A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

GOP Senate apparently hasn't hit bottom yet,

Posted: Dec 5, 2012

Yesterday, with Bob Dole visiting the Senate in his wheelchair in support, the Senate voted on ratifying the treaty adopting the U.N. version of our Americans with Disabilities Act, passed under President George H. W. Bush. In spite of bipartisan leadership by 2 war heroes, John McCain and John Kerry, and strong support among many of the GOP Senators, radical Republicans in the Senate voted AGAINST it. Why?

Well, as Rick Santorum explained in his new column for a far-right birther rag, World Net Daily, it's all a continuing plot to hand the U.S. over to the U.N. and to sanction the murder of disabled children. Not mentioned, but understood to be hehind all this are also End Times and the Antichrist (Obama to some), as well as a longstanding resistance among the reactionary right to cooperating with other nations. (As in, we have to be Big Boss, with others confined to asking "How high?", or we won't play.)

As Santorum begins his article, The Treaty Crushes U.S. Sovereignty, "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."

According to Santorum, the law isn't really about wheelchair access on street curbs but is an evil plot to allow governments to murder disabled children, including his own, and a link is below for those who want to read the rest of his paranoid and delusional case.

What's important here are the wingnuts some areas of our country have actually elected to our Congress. Unleadable by sensible leaders, shockingly ignorant, seemingly incapable of good judgment, and demonstrably vulnerable to the silliest and most radical ideas, one would expect to see people with this message standing on the streets downtown, waving tracts and shouting warnings at people walking by. Instead they are involved in formulating national policy in the House and Senate. They were among the worst their home districts had to offer and could only be elected by a system of gerrymandering that has allowed cynical billionaires to choose and put them in power in Washington. They certainly do not truly represent the viewpoints of most of the conservatives of their districts.

;

Looking forward to Board Conservative defense on this - Really sad

[ In Reply To ..]
I sure wish there was a way of getting rid of the gerrymandering and big money out of politics.

I really wish people would understand the real reasons - backwards typist

[ In Reply To ..]
for not passing laws and not just take the word of some blogger or political columnist from one side or the other.

I'm not putting you down but just don't like people jumping to conclusions after reading an article. This is why I went straight to the source before commenting on the OP's post.

Do you really understand what this is about? Read my reply...and it was NOT about passing an Americans with Disabilities Act. We have that.

"it was NOT about passing an Americans with Disabilities Act." - grits

[ In Reply To ..]
Yes, and I believe we all understood that. My concern for human dignity doesn't begin and end with Americans.

Well, i for one would be against this treaty since it - backwards typist

[ In Reply To ..]
would allow the U.N. to override our laws.

Since the U.N. is now comprised of more "enemies" than allies, this would NOT be a good thing. I just don't trust the U.N. anymore. I wish the U.S. would kick them out of our country...especially since they owe us how many years of rent???

I want to find the original document and read it.

link to the treaty - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
No, BT, the treaty would not allow the U.N. to override our laws. I wonder how you arrived at this conclusion when you freely admit you have not read the treaty itself. It's pretty easy to find. All you have to do is google its title, which is found in your own post.

Answer: From what I read in the Digest. Thanks for the link. - backwards typist

[ In Reply To ..]
I'll read it later tonight or first thing tomorrow. I have to "leave" soon. My leg is being mean today and it's swelling up. Have to elevate it.

take care - : )

[ In Reply To ..]

When you do (no snark) - grits

[ In Reply To ..]
I hope that you will sum up your issues with it in your own words and post your thoughts here.

Disclaimer, since those are always a good idea: This is not a directive, order, or command. I exert no authority over backwards typist or anyone else (like, at all - even the dogs take my commands as mere suggestions) :)

BW, children of the world do NOT NEED PROTECTION from the - United States and United Nations, especially by

[ In Reply To ..]
this pack of lowest denominators. Of all the nerve! For anyone to believe such a thing of their fellow members of the Senate. This is an outrage, and no reasons for believing this will excuse it.

it's not to protect children from the US. - what're you talking about?

[ In Reply To ..]
.

A majority would have ratified, and we are part of the U.N. YES - these fools are just that stupid and arrogant.nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

left field is thataway... - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
this is not about children, and it is certainly not about protecting children from the U.S.(!) This is about human beings with disabilities, and the basic premise that the disabled are entitled to the same rights and freedoms that all citizens enjoy.

I will. just thought you'd like to see what a few senators stated ;-) - backwards typist

[ In Reply To ..]
.

Love that disclaimer for what it is worth : ) - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

(but you didn't read the treaty) - --

[ In Reply To ..]
that's not exactly going to the source.

Congressional Digest is the source why some voted against it - backwards typist

[ In Reply To ..]
Which is what the OP asked.

It's right from the "horses" mouth. It's the way the Congress debates and votes. It's the printed version of CSpan but from the law library itself.

Amen - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
If this vote has not convinced many of you how absolutely crazy some of these right-wingers are, how scared witless they are by the Tea Party faction, then nothing will.

These same people may keep Boehner from fiscal cliff - agreement--until 1/3/13 when he's

[ In Reply To ..]
reelected Speaker. If he is. He can't control them, they're a large power block in the House, and they are ideologically opposed to the idea of a two-party system with cooperation between parties. I suppose I would be too if Satan were in charge of the other side, but this is the real world and these bumped-up buffoons are a serious drag on our nation's wellbeing.

it's shocking or heartbreaking (can't figure out which) - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Having read the entire U.N. document, as well as Mr. Santorum's baseless remarks, I can only conclude that he is dangerously addled. I don't even think it's reasonable for someone so completely out of touch with reality to hold public office.

If I had to make a guess, it would be that Mr. Santorum is opposed to the reproductive freedom, and access to reproductive planning, advocated by the treaty. There is certainly no reason to believe that the treaty represents a plot against disabled children or their parents.

Anyone else would have to undergo a psych evaluation for this kind of delusional ideation.

I wanted to bring this up myself, but - grits

[ In Reply To ..]
I still can't quite wrap my mind around it. Plus, none of the thoughts that have worked their way through my utter astonishment are fit for posting on this forum. They are profane.

There *is* no defense of this. There is no justification. I doubt any conservative with a shred of self-respect would even try.

Reading up on the comments in the Senate. (Very Long answer) - backwards typist

[ In Reply To ..]
Here are only 3-4 reasons why some voted against it and, truthfully, I find those reasons to be warranted. This was NOT about an American with Disabilities Act, it was a U.N. Treaty.

It seems that those who voted against just don't want the U.N. dictating to us. They are afraid of some Articles in this treaty, specifically Article 7 in which, they state:
"We the below-signed leaders from forty national organizations represent millions of Americans. We respectfully urge the United States Senate to reject ratification of the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
We are troubled that article 7 of this treaty, in establishing the ``best interests of the child'' legal standard, would override the traditional fundamental right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their child with special needs.
We are troubled that such a reduction in legal protection in cases of children with disabilities will create an atmosphere discriminatory against those children and their families.
We are troubled that New Zealand's Education Act of 1989, which has been held to conform to the CRPD, allows the Secretary of Education to force any child with special needs into government-run schools ``if the Secretary thinks [the student] would be better off.'' This transfers the right to direct a child's education from fit and loving parents to an officer of the State, in contravention of American tradition and the International Declaration of Human Rights. Yet it accords with this treaty.
We are troubled that accession to this treaty, despite assurances to the contrary, will lead to legal action against private individuals, as seen in the 2011 case of Bond v. United States.

"We are troubled that accession to this treaty would place our nation under the scrutiny and review of an international committee unelected by the American people, thus violating the vital principle of American self-government."

Mr. INHOFE. But I would also say that the bureaucrats who would be running the program would have points of clarification where it is otherwise vague, and I think that could happen. And the point I am making here is we don't need to do that when we have our own here.
So I am not satisfied they would not interfere or through their clarifications could change the intent. And even if they don't, we have taken care of our problem here.

If this vote and this treaty were in fact about protecting the rights of Americans with disabilities, then I might have a different position and the debate today would take on a very different tone. But this treaty is ultimately not about protecting the rights of Americans with disabilities because this treaty simply has no enforcement mechanism to protect those rights, the rights of disabled Americans, including veterans, who might travel to countries such as China or Russia or Mali or any other country that might choose to adopt this treaty.

….causes me some concern. First, article 34 establishes a committee, a committee on the rights of persons with disabilities. This committee will establish its own rules of procedure, and parties to the treaty are required to submit reports to the committee every 4 years. In general, U.N. human rights treaty committees have made demands of state parties that fall well outside of the legal, social, economic, and cultural traditions and norms of state parties.

Article 7 of this treaty provides a ``best interests of
the child'' standard stating:
In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
We all want to support the best interests of the child, every child. But I and many of my constituents, including those who homeschool their children or send their children to private or religious schools, have doubts that a foreign, U.N. body, a committee operating out of Geneva, Switzerland, should decide what is in the interests of the child at home with his or her parents in Utah or in any other State in our great Union.
Article 4 of this treaty obligates the United States to recognize economic, social, and cultural entitlements as rights under domestic U.S. law. The Senate, in my opinion, has not adequately investigated how this standard will affect domestic U.S. Federal and State law. We have had one hearing on this issue that included both proponents and opponents of the treaty but did not substantively address my concerns about this standard, about this significant addition to what would become the law of the land of the United States of America.

Mr. UDALL: "This convention will do nothing to improve the rights of Americans in the United States. We have little evidence to suggest that joining this convention and its committee will ensure that other countries improve their protection of disabled people. Of the 126 member countries, this convention's committee has only issued recommendations to a handful.
Portions of this convention also concern reproductive health, the rights of families, and the use of the treaty in our courts.
Attempts were made in the committee to clarify some of these sections and protect American sovereignty, but those attempts were defeated.
We should never cede the authority of these matters to an international organization."

Mr. GRASSLEY: " However, becoming a party to the convention would subject the United States to the eighteen-member Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This committee is created to monitor the implementation of the convention and provide conclusions and recommendations with regard to State Party's treaty reports. I have serious concerns about the infringement upon U.S. sovereignty by a committee tasked with providing criticisms and recommendations for the United States on our disability laws.
Further, the convention raises additional concerns by unnecessarily including references in the area of ``sexual and reproductive health'' and the ``best interests of the child.'' These provisions call into question the purpose of the convention regarding abortion rights and the fundamental rights of parents to determine how best to raise their children.
It is for these reasons, along with the decision of the majority leader to shut out the rights of Senators by prohibiting the consideration of any amendments, that I oppose this convention."

Mr. RUBIO: The treaty's supporters have argued that its passage will elevate disability rights abroad, to the benefit of disabled people not fortunate enough to live under laws like ours and also to disabled Americans when they travel. However, the United States already promotes disabled rights and better laws abroad through the State Department and our foreign embassies. The Americans With Disabilities Act, and subsequent improvements to it, should be the law upon which other countries base their own laws protecting their disabled people and aiming to make their lives better.
I believe America's example should lead the way on achieving stronger universal disability rights than the United Nations, the governing body entrusted to oversee this treaty's implementation. The American example of millions of disabled Americans living their dreams is a stronger force to compel other countries to do the same than a United Nations body populated by such chronic human rights abusers as China and Russia, nations that fail to respect the fundamental rights of everyone, much less their disabled.
When this treaty was originally negotiated, a bipartisan consensus existed that this treaty would not address abortion. This is an appropriate position when you consider that, too often, unborn children in the United States and across the world are aborted because their disabilities have been detected while in the womb."

...about those below-signed leaders... - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
In your earlier post above, you urged us to "not just take the word of some blogger or political columnist". Yet, in this post you have supplied us with the text of an Action Alert from the Freedom2Care blogspot (the tag labels of which include: religious freedom, treaties, and abortion)!

The ensuing remarks about the treaty from Udall, Grassley, and Rubio are ill-informed political talking points that have virtually nothing whatsoever to do with the reality of the treaty itself.

The "best interest of the child" doctrine has been the gold standard in the United States of America since the 1970s, and there is no reason to behave as if this is a new and threatening tenet, or to believe it would obstruct parents from raising their families as they see fit.

I would urge everyone to look at who the "below-signed leaders from forty national organizations" are and come to their own conclusions regarding sense and sensibility.

The remarks were taken from the Senate yesterday. - backwards typist

[ In Reply To ..]
They were not from some article posted on line. I have not idea what Action Alert is or that Freedom2Care. Never heard of them.

I got the info from the Congressional Record itself. So, don't assume, please.

Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Treaty: By 61 yeas to 38 nays (Vote No. 219), two-thirds of the Senators present and not having voted in the affirmative, the resolution of ratification to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 13, 2006, and signed by the United States of America on June 30, 2009 (the ``Convention'') (Treaty Doc. 112-7) was not agreed to and the Senate does not advise and consent to the ratification of the treaty. Pages S7365-79

do you see the paragraph that starts off with - "we the below-signed leaders"?

[ In Reply To ..]
Since congress does not petition itself, that was my cue to google. I do not know where you found it, I am only citing its source. It most certainly did not come from the Congressional Record.

Similar Messages:

Sep 10, 2012
No one wants to be on the board, so one guy and the management company handle everything. I've been on the board before and don't really want to do that again. I think things are managed in an okay (not great) fashion, but I'm worried about not having annual meetings. Is it worth creating a fuss about or should I just keep quiet since I'm not really willing to serve on the board. Just wondering what others think. ...

Oct 19, 2013
made a statement on the problems with signing up for healthcare. He comes out and talks for other less important things all the time, why not this? I would say this is a big deal. If I called something my signature achievement, I'd certainly want to show people I was involved in making it work. ...

Dec 12, 2016
...and I think we remember that Hillary Clinton advocated hacking the Palestinian election. This phony self-righteous umbrage and outrage - really, McCain? Gimme a break. But hey - all the media and politicians have to do is dish it out, and we little people will swallow it whole without question. ...

Sep 01, 2015
Surely, the question is puzzling to many on both sides of the aisle. There are several reasons, in my opinion: 1. The Clintons have been getting away with sleaze - and worse - throughout their public lives. There is a part of Hillary that believes she will escape consequences one more time. 2. Hillary sees herself as "entitled" to this Presidency. 3. Hillary has little or no regard for either the intelligence OR the character of her supporters. If you support Hil ...

Dec 04, 2013
CARSON: Getting to the top by starting at the bottom The lessons learned in youth jobs can pay off later By Ben S. Carson I vividly remember as a teenager obtaining my first job with a regular paycheck as a high school biology-laboratory assistant. It’s hard to describe how excited I was to be receiving a salary and contributing to the upkeep of my family’s household, but the biggest thrill was doing something important while at the same time acquiring many skills that would p ...

Jul 02, 2017
It is happening across the nation. Progressives are winning in the local level governments, driving out the right wing and blue dogs. ...

Jan 20, 2010
nm ...

Sep 06, 2012
Take a look at the dire situation that America was experiencing in 1981, when Reagan took office, and take a look at what the economy looked like 3 years later. What Clinton meant to say (his teleprompter malfunctioned) was "No president who's as inept as this one could fix the economy in 4 years - and I doubt he can do it in 8 years either, if he keeps on going the way he's going." ...

Oct 25, 2014
. ...

Mar 03, 2011
and will most likely keep them there. Arrogance in thinking that there were more of them than any other school of thought. Arrogance in thinking that the sleeping giant of Americans who had been apathetic for so long were going to stay that way. Arrogance in thinking they could fly in the face of what the majority of the American people said they wanted and tell them they did not know what they were talking about. They are still arrogant, blaming the midterm shellacking o ...

May 14, 2010
Another company makes rocker bottom flipflops AND boots. I don't think the boots are exactly work boots, but boots nevertheless. The company is Fitflops. Google FITFLOPS. Huge selection. ...

Jul 15, 2016
It's heresy, I know, to challenge the cherished notion of America as "the melting pot" that we've been taught to believe in since childhood, but I've become convinced that Muslim and non-Muslim (especially Judeo-Christian) cultures are about as miscible as oil and water. I don't think that the concept of the "melting pot" was ever intended to imply that ALL cultures can be melded into one grand "super-culture." And what's more, I don't see anything wrong or "un-Am ...

Mar 25, 2011
We seem to never give up on a topic, do we?! We're a bunch of stubborn, hard-headed people. ...

Nov 26, 2012
My thoughts exactly. Absolutely impossible to post anything on this board that might in the least be able to be twisted into a negative against Pres Obama. I taught my sons and now my grandchildren first and foremost to be honest to establish a character that others can trust and respect, to be compassionate, to be open-minded but to be true and not swayed from their established values. I think almost any open-minded individual reading this board would agree there is very much a bullying nature ...

Jan 22, 2014
I got married really young, but have stuck it out for nearly 20 years. I have become my husband's mother more than his wife. He suffers from bipolar disorder that was not diagnosed until 10 years ago and has become progressively worse. To compound that problem, he is an alcoholic who continually falls off the wagon. He has not and will not work. In the history of our marriage he has held two real jobs for very short periods of time (less than a year) and has do ...

Nov 07, 2012
Even though a nation of heavily gerrymandered congressional districts didn't see much turnover from party to party, a number of the most reactionary candidates have been rejected this time. Our national flirtation with extremism seems to have taught a lot of us that we really don't like it. Good start ato turnaround anyway. Without the gerrymandering protecting people of BOTH parties, this would have been a year of enormous change. ...

Jun 29, 2017
is a PIG, a DISGRACE. How anyone with any integrity or morals can defend him is beyond comprehension. He is a bully and has been a bully his entire life. People voted for the Apprentice reality star and got a buffoon for president who is bringing the reputation as leader of the free world down into the gutter. ...

Aug 23, 2012
Of course he hasn't. He has no intentions of trying to fix anything. Crash and burn, says Obama about a country he hates. link ...

Nov 09, 2014
Harry and Barry really didn't want it to come to this, but the Supremes WILL hear the case on Obamacare mandates. You can't just rewrite the law to suit yourself, guys. Hoipefully, the Supremes will see this as most of the rest of us do. Time will tell. Link ...

Oct 20, 2009
Senate Health Bill - 1502 pages "It's important to remember that the bill won't exist in this form for long. Senate Majority Leader Reid and Sens. Max Baucus and Chris Dodd along with senior White House aides are merging the Finance and Health Committee legislation into one bill that will be considered on the floor of the Senate. The behind-closed-doors dealings have drawn criticism from Republicans, particularly because President Obama had promised a transparent process and ...

Dec 04, 2010
They voted on the Baucus amendment and the Schumer amendment and both failed to pass. I find some of the comments very interesting from both sides. I will not give my comments on either side's remarks although I saw some really hateful speeches. I decided to look for any news reports on this but it doesn't tell the whole story. BTW, Baucus' proposal was to let tax rates rise on Jan. 1 on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples fell on a vote of ...

Mar 22, 2010
So it's not over yet. Washington (CNN) -- Now that the House has passed the Senate's health care reform bill and a package meant to reconcile differences between the House and Senate bills, the next step is for members of the Senate to sign off on those changes. That won't be as easy as it sounds. Senate Republicans have indicated they will use any and all legislative tactics in order to slow -- even stop -- the reconciliation bill from passing. President Obama is expected to ...

Apr 04, 2011
If GWB did this there would be outrage (rightly so). ...

Jan 28, 2013
step down after next year. He's way too conservative for me, but apparently entirely too responsible and independent to suit the teapartiers and their backers. "In his retirement announcement, Mr. Chambliss expressed confidence that he would have beaten such foes, even as he voiced his frustration that compromise was increasingly impossible in Washington. “I have no doubt that had I decided to be a candidate, I would have won re-election,” he said. “Instead, this is ...

May 06, 2014
From the man who GOT bin Laden!IF we have to spend resources, I'd MUCH rather see it for THIS reason than for NONEXISTANT WMDs... ...

May 07, 2014
This is only the beginning. HA!! ...

Aug 23, 2014
I guess we'll see who has the most money. Link ...

Nov 04, 2014
Buh-bye, Hawwy. ...

Nov 12, 2014
Love it!!! 😎 ...