Just when you thought we had enough to worry about was this ballooning stimulus package of Barry "O’s" and the Democrats, along comes just one more nightmare scenario courtesy of the Democrats. It’s a little thing called the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which, to be quite honest, I had never heard of until I stumbled across an article on the web about Senator Boxer (D)imwit, regarding her urging of a quick hand over of U.S. power to UN. I knew it couldn’t be good if it involved Ms.Boxer and the UN so I asked myself what the heck it might be all about so I read on to find out just how bad it is. Well, as you might expect, it ain’t good. It seems that this little nightmare of an idea, is in fact something that those against it say could very well be used as one more way to destroy our American sovereignty by imposing international rulings on American law. And if Ms. Boxer gets her way it may very well reach the floor of the Senate in less than 2 months. And since we know that Barry "O" is pretty much in favor of al things UN, what do you think his position may be on this little jewel?

Sen. Boxer (D-CA) is looking at a 60-day timeframe to allow the State Department to complete its review so that the Senate can move quickly move toward ratification of the UNCRC, as it is so harmlessly referred to as. It was during the confirmation hearing for Ambassador-designate Susan Rice held on January 15, 2009, that Ms. Boxer told Rice the UNCRC would protect "the most vulnerable people of society." Such a plan is just another effort by the Democrats now in charge to continue their efforts to turn this country into just another Third World Nation. Those who are against this whole idea disagree that it does, or will do any of what Ms Boxer claims. You know it’s really quite amazing that the only time Democrats favor our Constitution is when they can twist it to their bidding for them. The example being that under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI) of the U.S. Constitution, ratified treaties preempt state law. And since virtually all laws in the U.S. regarding children are state laws, this treaty would negate nearly 100% of existing American family law. Since all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution of laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. Does this make sense to anyone? And what’s worse it would grant the government authority to override parental decisions by applying even to good parents a standard now only used against those convicted of abuse or neglect. Does everybody see where this is headed? Where do we think old Hillary Clinton, our illustrious Secretary of State, may stand on this issue with her, "it takes a village" mentality?

And like every other treaty where the UN has had an opportunity to play a part, despite the fact that the treaty has been ratified by 193 of the world's governments, with United States and Somalia not signing on, about 218 million children still suffer the worst forms of child labor. And, and 250,000 to 300,000 have been forced into military service in numerous countries. So I’d say this thing doesn’t seem to be all that it’s cracked up to be and I also find myself wondering just what those other 193 countries aren’t doing that they’re supposed to be doing. If the Senate does confirm this thing we all know that it will do so under the guise of doing it for the "children" and use that tired warn out cliché, how can we not take care of them. This is just one more thing, like the stimulus plan currently about to pass, that will do nothing that its supporters claim that it will do. What it will in fact do is to substantially undermine the authority of parents to exercise vitally important responsibilities toward their children if these responsibilities are determined to infringe on the child's "right" to autonomy and self-expression as defined by a panel of "experts" appointed by that pillar of dysfunction, THE United Nations. What this Convention would in fact do would be to allow the United Nation to redefine Family Law in America. It would also give children the "right" to disregard parental authority. Although several of the treaty's provisions offer generally positive, non-offensive platitudes, a substantial portion of this charter undermines parental rights.

"The U.N. CONVENTION would: (1) transfer parental rights and responsibilities to the state. (2) undermine the family by vesting children with various fundamental rights which advance notions of the child's autonomy and freedom from parental guidance; and (3) establish bureaucracies and institutions of a national and international nature designed to promote "the ideas proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations and to investigate and prosecute parents who violate their children's rights. The state will determine the child's "best interest". All children must be immediately registered after birth. Severe limitations will be placed on the parent's right to direct and train their children. Section 1 of Article 13 declares a child's right to "seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice." Article 14 says children have a legal right to object to all religious training. Alternatively, children may assert their right against parental objections to participate in other religions. Parents could be prevented from forbidding their child to associate with people deemed to be objectionable companions, i.e. gangs, cults, racist organizations, etc. Article 18 says the state must assist parents in the raising of children. It calls on the State to co-parent by rendering "appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children", i.e. Parent training, Family Resource Centers, etc. Corporal punishment is prohibited. Article 43 says international experts will parent our children."

Now I have to wonder if all those morons with kids that voted for Barry "O" were thinking that something like this was going to happen? Did they even think to look that far ahead? And who are they going to blame if and when it all becomes reality, George W. Bush? I wish I could laugh at how stupid they were, but somehow it’s just not funny. I’m too scared to laugh.