U.N. Treaty for persons with Disabilities...
Posted in the Greensburg Forum
#1 Dec 3, 2012
Read the entire article on the link below....some has been left out to fit the allowed charachters maximum of this site.
Please pass this on to everyone. this should be of concern to all.
DON’T LET THE LANGUAGE FOOL YOU: HERE’S WHY CONSERVATIVES ARE STILL VOICING OPPOSITION TO A UN TREATY FOR THE ‘RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES’
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 11:29am by
Who wouldn’t support a treaty with the language in its title that says it is for “Rights of Persons with Disabilities”? Turns out many Republicans oppose the U.N.’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and their reasons are worth taking a look at again, even if the arguments are not necessarily new.
As former senator and 2012 candidate for the Republican presidential nomination Rick Santorum wrote in a contributors post for TheBlaze earlier this year, on the surface the treaty might appear in the best interest of those with disabilities, but there are provisions that he wrote “should concern all Americans.” He continued to voice his concern over the treaty, calling into the Glenn Beck Radio Program Monday morning. On the show, he called some other senator’s reasoning for support of the treaty a “big joke.”
Not so according to opponents like Santorum, who has a special-needs child himself. Many Republicans have voiced concern over provisions like that the U.S. would need to answer to a U.N. committee to show that it was in compliance. On Beck’s show Santorum noted that supporters have countered this concern saying they would ignore this part.
“If we are going to ignore it, why pass it,” Santorum said.
Here are more details concerning Republicans that Santorum wanted to bring to light in his July post:
If ratified, CRPD would become the law of the land under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, and would trump state laws, and could be used as precedent by state and federal judges. Since it is a treaty, the Constitution requires that it must be ratified by two-thirds of the United States Senate.
There are two very troubling provisions in this treaty. The first spreads the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the Federal government, acting under U.N. directions, can determine for all children with disabilities what is best for them. The second, the education provision of CRPD does not support the parental rights rules of past U.N. human rights treaties. Omission of these rules would potentially eradicate parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.
What’s so problematic here is that the provisions of this treaty could open the door for a professional or government official to override the decision that we as parents need to make for our special-needs children.
Susan Rice, center, U.S. ambassador to the UN, signs the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Thursday, July 30, 2009 at United Nations headquarters. Although signed, the U.S. has not ratified it.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., argued that support for the treaty would take the the “gold standard” of the Americans with Disabilities Act “to countries that have never heard of disability rights.” He said that it would benefit disabled American veterans who want to travel or work abroad. Woodruff in National Review though reported Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation calling this premise “completely unsupportable.”
On Beck’s show, Santorum encouraged those citizens wanting to voice opposition to call their senators. A call by TheBlaze made to the Capital’s switchboard revealed a busy signal Monday morning. Could this have been due to callers overwhelming line in calls to senators regarding the treaty?
#2 Dec 3, 2012
Another crazsy conspiracy theory. FoxNews and NewsMax plays you people for fools!
#3 Dec 3, 2012
OK..so you don't like FOX and NEWSMAX...here is one from the National Review and also mentions an article written in the Washington Post. I know people who have handicapped children, some in my own family, and i want them to be aware of what is happening.
DECEMBER 3, 2012 4:00 A.M.
U.N. Treaty on the Rights of the Disabled
Voting no doesn’t mean we lack compassion.
By Betsy Woodruff
Brace yourselves, everyone, because here’s something that might be surprising: Elected officials who vote against the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities don’t necessarily hate disabled people. Strange but true! In fact, a number of leaders in Washington vehemently oppose the treaty, and for good reason: Senate ratification wouldn’t accomplish anything substantial for Americans. It wouldn’t significantly improve the living conditions of disabled people overseas, and it could potentially undermine American sovereignty.
John Kerry, one of the treaty’s main proponents in the Senate, has argued the opposite — that it won’t change U.S. law and could make life easier for disabled Americans traveling overseas. And the treaty’s supporters also emphasize that it has bipartisan support, from Senators John Barrasso and John McCain, among others. But it’s drawn criticism from prominent congressional conservatives, including Senators Mike Lee, Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, and Pat Toomey. Rick Santorum has also spoken out against the treaty, which prompted Dana Milbank to write for the Washington Post that his newest cause must be “opposing disabled people”— a statement so patently ridiculous that it’s not worth dignifying with a response.
The treaty is intended to protect the rights of the disabled, but the United States already has the strongest legal defenses for them of any country in the world. The White House argues that if we ratify the treaty, other countries might be more likely to do so as well, which might improve the international protection of persons with disabilities. And that might make it more convenient for disabled Americans to travel in those countries.
“This is their argument, and it’s such a ridiculous argument,” says Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation.“The premises are completely unsupportable, 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.” In other words, the treaty does little to nothing for Americans.
Its defenders suggest that other nations will respect our excellent treatment of the disabled more if we sign the treaty, but that claim is largely unsubstantiated.“I’m unwilling to indulge the unsupported assumption that that is true,” Senator Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah, tells National Review Online.“Simply because people have stated it over and over and over again doesn’t make it true, especially when no one has been able to articulate, at least not to me, any sound basis for reaching that conclusion. I just don’t believe it.”
#4 Dec 3, 2012
More...they are voting tommorrow...i encourage you to call and express your opinions!
Senate to vote on U.N. Treaty: Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Glenn is urging listeners and viewers to call the Senate and beg them to vote against something truly disturbing coming up. Tomorrow the Senate votes on a U.N. convention that will impact every parent of a disabled child and every disabled person in America. What’s going on that has Glenn so troubled?
Add your comments below
|The best and worst in landlords in Greensburg? (Mar '13)||3 hr||Really_||23|
|Competition is slim in Greensburg Primary Election||6 hr||Jeff Martin||11|
|wrongfully fired from osl (Dec '12)||7 hr||JacquiJ||53|
|Read this quick, Topix won't leave this up for ...||Jan 24||Mayor Daley||4|
|*=* Hoosier Hillbilly *=* #2 (May '14)||Jan 23||Hoosier Flatbilly||5|
Find what you want!
Search Greensburg Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC