the freedom we have enjoyed, freedom which defines life in this country, is being taken away and new "rules and impositions" are being imposed.
It's not about theory or some abstract ideology. The intense feelings flow from losing what you have and what you know is vital.
What is new today is we can no longer continue the illusion of having our cake and eating it. We can no longer afford to be both a big government entitlement state and a free, creative, and prosperous nation. It's the prosperity created by our freedom that has financed the entitlements. But now the entitlements are overtaking and strangling our freedom.
So now is a time of choosing. We're either going to remain the land of the free or transform into the land of the bureaucrat.
The antipathy of activists toward Mr. Obama is not about how he looks but what he has done. That he has chosen and imposed on us the path of bureaucracy.
Star Parker
4/5/19
Like chewing gum stuck to the heel of your shoe, racism seems to be stuck forever to American public discourse. No matter what we do or what happens, somebody will find a racial motive.
Democrats have passed government healthcare with no Republican votes. Their leadership threatened and bribed their own members to eek out a majority. They resorted to an arcane procedure that maybe 100 people in the whole country can explain in order to pass a massive bill that polls show a majority of Americans don't want.
The federal government, for the first time ever, will force every American to buy, with a big chunk of their income, a product designed by government bureaucrats, with an army of IRS agents snooping on each of us to make sure we did it.
And how are many liberals explaining why so many Americans are ticked off?
It's because our president is black. It's about racism.
Even me. I'm steamed. And even though I happen to be black – I've even spoken at some Tea Party rallies – I still must be a racist.
Obama's approval rating has dropped from 70 percent when he was elected to 50 percent today. His disapproval has skyrocketed from 10 percent when he was elected to 42 percent today.
Per the Washington Post, in January 2009 58 percent of Americans said that the Obama presidency helped race relations. By January 2010, this was down to 40 percent.
Has this wave of disillusionment with Obama been driven by a sudden realization that the man Americans elected president is black?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's approval has dropped from 41 percent in January 2009 to 36 percent today and her disapproval has risen from 42 percent to 54 percent. Is she black?
Were the raucous townhalls last summer – which gave birth to the Tea Party movement – where irate constituents gave their representatives a piece of their mind about ObamaCare, racially motivated?
Care to understand what all this is really about?
Consider a powerful observation about a former time by one of America's great historians, Jacques Barzun. Barzun was a professor and dean at Columbia University and a Presidential Medal of Freedom winner.
"We make a great mistake in calling the American War of Independence, the 'American Revolution,'" he wrote. "In 1776 the Americans rebelled against recent rules and impositions. What they wanted was not a new type of government, but the old type they enjoyed. They were used to many freedoms, which they claimed as the immemorial rights of Englishmen. Once they defeated the English armies and expelled the Loyalists, they went back to their former ways, which they modestly enlarged, and codified in the Bill of Rights."
In a similar fashion today, Americans are rebelling as the freedom we have enjoyed, freedom which defines life in this country, is being taken away and new "rules and impositions" are being imposed.
It's not about theory or some abstract ideology. The intense feelings flow from losing what you have and what you know is vital.
What is new today is we can no longer continue the illusion of having our cake and eating it. We can no longer afford to be both a big government entitlement state and a free, creative, and prosperous nation. It's the prosperity created by our freedom that has financed the entitlements. But now the entitlements are overtaking and strangling our freedom.
So now is a time of choosing. We're either going to remain the land of the free or transform into the land of the bureaucrat.
The antipathy of activists toward Mr. Obama is not about how he looks but what he has done. That he has chosen and imposed on us the path of bureaucracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)