I thought someone did a great job putting this information together. Permission is granted to share it.

Whoever wins the White House could determine whether we continue to
enjoy the freedom to home educate our children or not. If the Democrats
take the US Senate and the White House, one of the first things they
will most likely do is to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child. President Clinton, actually signed it, but did not take it to the
Senate because the Democrats did not have the majority at that time
needed to pass it. However, if during the upcoming election, the
Democratic party takes control of both the US Senate and the White
House, it will most likely pass. Some news reporters are saying that
Republicans may not win enough seats in the US Senate to even filibuster.

This is the greatest single threat to home education we have ever faced
in this country. The teacher's unions pour millions of dollars into
Democratic campaigns and as you know the Unions do not like home
schooling. In fact, their platform usually has a plank opposing home
education or requiring parents to be certified teachers. I have never
used fear to motivate people and I am not doing it now. I am just
reporting the facts.

Go to www.hslda.org, type in the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child and read until you are convinced this is a serious threat. If you
are not sure that HSLDA is reporting the truth, go to
http://www.un.org/children/conflict/keydoc...entionont6.html

and read the actual document. It is very disconcerting. This treaty
would strip parents of their rights and give them to the child. Ask the
question who will decide what is in the best interest of the child?

The following is taken off the HSLDA website. Please read this and
consider the consequences before you vote in this election.

Oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

After years of debate within the international community, child's rights
activists reached an agreement in 1988 which created a comprehensive
charter advancing the agenda of the children's "liberation" movement.
What the child's rights advocates have for over two decades been unable
to accomplish through the normal legislative process, may now be
realized in one sweeping blow.

If ratified by the U.S. Senate, the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of a Child would undermine families by granting to children a
list of radical "rights" which would be primarily enforced against the
parents. These new "fundamental" rights would include "the right to
privacy," "the right to freedom of thought and association," and the
right to "freedom of expression." Such presumptions subvert the
authority of parents to exercise important responsibilities toward their
children. Under the UN Convention, parental responsibility exists only
in so far as parents are willing to further the independent choices of
the child.

The Convention Would Become Supreme Law of the Land

Under the Constitution'
s Supremacy Clause of Article VI Section.2, "all treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound
thereby, anything in the constitution of laws of any state to the
contrary notwithstanding."

In Missouri v. Holland, (252 U.S. 416), the U.S. Supreme Court held that
under the Supremacy Clause a treaty made by the President, with
concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate present at the time of voting,
would become the supreme law and take precedent over contrary state
laws. Thus, the U.N. Convention would constitute legally binding law in
all 50 states. Otherwise valid state laws pertaining to education, the
family, etc., which conflict with the provisions of the treaty will be
subject to invalidation.

Were this convention to be ratified, the United States would be required
to alter large portions of long established law to cater to the demands
of the United Nations.

The Convention Would Give Children the "Right" to Disregard Parental
Authority

Although several of the treaty's provisions offer generally positive,
nonoffensive platitudes, a substantial portion of this charter
undermines parental rights. Some of the more relevant provisions of the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are summarized below.

Severe Limitations Placed on the Parents' Right to Train Their Children

Under Article 13, any attempts to prevent their children from
interacting with material parents deem unacceptable is forbidden.
Children are vested with a " freedom of expression" right, which is
virtually absolute. No allowance is made for parental guidance. Section
1 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."

In Article 14, children are guaranteed " freedom of thought, conscience
and religion." Children have a legal right to object to all religious
training. Alternatively, children may assert their right against
parental objection to participate in the occult.

Article 15 declares "the right of the child to freedom of association."
Parents could be prevented from forbidding their child to associate with
people deemed to be objectionable companions. Under Article 15, children
could claim a "fundamental" right to join gangs, cults, and racist
organizations over parental objection.

The Convention Would Entrench the Right of Teenagers to Abort Their Babies

Under Article 16, the "right to privacy" is granted to children. This UN
sanctioned "privacy" would seemingly establish as the child's right to
obtain an abortion without parental notice, the right to purchase and
use contraceptives, and the right to pornography in the home.

New Bureaucracies Would Be Created to Monitor Families

Article 19 mandates the creation of an intensive bureaucracy for the
purpose of "identification, reporting, referral, investigation,
treatment, and follow-up" of parents who, in violation of the child's
rights, treat their children negligently.

To insure State and U.N. control over their development, Article 7
requires all children must be immediately registered at birth.

A Prohibition On Corporal Punishment

Articles 3, 19, 37 require all ratifying countries to protect children
from "degrading punishment" and "physical violence" which includes
corporal punishment. The U.N. Committee of Ten (pursuant to Article 44)
must oversee the implementation of the treaty. Over the last several
years, the Committee published reports criticizing several countries
(including Canada and Great Britain) for allowing corporal punishment to
continue.

Mandatory Outcome Based Education

The American Bar Association's 1990 publication Children's Rights in
America: U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child Compared to U.S. Law
states that Article 29 will force public and private schools in America
to adopt "federally prescribed curriculum content." Each child must be
prepared to be a responsible citizen by having "the spirit of
understanding, peace, toleration, equity of sexes, and friendship [for]
all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups of indigenous
origin." All children must be taught the principles of the treaty. This
is OBE mandated curriculum of the worst sort.

Can the United States Amend the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child?

According to Articles 50 and 51, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of
the Child can only be amended through a four step process. First, at
least one-third of the nations must favor a conference even to discuss
an amendment. Once a conference is convened, a majority of the nations
present at the conference must vote to adopt the amendment. Then it must
be submitted to the full General Assembly for approval. If the amendment
is approved by the General Assembly, it must be then be accepted by
two-thirds of the participating nations. The great difficulty in
amending this Treaty is unthinkable. Furthermore, "A reservation
incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall
not be permitted."

Will This Treaty be Enforced in the United States?

Our own Constitution requires us to enforce all treaties as the "supreme
law" of the land. Also, Article 4 of the Treaty, makes it clear that the
signatory nations are bound to "undertake legislative, administrative,
and other measures for the implementation of the rights" specified in
the Convention.

Toward this ends, the Convention sets up a committee to review the
progress of signatory nations called the Committee on the Rights of the
Child (also called the Committee of Ten). Examples of the Committee's
oversight of the various nations which have ratified the Convention, are
seen in recent reports called, "Concluding Observations of the Committee
on the Rights of the Child."

In a 1995 report the Committee heavily criticized Britain for not
implementing many aspects of the treaty stating

The Committee is deeply worried ... regarding judicial interpretations
... permitting the reasonable chastisement in case of physical abuse of
children within the family context. Thus the Committee is concerned that
legislative and other measures relating to the physical integrity of
children do not appear compatible with the provisions and principles of
the Convention ... The Committee is equally concerned that privately
funded and managed schools are still permitted to administer corporal
punishment to children.

Essentially the Committee is pointing out that spanking, which is still
allowed in Britain, is a violation of the treaty.

Regarding Britain's allowing parents to exclude their children from
school (which includes home schooling), the Committee expressed concern
that "the right of the child to express his or her opinion is not
solicited."

In 1997, when one of the delgates from Australia argued that the
Convention did not specifically forbid spanking, the Committee disagreed
stating

[T]he Convention should be interpreted holistically taking into
consideration not only its specific provisions, but also the general
principals which inspired it.

In other words, the Convention means what the Committee of Ten says it
means.

The 1998 report on Japan equally disturbing,

[T]he convention on the Rights of the Child has precedence over domestic
legislation and can be invoked before the domestic courts ...

France was evaluated in the 2004 Final Observations of the Committee
and, along with a variety of issues, the Committee addressed the area of
corporal punishment. They recommend that the State party "expressly
prohibit corporal punishment by law in the family, in schools, in
institutions and in other childcare settings." They also recommend
"awareness-raising and promotion of positive, non-violent forms of
discipline, especially in families."

These reports further confirm the United Nations belief that all nations
who sign the Children's Convention are obligated to apply its mandates
which override the country's own domestic law. This is a direct
usurpation of national sovereignty.

Prepared by the legal staff of the National Center for Home Education.
Reprint permission granted, P.O. Box 3000, Purcellville, VA 20134, (540)
330-7600