Very alarming indeed.
As far as I’m concerned, The UN can stay the “heck” away from children, especially my future children (and that’s being nice on my part.)

1 – Propaganda: Parental Rights and HSLDA are seeking an amendment to the Constitution via “propaganda and distortions”, but other than this statement no facts are provided to support this contention.

2 – Popular Support: “300 national religious organizations and NGOs” and “thousands of people around the world” support the UNCRC. Seemingly, because so many people support the UNCRC, they can’t “all be wrong.”

3 – Defamation: In referring to Mr. Farris as a “megalomaniac”, it is suggested that he has delusions of grandeur but no supporting material is referenced.

4 – Misrepresentation: In stating that the UNCRC will interfere with the U.S. legal framework as a “wild distortion and misrepresentation”, reference is made to an article in the Harvard Human Rights Journal calling for ratification of the convention. In the “Refutation”, mention is made of the fact that Supreme Court decisions take into consideration the laws and practices of other nations. While this is true, it is alarming that the constitutional rights of parents and families are slowly being eroded. Albert E. Bowen’s comments about Family Allowances in 1946 seem directly applicable here:

This much is certain. Such an Act has all the potentialities for destroying family discipline and breaking down the authoritative position of the father as the head of the household. It transfers the dependence of children from the parents to the state; it teaches children to look beyond the parents to the state. It teaches them that they have state-conferred rights which they may demand from parents and teaches them to scrutinize the acts of parents with a view to asserting those rights. It opens the family circle to the entrance of a state inquisitor who may interrogate children about the doings of their parents and invite them to be complainants and informers against parents. Inherent in the scheme is the disintegration of family unity, order, discipline, reverence and respect. From Germany’s experience, we know what that could mean. (“The Welfare State – Creeping Socialism“. Inspired Constitution. 2 Nov 2009.)

5 – Support by Certain Luminaries: Mention is also made that Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama also support the CNRC as if international human rights’ luminaries should curry additional popular support.

The argument presented here in support of the Convention seems to be based on two basic premises:

1 – Popular support must mean the UNCRC is good (e.g. they can’t “all be wrong”).

2 – The Convention is a legal treaty based on historical legal precedence.

Neither premise is very compelling. Years ago, Ezra Taft Benson warned that certain factions within society were working to “induce the gradual surrender of American sovereignty, piece by piece and step by step, to various international organizations” (“An International Criminal Conspiracy“. Inspired Constitution. 2 Nov 2009.). The UNCRC seems to be just such an attempt.

As Frankg mentions above, it would seem a judicious course of action to “retain our own legal framework” as much as possible with the understanding that there are forces at work in government who seek to overthrow our Constitutional government.

The UN is not alone in the effort to bring full recognition of children’s rights to fruition. A long list of humanitarians includes people such as internationally respected leaders Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama.

Michael Farris and his dominionists are hardly in their league.

http://www.dalailama.com/

Here is the link to the UN Secretary Generals report on violence against children.

http://www.unicef.org/violencestudy/reports/SG_violencestudy_en.pdf

Ratifying and implementing the UN CRC will not interfere with our legal frameworks. This is a wild distortion and misrepresentation. Please read the Harvard document.