Tuesday’s Tragedy

The media did such a good job of burying the public under the presidential race the New World Order crowd tightened its grip on the US Senate. Indiana’s long-serving senator, Richard Lugar, not getting his party’s nomination was one bit of good news for conservatives during the primaries. Eventually, a Democrat won Lugar’s seat. No great loss there. Not much changes when you trade a RINO for a Democrat.

In any event both the media and establishment Republicans did not want control of the Senate if victory meant seating a few more conservatives. Bottom line: Media and establishment Republicans knew they could not lie their way out of repealing the Affordable Care Act if Republicans controlled both houses; hence, there was no real effort, or political necessity, behind gaining control of the Senate. So how come deciding which UN-loving (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) bag lives in the White House for the next four years was the most important election in the nation’s history, while control of the Senate was given short-shrift?

The tragedy in Democrat control of the Senate begins tomorrow:

Call it Lugar’s Last Hurrah because he gets to vote for the CRPD before he leaves in January.

Media is doing the same thing with the fake fiscal cliff that it did with Senate races; i.e, burying everything else under a foregone conclusion. It’s pathetic because there will be a huge tax increase, the debt ceiling will be raised, and so on.

I have not been doing a lot of channel surfing lately, but I’ll wager that you never saw Rick Santorum or anyone else on the talk shows warning the public about ratifying a United Nations treaty. Think back to the LOST. How much did you ever hear on TV talk shows about that one? If the scarcity of Internet articles about the CRPD is any guide there has not been enough time for the public to contact their senators and tell them not to ratify this, or any other, UN treaty.

Incidentally, if the CRPD is so wonderful how come Hussein & Company are not out there selling it. God knows, you can’t surf into a news shows without seeing a clip of the liar-in-chief talking about his agenda. As I said, I have not been doing a lot of channel surfing lately, yet I run into the liar every time I turn on the TV. The liar is about as close Orwell’s Big Brother as television can get without exposing themselves. Fear grips me whenever I think about the tens of millions who are addicted to television. The appalling thing is that they believe everything television tells them.

Finally, is there a chance conservative senators can pull together 34 votes to stop ratification? I don’t know the answer. I do know that RINO led by John McCain are for surrendering America’s sovereignty to the New World Order with United Nations treaties if they cannot do it any other way. Ratifying the CRPD is the latest step in the process.

This treaty crushes U.S. sovereignty
Exclusive: Rick Santorum exposes shocking details of U.N. power play
Published: 12 hours ago
by RICK SANTORUM

Amid all the media frenzy concerning the fiscal cliff and the drumbeat to increase taxes, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled a vote on another objective of progressives – ceding our sovereignty to the United Nations. This treaty adopted by the U.N. in 2006 called the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, or CRPD, will ostensibly promote and protect the rights of the disabled around the world.

Who would be opposed to a treaty that is conceptually designed to help the disabled? Certainly not my wife, Karen, and I, who are the parents of a very special child. Let me be clear: If I thought the U.S. Senate’s approval of this treaty would help our Bella or any disabled child here or in any other country, I would be vocally supporting it. But contrary to what the proponents of this treaty have successfully argued to many disability groups, it simply does not.

CRPD does call for numerous protections for people with disabilities, and many of these protections are consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other state and federal laws. The fact is, the United States leads the world in our respect and treatment for people with disabilities – something of which we as a society should be proud. But this treaty will do nothing to enhance the status of people with disabilities in the United States. In fact, the proponents of this treaty are very adamant that it will do nothing to force the U.S. to change our laws. More on this later.

So why pass it? According to the proponents, it must be passed to improve the treatment of people with disabilities in other countries. In fact, they make the case that Americans traveling abroad will greatly benefit if the United States adopts this treaty. Let me be crystal clear on this point: This is utter nonsense!

Our adoption of this treaty will not legally oblige any other country to do anything. It will no more encourage other countries to change their disabilities laws or spend their resources on increasing access for the disabled than the laws – and the money spent – that the U.S. has already passed to lead the world in this area.

However, we would not be opposing this treaty if it caused no harm and merely did not live up to the supporters’ hype.

But digging a bit deeper, the treaty has much darker and more troubling implications.

The most offensive provision is found in Section 7 of the treaty dealing specifically with children with disabilities. That section reads:

“In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

“The best interest of the child” standard is lifted out of a controversial provision contained in the 1989 treaty called the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. That treaty was never ratified in large part because of this provision.

“The best interest of the child” standard may sound like it protects children, but what it does is put the government, acting under U.N. authority, in the position to determine for all children with disabilities what is best for them. That is counter to the current state of the law in this country which puts parents – not the government – in that position of determining what is in their child’s best interest. Under the laws of our country, parents lose that right only if the state, through the judicial process, determines that the parents are unfit to make that decision.

In the case of our 4-year-old daughter, Bella, who has Trisomy 18, a condition that the medical literature says is “incompatible with life,” would her “best interest” be that she be allowed to die? Some would undoubtedly say so.

So if the state, and not Karen and I, would have the final word on what is in the best interest of a child like Bella, what chance would a parent have to get appropriate care in the days of increasingly government-funded medical care?

Proponents have said that Section 7 would not affect a parent’s right under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, but the education standards of CRPD do not repeat the parental rights rules of past U.N. human-rights treaties. Omission of these rules combined with Section 7 could lead to the elimination of parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.

These issues become real for parents because, despite what the proponents insist, ratifying the treaty will require changes to U.S. laws to comply with the U.N. provisions. Section 4 requires any country that adopts this treaty “to adopt all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention.”

On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on ratification of this treaty. If two-thirds of the Senate passes CRPD, it will become law of the land under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, would trump state laws and could be used as precedent by state and federal judges.

I stand by a simple principle that the laws we live by should be imbued with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. CRPD falls short of this standard, and it must be defeated.

In short, there is no reason for our country to give up our sovereignty to the United Nations when it comes to providing benefits and protections for the disabled in America. Furthermore, it would be an egregious move to deny parents of children with disabilities the right to do what they think is in their child’s best interest in exchange for some illegitimate claim that disabled Americans will have better treatment abroad. CRPD must be defeated.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/this-treaty-crushes-u-s-sovereignty

 

Democrats, and Republicans, want to raise taxes and the debt ceiling. The only thing separating them is this: Republicans have to look like they oppose both. When it comes to fighting tax increases establishment Republicans fight like pimps defending a hustling girl’s virginity —— they do not believe in what they are fighting for.

Saving the country from financial ruin one more time is the story Republicans will lay down. Funding RobertsCare is only the first in a series of huge tax increases Republicans are agreeing to behind locked doors. Media finding a way to make it digestible is the only thing delaying implementation. Tax manure and mendacity duly noted, establishment Republicans have no excuse for ratifying any United Nations treaty.

On the plus side:

Of course, RINO always come down on the negative side:

Positive and negative pale beside DANGER:

Republicans ready for ‘sneaky treaties’
By: Hope Hodge
12/3/2012 05:23 AM

Back in September, 36 Republicans in the Senate signed on to a letter requesting that no treaties be brought up for consideration during the precious few days of the lame duck session.

“The writers of the Constitution clearly believed that all treaties presented to the Senate should undergo the most thorough scrutiny before being agreed upon,” they wrote in a Sept. 20 letter to Senate majority and minority leaders Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

“The American people will be electing representatives and senators in November, and new representatives carrying the election mandate should be afforded the opportunity to review and consider any international agreements that are outstanding at the time of their election.”

The signatories promised to oppose efforts to consider any treaty brought for consideration.

Fast-forward two months, and the Senate has begun consideration of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, a United Nations treaty that faces heavy opposition from conservative groups and received only one committee hearing, back in July.

Opponents say the treaty infringes on U.S. sovereignty, confers no new rights on Americans with disabilities, and even tampers with established concepts of parental authority.

And this comes to the floor while the National Defense Authorization Act, a bipartisan budget bill necessary for military planning and operations, waits in the wings.

Despite the fact that more than one-third of the Senate promised to oppose consideration of a treaty—enough to kill the measure if they opted to vote against it—the lame duck session may still represent the last best hope for this treaty and others like it.

GOP more conservative

“The Republican caucus is becoming more conservative, even if it is by just one or two people,” said Heritage Foundation fellow Steven Groves, an expert on treaties. Groves cited the election of Sen.-elect Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who replaces the socially liberal Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who is at least as conservative as his predecessor, Jon Kyl.

While Democrats added to their majority in the Senate, they still lack the supermajority needed to ratify treaties. To get the 67 votes they need, they have to win over Republicans. And so far, the lame duck gambit seems to be working well.

A motion to proceed on the disabilities treaty was carried, with votes of support even from letter-signers Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). It’s not clear if the two-thirds majority needed to ratify the treaty is there, but if Democrats are successful, they may be emboldened to take on more controversial items.

“I think Sen. Reid is going to keep trying to bring up things that we don’t have to do to keep us from focusing on the things we have to do,” Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Human Events.

“If they pass it, they could go straight to the Law of the Sea Treaty.”

A full-court press by the Obama administration to pass the Law of the Sea was shut down this summer after Republicans procured 34 promised “no” votes, saying the treaty would compromise U.S. sovereignty and navigational rights and obligate us to pay billions of dollars in royalties for mining of deep-sea minerals.

Groves agreed that Law of the Sea might resurface in the lame duck session.

“If they’ve got a victory on one treaty, why not push for another and keep things rolling?” he said.

But one thing that may stymie these plans and get the Senate back on task, he said, is a lively floor fight from Republicans.

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/03/republicans-ready-for-sneaky-treaties/

 

David Icke? All is forgiven!

 

Thing is, the threads invariably have interesting titles which lure one in only to find....

 

To Viv: That’s a cool picture. I might use it to identify some of the cartoon characters that reply to my messages. Thanks.

 

Some would say that, no doubt. But they would be from the "not sustainable" cohort of the conservative party.

Your chances would be about the same for government-funded medical care as private insurance. Both have death panels. The chances of appropriate medical care would probably be slightly better if you could pay the medical bills out of pocket.