Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights
Sen. Barbara Boxer is pushing the Obama administration to move forward with ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a controversial treaty that has never gained much support in the U.S.

Sen. Barbara Boxer is urging the U.S. to ratify a United Nations measure meant to expand the rights of children, a move critics are calling a gross assault on parental rights that could rob the U.S. of sovereignty.

The California Democrat is pushing the Obama administration to review the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a nearly 20-year-old international agreement that has been foundering on American shores since it was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995 but never ratified.

Critics say the treaty, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and outlaws the "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy," intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference.

Nearly every country in the world is party to it -- only the U.S. and Somalia are not -- but the convention has gained little support in the U.S. and never been sent to the Senate for ratification.

That could change soon.

Boxer has made clear her intent to revive the ratification process under the Obama administration, which may be amendable to the move. During a Senate confirmation hearing last month, Boxer said she considers it "a humiliation" that the U.S. is "standing with Somalia" in refusing to become party to the agreement, while 193 other nations have led the way.

The U.S. is already party to two optional pieces of the treaty regarding child soldiers and child prostitution and pornography, but has refused to sign on to the full agreement, something which has rankled members of Congress, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

"Children deserve basic human rights ... and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected," Boxer said.

The convention has established a Committee on the Rights of the Child, an 18-member panel in Geneva composed of "persons of high moral character" who review the rights of children in nations that are party to the convention.

But legal experts say the convention does nothing to protect human rights abroad -- and that acceding to the convention would erode U.S. sovereignty.  Because of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, all treaties are rendered "the supreme law of the land," superseding preexisting state and federal statutes. Any rights or laws established by the U.N. convention could then be argued to hold sway in the United States.

=================================================================================================================


WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!This is an infuriating outrage!!!!!
If this happens this moves almost all family rights into the gutter. Those are what has kept my family together all this time after many issues. Being a single young mother apparently causes most county child protection services to think you are incapable of handling so many kids and have tried many times to interfere with my family. I, unlike most (not all) low income single young mothers, chose to educate myself of the family rights we have, which are somewhat different than the normal rights we all know and are familiar with; this has given me a tool against the child protection folks as they continually thought I was just a typical uneducated welfare mom. The very last time they tried to interfere, they were told to get a warrant signed by a judge to be able to question my children for anything. They did. They still had to follow my rules governing the way they questioned them. They were not to come inside nor could they speak to my children on an individual basis. I also had a document in each of their school registrations to confirm they could not, without my consent, participate or be questioned about anything that was not a part of the academic curriculum. i.e. D.A.R.E. After M'Lea and Alex were in dare......which don't get me wrong its a positive idea but they came home knowing about drugs they could get high on that just grows wildly......they knew what crack pipes look like as well as how to cook crack. They were in elementary school IN BROOMFIELD and these are things I don't want my children learning about...ok?
I believe this is a way to inform kids of these things as a tool to turn in thier parents or pique thier interest in drugs themselves. Does THAT sound like it will fall into this rights of child act? Of course it does.
 Does it sound like its invasive as well as violating a families rights? Of course it does. I just read in the news, a little boy in Pennsylvania, 11 years old shot and killed his very pregnant and due very soon step mom in the back of her head, premeditated. This kid had also just prior to that outgunned many men in a turkey shooting competition event with a shotgun. Some would say there was a positive influence of an interaction of gun safety and training and respect for guns right? Look at what he did with that!!!!! Is Barbara Boxer going to say the parents were incompetent and take responsibility for it herself? The reason why we shouldn't do this are reasons like this. Maybe he believed it was in his best interest to rid her so he could practice his favorite demonic ritual? Are they prepared to defend that??? That woman is dead and so is her unborn child. Her children are now motherless, what of those children did he not defy the rights of those children???But this isn't about murder its about giving kids an idea of a power that they think they will have.............and enabling authorities to fuck up family lives that are already on the radar but unreachable....like mine.....and completely destroying its foundation.

This idea interferes with how our children are allowed to be raised.........allowed ???   What thier values will be based on and what they cannot be, which to me, is clearly contradicting the Family Rights Act. Right to privacy? This needs to be defined and will almost cause an upright of parents that hopefully wont just roll over and take it because the government says to. Whether its about religion or values its still what we believe to be the best for children and that right will be taken and controlled by assholes who don't even know our kids. We have bucket loads of crack heads and victims of environment and circumstance having children in neighborhoods that ARE NOT the same as in most other countries. Of course giving this to them will most likely create a very violent future in our children unknowingly thinking they have new found rights they don't even fully understand.  Rural cities here are different than most countries' rural cities. Imagine these kids with minimal knowledge of rights thinking they are even more invincible. The family values those ancient countries raise their kids in are not as common here. Here, hookers having babies and raising THEM in thier worlds..........

Children are born to the family out of love not the religions or the governments but because families want to bring honest and good people into the world in hopes that the future will be better. But, sadly not all children are and in fact more often children are being born just because they were conceived. After that they are left to thier own demise or seen as an inconvenience. Not given any positive demonstration of functioning in society, nor values or confidence or any of the other positive things that makes a person good, honest, hard working or functional.

This will be bad.....very very bad and they should expect it to create future events im sure they would never dream of coming from children in the United States of America. There just isn't enough funding to monitor that here locally or otherwise because the intervention would far exceed need than what will be available.
The reasons US and Somalia aren't with this is because our countries are in distress as it is.
Who cares how embarrassed Sen. Boxer is!!!!! She should never have said that... that looks very very bad on her if that's a reason she wants this....seems to me shes more concerned with saving face and looking good to the other 193 countries by joining the collective and "be like everybody else" rather than stand up and keep our country doing whats right. We are after all the United States, we fought to be separate from their laws, religions and taxes correct? Created an opportunity to build a life and family and foundation on new grounds. I mean jeez whats next........an apartheid? communism???

Ask a 4 year old boy what he believes in.......he'll say Santa Clause, the Easter bunny.
Do you think ANY of them will say: A better future for United States? Honest work? To be free to choose my own life, privacy and religion???????
No, they'd get bored with the question then look for thier favorite toy truck to show off saying they want one of those!

Ask them what they want to do when they grow up!!!!!!!


SURVEY SAYS!!!!!!!!

I want to be just like daddy/mommy!!!!!