For your consideration

Recently I've been reading a book on Hilary Clinton, A Woman in Charge. Why in the world would I do that you ask? The upcoming election has peaked my interest and well so has she. I've found the book very intriguing and it's helped to remind me that she is a human being with real emotions and cares even if I disagree with her political stance. I must admit I haven't finished the book. It honestly peaked my interest so much so that I found myself wanting to read that before other books that I should be reading. At this point I just don't have time for both. So I've put it aside for awhile. But I read enough to know that Hillary is a brilliant women and she has just a chance as any to win next year. It has also put fear in me as to what could possibly happen if she is elected. Particularly with her support of the UNCRC. It comes off as a wonderful protect the children treaty that many nations have adopted but in reality does not take into account parents knowing what's best for their children. Now I'm not against the ways it seeks to protect children from abuse, violence, drugs, child labor etc. However it can go much farther than that.

Here's an excerpt from an article I read recently:
"If this treaty becomes binding on the United States, the government would have the power to intervene in a child's life “for the best interest of the child.” Currently, the government can intervene in this fashion only by going to court and proving that parents have been abusive or have neglected their children. (This standard also applies in divorce cases on the presumption that the family unit has been broken.) This means that whenever the UN-dominated social services system thought that your parental choices were not the best, the government would have the power to override your choices and protect your child from you. If this treaty becomes binding, all parents would have the same legal status as abusive parents, because the government would have the right to override every parental decision if it deemed the parent's choice contrary to the child's best interest"

You can read the full article here:

and another:
"Parents would be in specific violation of the treaty if they were to restrict their child from watching a pornographic video or from reading a book with objectionable content" (Article 17).

the incredible shrinking parent

also check out this news report my husband sent over to me today:

Parenting while poor, you might lose your kids

I guess in the end it's about who really knows best for children, their parents or the government?