by Craig Masters
Those who keep a watchful eye on the never ending attempts to void the second amendment of the Constitution are again preparing for one of the most effectively planned attacks on our right to be able to protect ourselves since the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
July 27, the U.S. will sign the arms treaty making the U.N. the ultimate authority over American citizens’ rights to “keep and bear arms.” So long as the senate never votes on the treaty, it becomes the supreme law and our 2nd Amendment is shelved. This is something that is not well known – not even believed by most folks who replied to a previous article in the Gazette about this particular treaty. Treaties are supposed to be ratified or not accepted by the U.S. senate before they become law. But they do in fact become enforceable when signed and remain in force as law until they are either approved or defeated by a senate vote.
If Harry Reid. (D, Nevada) can avoid allowing the arms treaty to come to the floor of the senate for a vote; it carries the full weight of law as if it were ratified until a president cancels it. If Obama, who strongly supports U.N. control as the path to world government, is re-elected, and the democrats keep control of the senate, the arms treaty will remain as the supreme law of the land. Americans will face the very real probability of United Nations “troops” confiscating our weapons under the authority of a treaty never ratified by default of never being voted on in the democrat controlled senate.
Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the co-author, with George Neumayr, of a new book released this month titled “No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.” In a recent article she reports that President Obama ordered U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to sign the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, CRPD. The treaty was signed on July 30, 2009. Now, she writes, he is trying to ram it through to ratification.
Schlafly points out the notion that the U.N. can provide more benefits or protections for persons with disabilities than the U.S. is bizarre. The United States always treats individuals, able or disabled, rich or poor, innocent or guilty, better than any other nation.
We certainly don’t need a committee of foreigners who call themselves “experts” to dictate our laws or customs.
But that’s what this treaty and most other U.N. treaties try to do. We already have more protections and benefits for persons with disabilities enshrined in U.S. laws, regulations and enforcement mechanisms than any other nation on earth. Where would the U.N. possibly find these so-called experts?
The U.N. General Assembly adopted the CRPD on Dec. 13, 2006, and it became part of what globalists euphemistically call international law on May 3, 2008, after 20 nations ratified it. The treaty now has 117 nations that have ratified it. Under the CRPD, we would be required to make regular reports to a “committee of experts” to prove we are obeying the treaty. The “experts” would have the authority to review our reports and make “such suggestions and general recommendations on the report as it may consider appropriate.”
These demands are often outside the treaty’s scope of subject matter. They override national sovereignty in pursuit of social engineering, feminist ideology or merely busybody interference in a country’s internal affairs.
CRPD’s Article 7 gives the government the power to override every decision of the parent of a disabled child by using the caveat “the best interest of the child.” This phrase has already been abused by family courts to substitute judges’ decisions for parents’ decisions and transferring the use of that phrase to the government or to a U.N. “is the wrong way to go,” writes Schlafly.
Continuing from Schlafly’s article:
When the U.N. approved the CRPD, the United States made a statement that the phrase “reproductive health” does not include abortion. But that’s just whistling in the wind because international law does not recognize the validity of one nation’s reservations to a treaty ratified by many other nations.
Furthermore, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is on record as stating that the definition of “reproductive health” includes abortion. In testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on April 22, 2009, she said: “Family planning is an important part of women’s health, and reproductive health includes access to abortion.”
After ratification, treaties become part of the “supreme law” of the United States on a par with federal statutes. That gives supremacist judges the power to invent their own interpretations, which some are all too eager to do.
It’s easy to predict that some pro-abortion supremacist judges will rule that the CRPD, if part of the supreme law of our land, includes abortion. Several Supreme Court justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have urged us to use foreign law in interpreting U.S. domestic law.
You might remember it was Ginsburg who told the Egyptians the U.S. Constitution was probably too outdated and they might be well advised to look at more recent documents as they reorganize their government in the wake of the recent revolution.
© 2010 - 2013 Northern Colorado Gazette , PO Box 6, Greeley CO 80632 • All Rights Reserved •
|Powered By Zera Communications||Follow us|