PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Why are Republicans voting down a UN disabilities treaty?


Direckshun
12-04-2012, 08:51 AM
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/270729-un-disabilities-treaty-expected-to-fail-in-senate-

UN disabilities treaty expected to fail in Senate amid GOP opposition
By Julian Pecquet
12/04/12 05:00 AM ET

Senate Republicans are expected on Tuesday to reject an international treaty affirming the rights of people with disabilities.

Democrats made a last-ditch effort to secure the two-thirds vote for ratification of the United Nations convention, but appeared to be well short of that mark ahead of Tuesday’s scheduled vote.

Conservative activists have come out in force against the treaty, warning it would pave the way for government interference in homeschooling. Supporters of the pact say it would merely extend the rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act to all nations.

“This is about Americans and raising the standard of how we treat Americans around the world,” said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.).

Democrats would need only 66 senators to ratify the treaty, due to the absence of Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), but Republican votes have been hard to come by.

Thirty-six Republican senators signed a letter to Senate leaders in September promising to oppose any treaty brought to a vote during the lame-duck session of Congress.

Democrats had hoped some of those senators would have a change of heart after the election, and were able to peel off two GOP votes last week when Sens. Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Scott Brown (Mass.) voted to proceed to the disabilities treaty on the Senate floor.

The 61-36 vote to proceed would not have been enough for ratification, however, and three Republicans who abstained from the September letter — Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Sens. James Inhofe (Okla.) and Jerry Moran (Kan.) — voted no, further dimming Democratic hopes.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who spearheaded the September letter, is working alongside former presidential candidate Rick Santorum, the Heritage Foundation and the Home School Legal Defense Association to ensure the treaty’s defeat. They warn it would create a U.N. committee that could impinge on U.S. sovereignty.

“Our concerns with this convention have nothing to do with any lack of concern for the rights of persons with disabilities,” Lee said last week. “They have everything to do with protecting U.S. sovereignty, protecting the interests of parents in the United States and the interests of families.”

Opponents of the treaty have also criticized it for not excluding abortion rights.

Democrats say the treaty stays neutral on abortion by calling on governments to offer people with disabilities the full range of family-planning services provided under domestic law.

Conservative groups pressed for the addition of language that would specify that the treaty does not create any new abortion rights, arguing that abortion is often a form of discrimination against people with disabilities.

All nine Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted for language excluding abortion rights when the treaty came before the panel in July. The amendment failed, and only three Republicans — Sens. Dick Lugar (Ind.), John Barrasso (Wyo.) and Johnny Isakson (Ga.) — joined the 10 Democrats on the panel voting for passage.

Democrats were trying Monday to convince on-the-fence Republicans that a “no” vote on the Senate floor would be politically painful.

The treaty has the support of a handful of Republican senators — including former presidential candidate John McCain (Ariz.) and Republican Policy Committee Chairman Barrasso — as well as many advocates for people with disabilities and the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Former Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) is expected to champion the treaty in a return to the Senate floor Tuesday after denouncing the “scare tactics” used by its opponents in a letter distributed Monday.

Democrats have also roped in former Attorney General and Pennsylvania Gov. Richard Thornburgh, who was President George H. W. Bush’s point man on the Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990.

The treaty, Thornburgh said Monday, would cede “no authority to the U.N. over the U.S. or any of its citizens. None. Zero.” He said the U.N. committee’s recommendations would be purely advisory and could not require the United States to change its laws or pass new ones and would not create any legal rights in state or federal courts.

The treaty was negotiated under President George W. Bush and was signed by President Obama in July 2009. It has been signed by at least 153 countries in addition to the United States.

Lee in his letter said the lame-duck session would not be an “appropriate” time for passage of treaties that will become the “supreme law of the land.”

Kerry countered by saying the Senate has passed treaties 19 times during lame-duck sessions. He said the sitting senators, who “did all the work” sitting in on the committee’s markup of the treaty this summer, should be the ones to vote on it.

President Obama, in a statement marking the International Day of Persons with Disabilities on Monday, said U.S. leadership on a key human-rights issue is at stake.

“Ratifying the convention in the Senate would reaffirm America’s position as the global leader on disability rights,” Obama said, “and better position us to encourage progress toward inclusion, equal opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic self-sufficiency for persons with disabilities worldwide.”

SNR
12-04-2012, 09:05 AM
Conservative activists have come out in force against the treaty, warning it would pave the way for government interference in homeschooling. Supporters of the pact say it would merely extend the rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act to all nations.

Direckshun
12-04-2012, 09:30 AM
Conservative activists have come out in force against the treaty, warning it would pave the way for government interference in homeschooling.

Based on what?

SNR
12-04-2012, 09:39 AM
Based on what?

Dunno. That's what the article said.

Fat Elvis
12-04-2012, 10:18 AM
Conservative activists have come out in force against the treaty, warning it would pave the way for government interference in homeschooling. Supporters of the pact say it would merely extend the rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act to all nations.

Excuses, excuses...a couple of days ago they were saying that it would violate US sovereignty if we ratified it. They seemed to drop that argument because everyone said they were nutjobs if they actually believed it.

It doesn't change a single thing in the US if we ratify it.

mnchiefsguy
12-04-2012, 10:30 AM
Excuses, excuses...a couple of days ago they were saying that it would violate US sovereignty if we ratified it. They seemed to drop that argument because everyone said they were nutjobs if they actually believed it.

It doesn't change a single thing in the US if we ratify it.


If that is the case, then is it even necessary? Is the US worse at disability rights than most of the countries at the UN? I find that very hard to believe.

donkhater
12-04-2012, 10:31 AM
Excuses, excuses...a couple of days ago they were saying that it would violate US sovereignty if we ratified it. They seemed to drop that argument because everyone said they were nutjobs if they actually believed it.

It doesn't change a single thing in the US if we ratify it.

So then why do it?

Brock
12-04-2012, 10:34 AM
Anybody care about this? Didn't think so.

KCWolfman
12-04-2012, 10:35 AM
So then why do it?

My thoughts precisely. Those who don't want to "police" the world all of a sudden want to police it.

US Senators do not equal World Policy.

La literatura
12-04-2012, 10:37 AM
This Treaty is about the behavior of other countries and their willingness to raise their treatment of people with disabilities to our level. It's that simple.
This isn't a Treaty about changing America. It's a treaty to change the world to be more like America.

So why join? Because we can sit at the table and affect the lives of our citizens by pushing other countries upwards; because we can gain credibility and accelerate change through our advocacy; because it's good for American business which can sell products and services as other nations raise their standards and need our expertise to meet their goals--which is why the US Chamber of Commerce and a huge number of businesses support this Treaty; because President George H W Bush started this process and President George W Bush signed the Treaty and to not participate after that is to make a fool of the United States; because in the end, this Treaty and our participation in it can improve the quality of life for people with disabilities; because to join it is to keep faith with the men and women who have suffered grievous disability in defense of our nation and we owe them nothing less.

-- John Kerry, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/270807-objections-to-disabilities-treaty-dont-stand-up-to-scutiny

La literatura
12-04-2012, 10:40 AM
But this is a UN treaty; UN wants to overtake US sovereignty; Democrats support this; right-wing primary goers want anti-UN rhetoric; say something about abortion. Is that the Republican mindset?

KCWolfman
12-04-2012, 10:44 AM
But this is a UN treaty; UN wants to overtake US sovereignty; Democrats support this; right-wing primary goers want anti-UN rhetoric; say something about abortion. Is that the Republican mindset?

I wish as much effort were put forth to domestic policy. This doesn't affect me or my children directly. Fiscal cliffs, entitlement spending, lack of a budget, spiraling deficit spending all do.

Let's get the house in order before we start crying about what's going on at the neighbors.

La literatura
12-04-2012, 10:48 AM
I wish as much effort were put forth to domestic policy. This doesn't affect me or my children directly. Fiscal cliffs, entitlement spending, lack of a budget, spiraling deficit spending all do.

Let's get the house in order before we start crying about what's going on at the neighbors.

The treaty was signed years ago. Now it just needs to be ratified. Your opposition to this is not because of the effect it will have, but because Senators are too busy to vote on it? Do you realize their job is to vote yes and no on things?

KCWolfman
12-04-2012, 10:51 AM
The treaty was signed years ago. Now it just needs to be ratified. Your opposition to this is not because of the effect it will have, but because Senators are too busy to vote on it? Do you realize their job is to vote yes and no on things?

Yup, like deficits, fiscal cliffs, entitlements, Healthcare issues, etc. - AMERICAN issues.

I have no qualms whether the stupid thing is ratified - you misread. I just don't see why it is a big issue or why we are wasting time with it. As I said, I wish this sort of effort were put forth to things that matter to my family.

HonestChieffan
12-04-2012, 10:53 AM
Damn now Im gonna spend a bunch of the day worried about this.

La literatura
12-04-2012, 10:54 AM
Yup, like deficits, fiscal cliffs, entitlements, Healthcare issues, etc. - AMERICAN issues.

I have no qualms whether the stupid thing is ratified - you misread. I just don't see why it is a big issue or why we are wasting time with it. As I said, I wish this sort of effort were put forth to things that matter to my family.

This disability treaty was put together over 20 years ago. It's just now being ratified. On the other hand, every day negotiations take place relating to the fiscal cliff as a deal tries to get worked out.

You're making a silly populist argument that doesn't really match up to reality. This isn't really a big deal aside from how it shows the GOP thrives on obstructionism more than legitimate and principled governance.

KCWolfman
12-04-2012, 11:02 AM
This disability treaty was put together over 20 years ago. It's just now being ratified. On the other hand, every day negotiations take place relating to the fiscal cliff as a deal tries to get worked out.

You're making a silly populist argument that doesn't really match up to reality. This isn't really a big deal aside from how it shows the GOP thrives on obstructionism more than legitimate and principled governance.

As I said, I don't oppose it. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. I just honestly don't care about it, at all.

If it was put together 20 years ago, the wonderful loving partisan Democrats have had ample opportunity to ratify it themselves through multiple congressional sessions, including the one two sessions ago where their leader was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. After all, they just had to vote yay or nay, it is their job, right?

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2012, 11:06 AM
International treaties should deal with how international politics are run, not how governments run themselves internally.

La literatura
12-04-2012, 11:10 AM
As I said, I don't oppose it. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. I just honestly don't care about it, at all.

If it was put together 20 years ago, the wonderful loving partisan Democrats have had ample opportunity to ratify it themselves through multiple congressional sessions, including the one two sessions ago where their leader was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. After all, they just had to vote yay or nay, it is their job, right?

Oh brother /Charlie Brown. It would be nice if you knew the process before making judgment. The treaty first gets examined by the Senate Foreign Committee. They make recommendations for approval. The full senate approves it, (but doesn't ratify it), and then it gets sent back to the President to ratify.

So you don't oppose, you don't even care about it, you just want to bitch about signing it? That makes about as much sense as the GOP's opposition to it. Did you happen to vote straight-ticket GOP this year?

ForeverChiefs58
12-04-2012, 11:35 AM
Who is going to enforce it?

Does this mean other countries that drag people through the streets before stomping them, burning them and cutting their heads off will start to worry about how they treat people with a disabilitiy?

HonestChieffan
12-04-2012, 11:39 AM
If they passed it so long ago, has the impact been positive?
Have they neglected to take actions pending our Senate?
What is the objective of this treaty and what should we expect to see change as a result? Are we already funding the UN efforts to address this global issue?

La literatura
12-04-2012, 11:42 AM
Who is going to enforce it?

Does this mean other countries that drag people through the streets before stomping them, buning them and cutting their heads off will start to worry about how they treat people with a disabilitiy?

The individual countries enforce it. Since it's a UN treaty, ratifying members would accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice if there are disputes or violations.

La literatura
12-04-2012, 11:50 AM
If they passed it so long ago, has the impact been positive?
Have they neglected to take actions pending our Senate?
What is the objective of this treaty and what should we expect to see change as a result? Are we already funding the UN efforts to address this global issue?

It's only been in effect since 2008. You can read about activities, objectives, and expectations here: http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?navid=8&pid=183.

I doubt they neglect to take action pending our approval, but we don't have much of say in taking action until we approve.

Yes, we're probably funding it, because we pretty much fund the entire UN.

HonestChieffan
12-04-2012, 11:55 AM
good news then. I was afraid disabilities were being promoted by someone until we declared a position

patteeu
12-04-2012, 12:03 PM
This disability treaty was put together over 20 years ago. It's just now being ratified. On the other hand, every day negotiations take place relating to the fiscal cliff as a deal tries to get worked out.

You're making a silly populist argument that doesn't really match up to reality. This isn't really a big deal aside from how it shows the GOP thrives on obstructionism more than legitimate and principled governance.

How would the world be different today if we had ratified this 20 years ago? What benefit would the US have derived?

La literatura
12-04-2012, 12:04 PM
How would the world be different today if we had ratified this 20 years ago? What benefit would the US have derived?

I don't know.

patteeu
12-04-2012, 12:11 PM
I don't know.

We've apparently missed an enormous opportunity.

Brainiac
12-04-2012, 12:20 PM
I think the interests of the Republican party would be better served if they would pick their battles, rather than opposing things without being able to articulate real and credible reasons for opposing them.

I don't see the harm in ratifying a treaty that was initiated by George H. W. Bush and signed by George Bush. Refusing to do so makes it look like the Republicans are indeed being obstructionist and petulant. It sends the message that they are refusing to support anything that the Obama administration supports. This could very well backfire two years from now in the mid-term elections.

I voted for Romney, and I was despondent when he lost. But it's time to get on with the business of running the country. Pick your battles. Oppose the things that are truly objectionable, and support the things that are benign.

HonestChieffan
12-04-2012, 12:40 PM
I think the interests of the Republican party would be better served if they would pick their battles, rather than opposing things without being able to articulate real and credible reasons for opposing them.

I don't see the harm in ratifying a treaty that was initiated by George H. W. Bush and signed by George Bush. Refusing to do so makes it look like the Republicans are indeed being obstructionist and petulant. It sends the message that they are refusing to support anything that the Obama administration supports. This could very well backfire two years from now in the mid-term elections.

I voted for Romney, and I was despondent when he lost. But it's time to get on with the business of running the country. Pick your battles. Oppose the things that are truly objectionable, and support the things that are benign.




Dammit, I though being against George Bush was what we were supposed to be. If Bush was behind it is got to be a bullshit deal.

theelusiveeightrop
12-04-2012, 12:45 PM
Lost interest at UN Treaty.

ForeverChiefs58
12-04-2012, 12:49 PM
Does it cost our Gov't or taxpayers money?

Hard to imagine anything with the UN doesn't end up costing Americans.

HonestChieffan
12-04-2012, 12:56 PM
Does it cost our Gov't or taxpayers money?

Hard to imagine anything with the UN doesn't end up costing Americans.


Im sure its free

Fish
12-04-2012, 12:59 PM
International treaties should deal with how international politics are run, not how governments run themselves internally.

This.

It looks too much to me like trying to apply US specific ideals to the UN.

“This is about Americans and raising the standard of how we treat Americans around the world,” said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.).

If this is about Americans, and not the majority of UN nations, then I'd rather we didn't waste more US political resources on this.

Chief Faithful
12-04-2012, 01:09 PM
As a home school family and members of the HSLDA we strongly petitioned our Senators to reject the treaty. If you are interested in why you can read the HSLDA position and 10 points of contention at: http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2012/201205250.asp

My biggests contention is with article 7(2) of the treaty. Currently federal law requires all public schools to provide special access and services to children with disabilities, but does not require these services be accepted. Under this treaty the decision on matters of schooling are determined by government according to the UN directives (another way of saying bureaucrats decide).

Through the HSLDA parents are fighting hard to ensure parents retain ultimate authority of what is best for the child instead of government. This is an issue of maintaining individual freedom.

Currently 35 Senators have promised to support a Constitutional Amendment identifying parents as the ultimate authority over decisions for their children. This assumed parental authority is tradition not law so many in the home school community see this as a fight for their rights.

cosmo20002
12-04-2012, 01:12 PM
I think the interests of the Republican party would be better served if they would pick their battles, rather than opposing things without being able to articulate real and credible reasons for opposing them.

I don't see the harm in ratifying a treaty that was initiated by George H. W. Bush and signed by George Bush. Refusing to do so makes it look like the Republicans are indeed being obstructionist and petulant. It sends the message that they are refusing to support anything that the Obama administration supports. This could very well backfire two years from now in the mid-term elections.

I voted for Romney, and I was despondent when he lost. But it's time to get on with the business of running the country. Pick your battles. Oppose the things that are truly objectionable, and support the things that are benign.

I believe that is the whole point. They believe (and are correct to a limited degree) that being obstructionist and refusing to support anything Obama is for is how to keep their base happy.

I agree with everything you said, but you don't appear to "get" the Rs. Being obstructionist on everything is the goal--it is their entire strategy, not something they are trying to avoid.

HonestChieffan
12-04-2012, 01:17 PM
I believe that is the whole point. They believe (and are correct to a limited degree) that being obstructionist and refusing to support anything Obama is for is how to keep their base happy.

I agree with everything you said, but you don't appear to "get" the Rs. Being obstructionist on everything is the goal--it is their entire strategy, not something they are trying to avoid.


They....was this ever brought forward in the last 20 years? Maybe a lot of theys out there....Why didnt it get voted on when Reid had the votes before?

Chocolate Hog
12-04-2012, 01:19 PM
We shouldn't be in the UN.

Also Republicans should vote down anything Obama wants.

Chief Faithful
12-04-2012, 01:20 PM
International treaties should deal with how international politics are run, not how governments run themselves internally.

Yes! I do not like any UN treaty that supercedes state law giving the power of directive to a UN bureaucrat. Laws like this may seem innocuous, but in reality it creates a foundation of government control that erodes personal liberties.

Taco John
12-04-2012, 01:22 PM
Why not vote down anything the UN does and reject it's authority?

ForeverChiefs58
12-04-2012, 01:23 PM
So, instead of worrying about actually fixing the deficit, Dems want to spend more...and how does this make sense?

La literatura
12-04-2012, 01:26 PM
As a home school family and members of the HSLDA we strongly petitioned our Senators to reject the treaty. If you are interested in why you can read the HSLDA position and 10 points of contention at: http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2012/201205250.asp

My biggests contention is with article 7(2) of the treaty. Currently federal law requires all public schools to provide special access and services to children with disabilities, but does not require these services be accepted. Under this treaty the decision on matters of schooling are determined by government according to the UN directives (another way of saying bureaucrats decide).

Through the HSLDA parents are fighting hard to ensure parents retain ultimate authority of what is best for the child instead of government. This is an issue of maintaining individual freedom.

Currently 35 Senators have promised to support a Constitutional Amendment identifying parents as the ultimate authority over decisions for their children. This assumed parental authority is tradition not law so many in the home school community see this as a fight for their rights.

Here's Article 7:

Article 7 - Children with disabilities

1. States Parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children.

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

3. States Parties shall ensure that children with disabilities have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them, their views being given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity, on an equal basis with other children, and to be provided with disability and age-appropriate assistance to realize that right.

La literatura
12-04-2012, 01:28 PM
Yes! I do not like any UN treaty that supercedes state law giving the power of directive to a UN bureaucrat. Laws like this may seem innocuous, but in reality it creates a foundation of government control that erodes personal liberties.

Actually, this entire Treaty is based off the Americans with Disability Act. It doesn't supercede any state law. If anything, it reinforces our law. There would literally be no UN bureaucrat with power over your home school.

La literatura
12-04-2012, 01:30 PM
So, instead of worrying about actually fixing the deficit, Dems want to spend more...and how does this make sense?

Your post? It doesn't.

La literatura
12-04-2012, 01:31 PM
Why not vote down anything the UN does and reject it's authority?

Because we like to work with (and take charge of) the international community. At least I do.

La literatura
12-04-2012, 01:32 PM
We shouldn't be in the UN.

Also Republicans should vote down anything Obama wants.

Don't do it for Obama. Do it for Bob Dole.

La literatura
12-04-2012, 01:32 PM
It was rejected, by the way. A free America will live to see another day after all.

ForeverChiefs58
12-04-2012, 01:43 PM
It was rejected, by the way. A free America will live to see another day after all.

No, we are only free when guided by the UN and international community /Dems

Chief Faithful
12-04-2012, 01:45 PM
Here's Article 7:

Article 7 - Children with disabilities

1. States Parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children.

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

3. States Parties shall ensure that children with disabilities have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them, their views being given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity, on an equal basis with other children, and to be provided with disability and age-appropriate assistance to realize that right.
You have identified the issue, government determines what is in the best interests of the child not the parents. This is new law.

mlyonsd
12-04-2012, 01:49 PM
I know this was voted down but I wonder I'd it would have covered kids disabled in one if our done attacks?

Fat Elvis
12-04-2012, 01:53 PM
Thankfully, Republican Senators disagreed with that Tri-lateral Commision puppet and pinko, commie fag Bob Dole and voted this assault on our sovereignty down....

ForeverChiefs58
12-04-2012, 01:56 PM
Your post? It doesn't.

Why?

Are you unaware of the deficit?

Do you think we have a lot of extra money burning a hole in our pockets?

Based on our economic situation. Should we be a) trying to cut spending or

b) spend money on admitted unnecessary stupid shit that is already covered and won't change or make a difference in our lives but still cost us money and involve the international community for no reason?

Fat Elvis
12-04-2012, 01:57 PM
Literature and Cosmo, please voluntarily report to the nearest FEMA concentr...uh, happy camp....

Chief Faithful
12-04-2012, 01:59 PM
I know this was voted down but I wonder I'd it would have covered kids disabled in one if our done attacks? Islamic governments ratifying international UN treaties that direct them on what is in the best interest of their children? I think they would prefer more drone attacks.

La literatura
12-04-2012, 02:02 PM
You have identified the issue, government determines what is in the best interests of the child not the parents. This is new law.

That's absurd. There's no regulation that says anything remotely similar to that. In fact, the language is simply using the standard that American family law cases have developed for custody.

La literatura
12-04-2012, 02:02 PM
I know this was voted down but I wonder I'd it would have covered kids disabled in one if our done attacks?

No, the Treaty explicitly exempts disabled kids who were blown apart by US drones.

La literatura
12-04-2012, 02:03 PM
Why?

Are you unaware of the deficit?

Do you think we have a lot of extra money burning a hole in our pockets?

Based on our economic situation. Should we be a) trying to cut spending or

b) spend money on admitted unnecessary stupid shit that is already covered and won't change or make a difference in our lives but still cost us money and involve the international community for no reason?

Um, b). Obviously.

ForeverChiefs58
12-04-2012, 02:04 PM
Um, b). Obviously.

I new you would see the light :D

Taco John
12-04-2012, 02:05 PM
Because we like to work with (and take charge of) the international community. At least I do.

So you can work with them. Leave me out of it. I'm an American, not a United Natizen. I don't recognize their authority, nor do I care to work with most of the countries involved.

Fat Elvis
12-04-2012, 02:05 PM
As a home school family and members of the HSLDA we strongly petitioned our Senators to reject the treaty. If you are interested in why you can read the HSLDA position and 10 points of contention at: http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2012/201205250.asp

My biggests contention is with article 7(2) of the treaty. Currently federal law requires all public schools to provide special access and services to children with disabilities, but does not require these services be accepted. Under this treaty the decision on matters of schooling are determined by government according to the UN directives (another way of saying bureaucrats decide).

Through the HSLDA parents are fighting hard to ensure parents retain ultimate authority of what is best for the child instead of government. This is an issue of maintaining individual freedom.

Currently 35 Senators have promised to support a Constitutional Amendment identifying parents as the ultimate authority over decisions for their children. This assumed parental authority is tradition not law so many in the home school community see this as a fight for their rights.


That is idiotic. Child abusers are the ultimate authority over decisions for their children?

Are you that dumbass Charlie Fuqua or something?

La literatura
12-04-2012, 02:07 PM
So you can work with them. Leave me out of it. I'm an American, not a United Natizen. I don't recognize their authority, nor do I care to work with most of the countries involved.

Okay. Fortunately for me, the United States government agrees with me.

Taco John
12-04-2012, 02:09 PM
Okay. Fortunately for me, the United States government agrees with me.

I can see that with this measure clearly passing.

La literatura
12-04-2012, 02:11 PM
I can see that with this measure clearly passing.

This measure failing doesn't mean that we aren't part of the UN.

patteeu
12-04-2012, 02:50 PM
That's absurd. There's no regulation that says anything remotely similar to that. In fact, the language is simply using the standard that American family law cases have developed for custody.

Absurd? Who has the last say if a dispute arises as to what's in the best interest of a child?

La literatura
12-04-2012, 03:23 PM
Absurd? Who has the last say if a dispute arises as to what's in the best interest of a child?

In a custody matter, a judge does. It's absurd for this homeschooling association to be worried that the UN is going to bother away a parent's ability to raise their children in any but a well-established, depraved, abusive manner. They make it seem like the unintended consequence of this treaty is imprisoning in the Hague people who spank their kids. It's absurd. This isn't a custody issue; that statement is a generic well-wishing.

donkhater
12-04-2012, 03:25 PM
In a custody matter, a judge does. It's absurd for this homeschooling association to be worried that the UN is going to bother away a parent's ability to raise their children in any but a well-established, depraved, abusive manner. They make it seem like the unintended consequence of this treaty is imprisoning in the Hague people who spank their kids. It's absurd. This isn't a custody issue; that statement is a generic well-wishing.

Again, if the treaty really doesn't have teeth, why is it so important we agree to it?

patteeu
12-04-2012, 03:27 PM
In a custody matter, a judge does. It's absurd for this homeschooling association to be worried that the UN is going to bother away a parent's ability to raise their children in any but a well-established, depraved, abusive manner. They make it seem like the unintended consequence of this treaty is imprisoning in the Hague people who spank their kids. It's absurd. This isn't a custody issue; that statement is a generic well-wishing.

If anyone is worried about UN enforcement of some UN established standard, I'd agree that that's absurd.

I still don't really understand what benefit this treaty would be to us. I'm not necessarily against it. I just don't understand why I should be for it.

La literatura
12-04-2012, 03:33 PM
If anyone is worried about UN enforcement of some UN established standard, I'd agree that that's absurd.

I still don't really understand what benefit this treaty would be to us. I'm not necessarily against it. I just don't understand why I should be for it.

Well, what is something you are interested in? Progress of civilization? Opportunity for people? Spreading American standards of decency? Business competition? Stability in American foreign policy statements?

HonestChieffan
12-04-2012, 04:02 PM
Well, what is something you are interested in? Progress of civilization? Opportunity for people? Spreading American standards of decency? Business competition? Stability in American foreign policy statements?

You think everyone wants your standards imposed upon them?

KC Dan
12-04-2012, 04:03 PM
Okay. Fortunately for me, the United States government agrees with me.And, they are totally disfunctional - surprise!

JonesCrusher
12-04-2012, 04:04 PM
Well, what is something you are interested in? Progress of civilization? Opportunity for people? Spreading American standards of decency? Business competition? Stability in American foreign policy statements?

That must be one hell of a treaty. Or were you just going all "merica" on us.

patteeu
12-04-2012, 04:20 PM
Well, what is something you are interested in? Progress of civilization? Opportunity for people? Spreading American standards of decency? Business competition? Stability in American foreign policy statements?

I'm interested in preventing Islamist takeovers in Egypt and Syria. I'm interested in preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. I'm interested in transitioning from an income tax system to a flat, consumption tax system that helps American companies compete with global competition. Does this help?

Seriously though, I don't know how this treaty is supposed to benefit the US. It can't be as simple as spreading American standards around the world. If it is, what's in it for the countries that are agreeing to adopt our standards?

La literatura
12-04-2012, 04:24 PM
You think everyone wants your standards imposed upon them?

Everyone? There's no sense in trying to satisfy everyone.

La literatura
12-04-2012, 04:26 PM
And, they are totally disfunctional - surprise!

Possibly, but relatively speaking, they are like the least dysfunctional. This really is a fitting analogy.

La literatura
12-04-2012, 04:27 PM
That must be one hell of a treaty. Or were you just going all "merica" on us.

Gotta play to your audience.

La literatura
12-04-2012, 04:33 PM
I'm interested in preventing Islamist takeovers in Egypt and Syria. I'm interested in preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. I'm interested in transitioning from an income tax system to a flat, consumption tax system that helps American companies compete with global competition. Does this help?

Seriously though, I don't know how this treaty is supposed to benefit the US. It can't be as simple as spreading American standards around the world. If it is, what's in it for the countries that are agreeing to adopt our standards?

Maybe they have a bunch of do-gooders at the UN that love disabled people. I don't know. Maybe they just like disabled people. Maybe they get a nice grant for every disabled program they have. Maybe they aren't god-forsaken hell holes and want to help disabled people and think the ADA was a good little model.

The US Chamber of Commerce probably sees it as a way to even up business resources spent on disabled person's accommodations.

ForeverChiefs58
12-04-2012, 04:43 PM
Let someone else wanting the UN more involved in their lives pony up the money that would more than likely just be squandered through corruption anyway.

HonestChieffan
12-04-2012, 05:04 PM
“Ratifying the convention in the Senate would reaffirm America’s position as the global leader on disability rights,” Obama said, “and better position us to encourage progress toward inclusion, equal opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic self-sufficiency for persons with disabilities worldwide.”

1) We need the UN to do that?
2) How does this happen when the US is not even part of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?

Ms. Amna Ali Al Suweidi (Qatar) - 31/12/2012
Mr. Mohammed Al-Tarawneh (Jordan) - 31/12/2012
Mr. Monsur Ahmed Choudhuri (Bangladesh) - 31/12/2012
Ms. María Soledad Cisternas Reyes (Chile) - 31/12/2012
Ms. Theresia Degener (Germany) - 31/12/2014
Mr. Gábor Gombos (Hungary) - 31/12/2012
Ms. Fatiha HADJ-SALAH (Algeria) – 31/12/2012
Mr. Hyung Shik Kim (Republic of Korea) - 31/12/2014
Mr. Lotfi Ben Lallahom (Tunisia) - 31/12/2014
Mr. Stig Langvad (Denmark) - 31/12/2014
Ms. Edah Wangechi Maina (Kenya) - 31/12/2014
Mr. Ronald Clive McCallum (Australia) - 31/12/2014
Ms. Ana Peláez Narváez (Spain) - 31/12/2012
Ms. Silvia Judith QUAN-CHANG (Guatemala) – 31/12/2012
Mr. Carlos Rios Espinosa (Mexico) - 31/12/2014
Mr. Damjan Tatic (Serbia) - 31/12/2014
Mr. Germán Xavier Torres Correa (Ecuador) – 31/12/2014
Ms. Jia Yang (China) - 31/12/2012

3) Check out the countries represented. Some stellar folks there on Human Rights...whew.

donkhater
12-04-2012, 05:44 PM
The UN...laundering American money to despots for nearly a century. Yay progress!!!

Mr. Laz
12-05-2012, 03:09 PM
Another example of the pathetic cesspool that the GOP has become

The U.S. adopted the American Disability Act under Republican President George W Bush Sr.

This ratification will cost the U.S. nothing because they have already done it.

It's merely encouraging other countries throughout the world to follow a U.S. example for wheelchair ramps etc.

even many Republican want it ratified

The extreme right is just lashing out like children, blocking anything they can because they are pissed about having a Democratic President and they hate the U.N. no matter what the topic.

Yea, the party that claims the moral high ground and GOD are the most spiteful,mean people around and they are most likely all going to hell.

Fish
12-05-2012, 03:12 PM
Another example of the pathetic cesspool that the GOP has become

The U.S. adopted the American Disability Act under Republican President George W Bush Sr.

This ratification will cost the U.S. nothing because they have already done it.

It's merely encouraging other countries throughout the world to follow a U.S. example for wheelchair ramps etc.

even many Republican want it ratified

The extreme right is just lashing out like children, blocking anything they can because they are pissed about having a Democratic President and they hate the U.N. no matter what the topic.

Yea, the party that claims the moral high ground and GOD are the most spiteful,mean people around and they are most likely all going to hell.

That is not the responsibility of the UN. Nor should it be. Despite the fact that it encourages something positive.

Mr. Laz
12-05-2012, 03:23 PM
That is not the responsibility of the UN. Nor should it be. Despite the fact that it encourages something positive.
ENCOURAGES SOMETHING POSITIVE ........

so you want to block something good and that doesn't cost the U.S. anything just on the principle of general U.N. hatred?

listen to yourself

insane

why don't you contact the Disable American Veterans and tell them how wrong they are for supporting ratification?

Disabled American Veterans across the globe wouldn't be helps by ramps etc in foreign countries? Or maybe call Senator Bob Dole and tell him to go get ****ed. :spock:

Ebolapox
12-05-2012, 03:27 PM
why can't they just do this after the new session starts? seems that the lame-duck session is the issue (although I don't see why they couldn't ratify it now)

Fish
12-05-2012, 03:38 PM
ENCOURAGES SOMETHING POSITIVE ........

so you want to block something good and that doesn't cost the U.S. anything just on the principle of general U.N. hatred?

listen to yourself

insane

what don't you contact the Disable American Veterans and tell them how wrong they are for supporting ratification.

Disabled American Veterans across the globe wouldn't be helps by ramps etc in foreign countries. Or maybe call Senator Bob Dole and tell him to go get fucked. :spock:

No, I don't have any hatred for the UN at all. And it has nothing to do with being "Against" any disabled people.

It has everything to do with the US demanding that other countries follow US protocol. Whatever that protocol might be. If this were an anti-smoking ratification, I'd still feel the same way. I don't think we need UN policy to force other countries to be more like the US. It's as simple as that. This ratification does nothing for the US. We already have these things in place. All it does is make other countries play by US rules, which generally causes those other countries to hate us. We are not the policy makers for the world.

DementedLogic
12-05-2012, 04:47 PM
So why is the UN trying to internationalize domestic policy?

BucEyedPea
12-05-2012, 04:49 PM
No, I don't have any hatred for the UN at all. And it has nothing to do with being "Against" any disabled people.

It has everything to do with the US demanding that other countries follow US protocol. Whatever that protocol might be. If this were an anti-smoking ratification, I'd still feel the same way. I don't think we need UN policy to force other countries to be more like the US. It's as simple as that. This ratification does nothing for the US. We already have these things in place. All it does is make other countries play by US rules, which generally causes those other countries to hate us. We are not the policy makers for the world.

Good post. I agree.

Mr. Laz
12-05-2012, 07:31 PM
If you thought the Republican Party only tries to appeal to well-off, married, white suburban and rural Christian men, boy are you wrong. The Republican Party tried to appeal only to well-off, white, suburban and rural able-bodied Christian men.
The party further narrowed its ever-narrowing base on Tuesday when 38 senators voted to reject the United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. Former Sen. Bob Dole, who lost the use of his right arm in World War II, appeared on the Senate floor in a wheelchair, to shame his fellow Republicans into voting “aye.” It was like the scene from The Godfather Part II, when Frankie Pentangeli’s brother appears in a Senate committee room to shame Frankie from breaking the code of omerta and testifying against Michael Corleone.

In this case, though, it didn’t work. The Senate Republicans were shameless. They didn’t listen to Dole or to President George H.W. Bush, another World War II veteran who signed the Americans With Disabilities Act, on which the U.N. Convention was based. Instead, they listened to former Sen. Rick Santorum, who traveled to Washington to warn that the Convention could interfere with the right of parents to home school disabled children. Santorum, whose daughter is disabled, said the treaty would be a “direct assault on us and our family” because it would allow the government to separate disabled children from their parents. But as Dana Milbank wrote in the Washington Post:

The treaty requires virtually nothing of the United States. It essentially directs the other signatories to update their laws so that they more closely match the Americans with Disabilities Act. Even Lee thought it necessary to preface his opposition with the qualifier that “our concerns with this convention have nothing to do with any lack of concern for the rights of persons with disabilities.”

Their concerns, rather, came from the dark world of U.N. conspiracy theories. The opponents argue that the treaty, like most everything the United Nations does, undermines American sovereignty — in this case via a plot to keep Americans from home-schooling their children and making other decisions about their well-being.

So Tea Party paranoia triumphed over reaching out to a marginalized group. That dynamic pretty much defines the contemporary Republican Party.

Dick Durbin voted yes on the Convention. Mark Kirk -- the senator who would have benefited most from ratification -- was the only senator who did not vote. He’s still recovering from the stroke he suffered in January.



Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/With-Vote-Against-Disability-Treaty-GOP-Further-Narrows-Its-Base-182207781.html#ixzz2EEOJWQmz

BigRedChief
12-05-2012, 07:35 PM
ENCOURAGES SOMETHING POSITIVE ........

so you want to block something good and that doesn't cost the U.S. anything just on the principle of general U.N. hatred?

listen to yourself

insane

what don't you contact the Disable American Veterans and tell them how wrong they are for supporting ratification.

Disabled American Veterans across the globe wouldn't be helps by ramps etc in foreign countries. Or maybe call Senator Bob Dole and tell him to go get fucked. :spock:This was across the red line partisan politics. Who cares if our 30K Iraq and Afghanistan disabled war vets have access to stuff in the rest of the world. R's, this was pathetic.

Mr. Laz
12-05-2012, 07:39 PM
No, I don't have any hatred for the UN at all. And it has nothing to do with being "Against" any disabled people.

It has everything to do with the US demanding that other countries follow US protocol. Whatever that protocol might be. If this were an anti-smoking ratification, I'd still feel the same way. I don't think we need UN policy to force other countries to be more like the US. It's as simple as that. This ratification does nothing for the US. We already have these things in place. All it does is make other countries play by US rules, which generally causes those other countries to hate us. We are not the policy makers for the world.
The treaty has zero power to force countries to do anything ... Zero.

this is an agreement and guideline that encourage participation.


pathetic excuses ... looking for a reason to block everything they can

BigRedChief
12-05-2012, 07:39 PM
If anyone is worried about UN enforcement of some UN established standard, I'd agree that that's absurd.

I still don't really understand what benefit this treaty would be to us. I'm not necessarily against it. I just don't understand why I should be for it.see my last post. Our disabled vets are young. It would help them travel easier. For that reason alone, the R's should have passed the bill.

Mr. Laz
12-05-2012, 07:41 PM
So why is the UN trying to internationalize domestic policy?
dam U.N for trying to get other countries to help the disable.


just evil




utterly pathetic

Mr. Laz
12-05-2012, 07:45 PM
If anyone is worried about UN enforcement of some UN established standard, I'd agree that that's absurd.

I still don't really understand what benefit this treaty would be to us. I'm not necessarily against it. I just don't understand why I should be for it.
Why does it need to benefit us at all?

Why can't it be just good for people across the world?


it doesn't cost us anything ... it doesn't force us to do anything


when disabled American citizens travel the world it would make it a bit easier.


it's just simply disgusting the attitude people have taken ... they don't give a shit about anything or anyone.

BucEyedPea
12-05-2012, 07:45 PM
We don't need no stinkin' UN.

Mr. Laz
12-05-2012, 07:58 PM
We don't need no stinkin' UN.
weak

so fuck helping the disabled because the U.N. has something to do with it?

ForeverChiefs58
12-05-2012, 07:59 PM
There are a number of reasons the United States shouldn’t ratify this treaty, not to mention that the US leads the world in how it treats the disabled. As Betsy Woodruff pointed out, being against this treaty does not mean one is against the disabled.


Many conservatives oppose its ratification because of language in Article 4 that refers to economic, social, and cultural rights. The treaty says that each signatory should “take measures to the maximum of its available resources . . . with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of these rights.” Our government, based on the Constitution, defines rights in terms of what the government cannot do to its citizens, not in terms of what it owes them. But the U.N. language emphasizes what the signatories owe to their citizens, what they must do in order to protect these newly enumerated “rights.” In the past, we rejected a treaty that referred to “economic, social, and cultural rights,” while Soviet-bloc countries were quick to embrace such language.

And we haven’t even started on how self-abasing it would be for the U.S. to comply with the treaty. Every four years, we would be required to put together an interagency report on our disability-rights record (a project that would cost millions), and also to send a delegation (usually of at least 20 people) to Geneva to appear before a panel of international disability-rights experts. Panels of this sort often vilify our country’s human-rights record, according to Groves. “I’ve attended these sessions,” he says. “They’re absolutely insulting.” He continues: “We have to go to Geneva for what I call our quadrennial spanking, spending millions in assets and sweat and labor to throw ourselves in front of this committee just to get smacked around and told we’re doing a terrible, terrible job.”

Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

1. Any remaining state sovereignty on the issue of disability law will be entirely eliminated by the ratification of this treaty. The rule of international law is that the nation-state that ratifies the treaty has the obligation to ensure compliance. This gives Congress total authority to legislate on all matters regarding disability law—a power that is substantially limited today. Article 4(5) makes this explicit.

2. Article 4(1)(a) demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of the UN.

3. Article 4(1)(e) remands that “every person, organization, or private enterprise” must eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. On its face, this means that every home owner would have to make their own home fully accessible to those with disabilities. If the UN wants to make exceptions, perhaps they could. But, on its face this is the meaning of the treaty.

4. Article 4(1)(e) also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your church will be established by the UN—not your local government or your church.

5. Article 4(2) requires the United States to use its maximum resources for compliance with these standards. The UN has interpreted similar provisions in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to criticize nations who spend too much on military issues and not enough on social programs. There is every reason to believe that the UN would interpret these provisions in a similar fashion. The UN believes that it has the power to determine the legitimacy and lawfulness of the budget of the United States to assess compliance with such treaties.

6. Article 6(2) is a backdoor method of requiring the United States to comply with the general provisions of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This treaty enshrines abortion rights, homosexual rights, and demands the complete disarmament of all people.

7. Article 7(2) advances the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the government—acting under UN directives—gets to determine for all children with disabilities what the government thinks is best.

Additionally, under current American law, federal law requires public schools to offer special assistance to children with disabilities. However, no parent is required to accept such assistance. Under this section the government—and not the parent—would have the ultimate authority to determine if a child with special needs will be homeschooled, attend a private school, or be required to accept the program offered by the public school.

8. The United States, as a wealthy nation, would be obligated to fund disability programs in nations that could not afford their own programs under the dictates of Article 4(2). This is what “the framework of international cooperation” means.

9. Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment.” This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States.

10. Article 25 on Education does not repeat the parental rights rules of earlier human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This is an important omission. Coupling this omission with the direct declaration of “the best interest of the child” standard in Article 7(2), this convention is nothing less than the complete eradication of parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.

http://lonelyconservative.com/2012/12/why-should-the-us-ratify-the-un-disability-treaty-there-are-plenty-of-reasons-not-to/

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2012/201205250.asp

ForeverChiefs58
12-05-2012, 08:04 PM
ENCOURAGES SOMETHING POSITIVE ........

so you want to block something good and that doesn't cost the U.S. anything just on the principle of general U.N. hatred?

listen to yourself

insane

why don't you contact the Disable American Veterans and tell them how wrong they are for supporting ratification?

Disabled American Veterans across the globe wouldn't be helps by ramps etc in foreign countries? Or maybe call Senator Bob Dole and tell him to go get ****ed. :spock:


This is wrong. It would cost everybody. If you knew the treaty well enough I would think every American would be against it.

BucEyedPea
12-05-2012, 08:50 PM
weak
Not to me.

so **** helping the disabled because the U.N. has something to do with it?

We don't need no stinkin' UN period. For anything, including the disabled. We need to be independent.

La literatura
12-05-2012, 09:07 PM
This is wrong. It would cost everybody. If you knew the treaty well enough I would think every American would be against it.

How stupid can you be? It's based off a law that is already in existence in the US -- which means we won't have to do anything more to comply with it. Both Bush presidents were for it. The Senate Foreign Committee that read and discussed it approved it. Bob Dole flew to Chambers to advocate for it.

ForeverChiefs58
12-05-2012, 10:12 PM
How stupid can you be? It's based off a law that is already in existence in the US -- which means we won't have to do anything more to comply with it. Both Bush presidents were for it. The Senate Foreign Committee that read and discussed it approved it. Bob Dole flew to Chambers to advocate for it.

Did you read post # 94?

La literatura
12-05-2012, 10:22 PM
Did you read post # 94?

Yes, I read it when it was first posted in #34 in this thread. If you actually believe that, you're really naive, silly, and attribute a lot of conspiracy to the treaty that shows tremendous ignorance.

go bowe
12-05-2012, 10:24 PM
ENCOURAGES SOMETHING POSITIVE ........

so you want to block something good and that doesn't cost the U.S. anything just on the principle of general U.N. hatred?

listen to yourself

insane

why don't you contact the Disable American Veterans and tell them how wrong they are for supporting ratification?

Disabled American Veterans across the globe wouldn't be helps by ramps etc in foreign countries? Or maybe call Senator Bob Dole and tell him to go get ****ed. :spock:

that's a good way to get banned or worse...

Fat Elvis
12-05-2012, 10:54 PM
There are a number of reasons the United States shouldn’t ratify this treaty, not to mention that the US leads the world in how it treats the disabled. As Betsy Woodruff pointed out, being against this treaty does not mean one is against the disabled.


Many conservatives oppose its ratification because of language in Article 4 that refers to economic, social, and cultural rights. The treaty says that each signatory should “take measures to the maximum of its available resources . . . with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of these rights.” Our government, based on the Constitution, defines rights in terms of what the government cannot do to its citizens, not in terms of what it owes them. But the U.N. language emphasizes what the signatories owe to their citizens, what they must do in order to protect these newly enumerated “rights.” In the past, we rejected a treaty that referred to “economic, social, and cultural rights,” while Soviet-bloc countries were quick to embrace such language.

And we haven’t even started on how self-abasing it would be for the U.S. to comply with the treaty. Every four years, we would be required to put together an interagency report on our disability-rights record (a project that would cost millions), and also to send a delegation (usually of at least 20 people) to Geneva to appear before a panel of international disability-rights experts. Panels of this sort often vilify our country’s human-rights record, according to Groves. “I’ve attended these sessions,” he says. “They’re absolutely insulting.” He continues: “We have to go to Geneva for what I call our quadrennial spanking, spending millions in assets and sweat and labor to throw ourselves in front of this committee just to get smacked around and told we’re doing a terrible, terrible job.”

Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

1. Any remaining state sovereignty on the issue of disability law will be entirely eliminated by the ratification of this treaty. The rule of international law is that the nation-state that ratifies the treaty has the obligation to ensure compliance. This gives Congress total authority to legislate on all matters regarding disability law—a power that is substantially limited today. Article 4(5) makes this explicit.

2. Article 4(1)(a) demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of the UN.

3. Article 4(1)(e) remands that “every person, organization, or private enterprise” must eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. On its face, this means that every home owner would have to make their own home fully accessible to those with disabilities. If the UN wants to make exceptions, perhaps they could. But, on its face this is the meaning of the treaty.

4. Article 4(1)(e) also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your church will be established by the UN—not your local government or your church.

5. Article 4(2) requires the United States to use its maximum resources for compliance with these standards. The UN has interpreted similar provisions in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to criticize nations who spend too much on military issues and not enough on social programs. There is every reason to believe that the UN would interpret these provisions in a similar fashion. The UN believes that it has the power to determine the legitimacy and lawfulness of the budget of the United States to assess compliance with such treaties.

6. Article 6(2) is a backdoor method of requiring the United States to comply with the general provisions of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This treaty enshrines abortion rights, homosexual rights, and demands the complete disarmament of all people.

7. Article 7(2) advances the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the government—acting under UN directives—gets to determine for all children with disabilities what the government thinks is best.

Additionally, under current American law, federal law requires public schools to offer special assistance to children with disabilities. However, no parent is required to accept such assistance. Under this section the government—and not the parent—would have the ultimate authority to determine if a child with special needs will be homeschooled, attend a private school, or be required to accept the program offered by the public school.

8. The United States, as a wealthy nation, would be obligated to fund disability programs in nations that could not afford their own programs under the dictates of Article 4(2). This is what “the framework of international cooperation” means.

9. Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment.” This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States.

10. Article 25 on Education does not repeat the parental rights rules of earlier human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This is an important omission. Coupling this omission with the direct declaration of “the best interest of the child” standard in Article 7(2), this convention is nothing less than the complete eradication of parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.

http://lonelyconservative.com/2012/12/why-should-the-us-ratify-the-un-disability-treaty-there-are-plenty-of-reasons-not-to/

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2012/201205250.asp

That and homeschoolers were afraid that UN Peacekeeping forces would bust down their doors and call bullshit on Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs.

http://ken_ashford.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/08/526893292_e95eb57c10.jpg

ForeverChiefs58
12-05-2012, 11:02 PM
Senator Lee: “We don’t think that it’s appropriate for the United States to be answering to a U.N. convention based in Geneva, Switzerland, when we are the leader of the world on this issue, as we are on so many other issues,”

"The notion that it might improve travel conditions for Americans traveling abroad is a complete non sequitur, and it has nothing to do with the treaty at all.”

“There is no American living here in the U.S. whose life will change one iota because the United States joins this treaty”

This treaty would cost the taxpayers who fund the government.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/334605/un-treaty-rights-disabled-betsy-woodruff#

go bowe
12-05-2012, 11:05 PM
That and homeschoolers were afraid that UN Peacekeeping forces would bust down their doors and call bullshit on Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs.

http://ken_ashford.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/08/526893292_e95eb57c10.jpg

LMAO

patteeu
12-05-2012, 11:07 PM
see my last post. Our disabled vets are young. It would help them travel easier. For that reason alone, the R's should have passed the bill.

No one needs to travel outside of our country. We've got a lot of places to go here.

go bowe
12-05-2012, 11:19 PM
betsy spent a lot of time telling the reader what various articles mean, and she was wrong every time...

her article is just that, an opinion piece from a right-wing magazine...

the facts are that the treaty would cost us nothing and does not require us to do anything...

the reason most r senators voted against it is because they are afraid of being primaried by the extreme right, who are the only ones who actually believe this crap...

go bowe
12-05-2012, 11:22 PM
i particularly like the part about section 9 banning spanking in the u.s.

almost as good as forcing home schooled children to go to public school... LMAO

ForeverChiefs58
12-05-2012, 11:33 PM
How stupid can you be? It's based off a law that is already in existence in the US -- which means we won't have to do anything more to comply with it. Both Bush presidents were for it. The Senate Foreign Committee that read and discussed it approved it. Bob Dole flew to Chambers to advocate for it.

One of Bob Dole's friends who has known him for years, Jerry Moran a republican from Kansas stated:

“Genuine concerns raised by the language of this treaty ... have made it clear that foreign officials should not be put in a position to interfere with U.S. policymaking,”

“I do not support the cumbersome regulations and potentially overzealous international organizations with anti-American biases that infringe upon American society,” said Sen. Jim Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/12/04/3948960/vote-for-un-disability-rights.html#storylink=cpy