Senate GOP kills disabilities treaty

[nhboy (Premo)]

Link to original source.

"Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) made a rare Senate appearance this morning, sitting in a wheelchair just off the floor so that members would have to see him as they entered the chamber. Why? Because they were poised to vote on ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, and Dole hoped to send a message.

It didn't work. The Senate killed the treaty this afternoon, with a final vote of 61 to 38, which seems like a lopsided majority, but which fell short of the two-thirds necessary for ratification. Eight Republicans broke ranks and joined Democrats in support of the treaty, but the clear majority of the Senate GOP voted to block it.

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, for those who've forgotten, is a human rights treaty negotiated by the George H.W. Bush administration, which has been ratified by 126 nations, including China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

But most Senate Republicans saw it as a threat to American "sovereignty," even though the treaty wouldn't have required the United States to change its laws. When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the treaty with bipartisan support in July, Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) explained the proposal simply "raises the [international] standard to our level without requiring us to go further."

In other words, we wouldn't actually have to do anything except say we like the treaty -- and then wait for other signatories around the world to catch up to the United States' Americans with Disabilities Act.

The treaty was endorsed by Dole, John McCain, and Dick Lugar, among other prominent Republican figures, but it didn't matter. The GOP's right-wing base, led in part by Rick Santorum, raised hysterical fears about the treaty, and most Senate Republicans took their cues from the party's activists, not the party's elder statesmen."


Just more Republican stupidity.

[cheezgrits]

Stupidity. I have to agree.

America, welcome to what YOU'VE elected!

We the people?

[JoeRider]

Grandstanding again by the Democrats.

At least a few GOP stick to their word. It is not about the treaty.

But in September, 36 Republican senators signed a letter saying they would not vote for any treaty during the lame duck,


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...aty-disability


But even if it was, here are a few things to think about when we talk about the UN:




Or what about this:

Libya takes human rights role

Libya has been elected chairman of the United Nations Human Rights Commission


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2672029.stm


For those that did not know Libya's Gaddafi:

Gaddafi does not seem to respect that his people are human, much less that they have rights. His regime has a long history of human rights abuses. Libyans have always known. Human Rights organizations have always known. The world public is just starting to get the details of the systemic human rights abuses that have characterized the Gaddafi regime practically from day one. He had certainly showed the raw animal side of his nature within a year of his coup.

Gaddafi Human Rights abuses against women, prisoners and political opponents | Off the Strip for free thinkers and adventurers



UN Warns Americans: Do Not Elect Mitt Romney



UN Warns Americans: Do Not Elect Mitt Romney

That is going to get GOP support.

[Vince]

Why do we need a treaty to raise the international standard to our level? The US is just fine. The other countries need to work on the way they handle the disabled. A treaty does nothing except give the other countries a foot in the US door. "Yeah, sure we'll raise our standards, but we need money to do it." So the US will end up forking over more money to foreign countries to support the disability treaty.
The POS UN should be disbanded. Sell the UN building. Quit pouring out our tax dollars to foreign countries unless it's for food and teaching people how to support themselves.

[Gilligan (Premo)]

Originally Posted by nhboy

[, Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) explained the proposal simply "raises the [international] standard to our level without requiring us to go further.".

If the treaty is irrelevant to us..then why the heck would we want to ratify it?? I don't get it.

[b23hqb]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

If the treaty is irrelevant to us..then why the heck would we want to ratify it?? I don't get it.

Right. And, if this new treaty is no better than ours, and in fact modeled after ours, why bother to give our authority over our own law to some other entity in which the majority members of that group clamors for our destruction?

Only liberals and really old, senile RINO's would want something like that.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

If the treaty is irrelevant to us..then why the heck would we want to ratify it?? I don't get it.

ratifying it would make our standards become a world standard?

[Lurk]

Originally Posted by bcp

ratifying it would make our standards become a world standard?

...for which we would earn the obligation to finance the rest of the world.

[daileyck1]

President George W. Bush's administration completed negotiations of the treaty in 2006 and it was signed by President Barack Obama in 2009. It had been supported by veterans groups, the disabilities community and the business community.

It would have helped to protect disabled Americans, including veterans while they are in foreign countries.

Senator Lee told Senators on Tuesday that the treaty "threatens the right of parents to raise their children with the constant looming threat of state interference."

Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly also warned in November that proponents were "using this treaty as an opportunity to promote their abortion agenda."

[Makavide]

Why did the senate waste time voting on this instead of working on the "fiscal cliff".