This highlights the GOP modus operandi- Take a reasonable idea -
supporting our laws (Americans with Disabilities Act) around the world-
look to see if it is supported or introduced by Democrats- Inject
inflammtory rhetoric which has no basis in fact- perpetuate the lies to
build a coalition of the uninformed- cast a vote, saving America from an
imagined dire outcome
Thanks DN for printing this thoughtful op-ed from another paper. It seems
unfathomable that anyone could conjure up reasons to vote against this treaty
but somehow some of the senators did just that. I see this Kansas City
newspaper is holding their own Senators accountable for their vote by publicly
chastising them for their vote. Hopeful all responsible journalists in every
city and state will do the same.
America could have affirmed its commitment to giving people with disabilities
worldwide (including disabled Americans working and traveling abroad) the same
rights of access to buildings and transportation that we take for granted
through our Americans with Disabilities Act.But no.Utah
Senators Lee and Hatch voted against this eminently reasonable and important
treaty, all so that they can keep the UN-hating neo-Birchers of their party
happy.On Planet Wingnutia they celebrate those "no" votes.
Here on Earth, I am deeply ashamed to be a Utahn.
Why should this puzzle anyone? They are simply pandering again to the most
extreme members of their party whose tinfoil hats are being shorted out by the
black helicopters that fly over every night.
Lee and Hatch have no morals or ethics.
Apparently, this important vote will be brought to the floor again for
Washington legislators in 2013.Let's hope that Orrin Hatch and Mike
Lee have received the message concerning the major mistake they have made.There is no question that they have voted in a very strange and controversial
way compared to the majority of the world.It would be beneficial for these
two men to prove to America and the world that they are not going off the deep
JoeBlow -- I agree with your comment!- Take a reasonable
idea - supporting our laws (Americans with Disabilities Act) around the world- look to see if it is supported or introduced by Democrats============= Right or Wrong, Good or Bad, simply
doesn't matter in congress.It's can only be GOOD for
America if MY party sponsors it.If not, then it's a BAD thing for
America.Nothing like putting the PARTY ahead of the Country!Pathetic!Nothing short of Nazi Ghestapo tactics!
"Nothing short of Nazi Ghestapo tactics!"I think that is a
bit strong... more like republican witch trials..... And this is not
to say a few democrats in their day have acted as weak kneed on issues either.
But to say that the world enacting a law that had its birth in the US is a
threat to our own ability to govern ourselves... just silly.Lets
say, just for example that this law had been passed, and some nation thought we
were in breach of it - what exactly would they be able to do about it?
Really... what are they going to do. issue a letter of reprimand? Good grief,
we sent an army into a foreign nation simply because we didn't like their
president - the the UN was able to do what about it? China mowed down their
own people while protesting for more rights, and the UN did what about it? These Senators need to put their big boy pants on and explain to lunatic
fringe that everything is going to be ok. McCain has proven himself the biggest
of cowards. Anyway.... this is just more of the same cowardice we see from
politicians every day.
To "LDS Liberal" luckily for us, they did put Country ahead of party.
The UN treaty included laws to create a central database of any person born with
a disability. Would you want your grandchild who is born with a diability to be
on a UN registry?The treaty also grants the UN the authority to
determine the care and education for all people on the disabled registry. Do we
really want to turn our parental rights over to the UN?
@Red Shirt -- Wrong. Just because Glenn Beck says it turns parental rights over
to the UN doesn't mean it does. Do you seriously think anyone would have
voted for it if it really did that? Republicans buckled under pressure from
people who believe in crackpot conspiracy theories and that's the only
reason it didn't pass.
I stated earlier that it would be hard for someone to conjure up reasons to vote
against this treaty but I see Redshirt and his friends at the Heritage
Foundation have done just that. In a lengthy article found in National Review
Online, they spend paragraph after paragraph saying essentially the same thing
which can be summed up by this one paragraph:"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." So I guess we should only support international treaties if they can improve
upon conditions that already exist for our citizens. Whatever happened to
America's desire to change the world for better, not just for our own
citizens? Shouldn't we be promoting these rights for citizens everywhere
even if our current laws already promote those rights? Isn't that the
American thing to do?
@ RedShirt: I suppose you are talking about Article 18, Section 2 -
"Liberty of movement and nationality ... Children with disabilities shall be
registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a
name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to
know and be cared for by their parents."Um - yeah - all children
are (or should be) registered after birth - here in the United States it is
called applying for a birth certificate and social security number. Throughout the treaty - including Article 24 - Education - where it uses the
phrase "States Parties" that means the appropriate agency within the
signatory country. Article 31 - Statistics and Data Collection says
that in order to offer the best services and to make sure the services being
offered are appropriate, each country will track data on compliance and
effectiveness and, while making sure the data is anonymous, share it with the UN
and other countries.Nowhere in the treaty does it say anything you
think it says. It is written in clear language, it means exactly what it says,
there is no hidden agenda.
"...Rick Santorum and Glenn Beck...". They put their
"hysteria" agenda ahead of our country.
I guess we can chalk another one up to Glenn Beck for fanning the political
flames over nothing, kind of like his "secret" Obam FEMA concentration
camps, and mass gun confisgations that also turned out to be false.Somedays, Glenn Beck just reminds me time and again of the story of the
little boy who cried wolf.Is it a constant need for attention?, or
is seriously doing it just for the money$.
"The treaty also grants the UN the authority to determine the care and
education for all people on the disabled registry. Do we really want to turn our
parental rights over to the UN?"Redshirt,In my first
post, when I wrote - Inject inflammtory rhetoric which has no basis
in fact- perpetuate the lies to build a coalition of the uninformedPosts like yours are exactly what I was referring to
To "Kalindra" "LDSLiberal" JoeBlow" and other of your ilk.
Read the UN document "Promoting the Rights of Children with
Disabilities". They speak of registering kids with disabilities, and
keeping databases of disabilities so that they can deploy resources
accordingly.Again, why do we want the UN to have the authority to
determine how we are to be caring for the disabled? Do you trust the UN to know
what your disabled child needs?Read the UN document. It either adds
nothing to US laws or else surrenders power to the UN. Either way, it is not a
good law.As for what "Kalindra" pointed out. Imagine you
are poor and give birth to a disabled child. You give that child up for
adoption. Once that child is an adult, a shady lawyer can convince that
disabled adult to sue their birth parents because according to the treaty, they
were not raised by their birth parents. How much more difficult will it be for
teen moms to give up disabled children for adoption?
@RedshirtLearn to read context, for goodness sake, do I have to be worried
that you and your ilk might go crazy and attack friends of mine who work for a
sustainability group because you've read Agenda 21?
To "atl134" I do read the context of what is being stated. I have not
read the UN documents on Agenda 21. You should read teh Democrats Against
Adgenda 21 web site. Quite insiteful. That web site is run by an uber liberal
who, like you, did not believe what the UN was doing. I have also read some of
the Adgenda 21 literature available on the UN web site. Are you saying that I
shouldn't read what the UN has published about their own Adgenda 21?
RedShirt....It must be horribly frightening for you to live in a country
where, every day of the year, around every corner, someone is out to get you.
@ RedShirt: Please quote the exact verbiage that supports your claims. Thank
I don't understand the point of this editorial. Why would we sign a treaty
that we're already in compliance with? What if we did sign it and another
country was not in compliance with it? Are we going to go to war with them over
it? The editorial and previous posters per usual ridicule Republicans but it
seems that this is just a meaningless treaty from a meaningless organization
(the UN) that we inexplicably continue to fund with taxpayer dollars.
red state pride - you underestimate the power and influence of the United
States. Despite our progressive laws protecting the rights of the disabled, our
signature on an international treaty promoting those same rights will add
stature to that law and, in turn, put pressure on other governments to follow
our lead in providing those same rights to all citizens of the world. It is
noble gesture on our part and in keeping with our benevolent pedigree.
Redshirt,Give it up, we know they put ideology ahead of truth and country.
After all, they support BO
Get us out of the UN and get the UN out of our country. They have cost us too
much in lives and money!
To "Kalindra" you already quoted it. What part of children have the
right to " be cared for by their parents" makes you think that it
won't take more than a month before a lawyer uses an adopted disabled
person to sue the birth parents?What part of "Children with
disabilities shall be registered immediately after birth" does not sound
like a registry. Especially in light of the MONEE database that the UN already
maintains on children with disabilities.Are you really so blind that
you can't see that by signing that UN resolution the US would be giving up
freedoms, and the laws it would create are pure foolishness?
Geeesh. The best the conservatives can come up with is, "what's in it
for us anyway?"Exactly why republicans should NEVER lead this
country.Really, you all can have the entire south, we definitely
learned our lesson and will let you secede without a fight this time. Just send
us your tired, poor and disabled since you don't like them.
.@RedShirt: Paranoia, parsimonious and persecution toward the weak and
unfortunate can boomerang bringing one bad karma; it is best to give a little
love and compassion and hope to receive the same in return
To "skeptic" what are you talking about? The US already has enough laws
regarding the disabled that the UN resolution does nothing to help them obtain a
better life.If you want to give love and compassion, why turn to the
UN for that, why can't you keep that within you from the time that you were
a child?Why do you have such a pessimistic view of society that you
assume that by NOT passing a law that everybody is evil and will take advantage
of the situation? You seem to view the disabled in such disregard that you
assume that only by forcing others to help can anything be done.Have
some faith in humanity, we are not like you. People generally are good and
compassionate.To "Screwdriver" you can take off the tinfoil
hat and turn away from Media Matters, the conservatives are not doing anything
like you describe. Conservatives are trying to maintain US sovereignty.
Re: "A troubling vote . . . ."Not at all.A vote
either way changes absolutely nothing for Americans with disabilities. Nor, in
reality, for citizens of other nations, who observe UN treaties, or not, based
on the whim of their political leadership, not on the content of the treaty.What it would do is permit UN bureaucrats to meddle in, even oversee
delivery of services to Americans and open a door to a corrupt, UN-sponsored [I
know, I know, "UN" and "corrupt" have the same meaning, so there
is redundancy here] raid on the US treasury in the name of "equalizing"
care and services provided elsewhere.Who would suffer from the
inevitable UN meddling? Americans with disabilities.The "no"
vote protects Americans, which is the primary purpose of Congress.Anything but a "no" vote would be troubling, indeed.
Tin foil hat? I don't have to try to communicate a conspiracy theory about
conservatives, they are open about their desires. 30 states have filed petitions
to secede from the Union.Come on redshirt, really.The
Texas petition claims; “The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses
of their rights and it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the
union to protect its citizens and re-secure their rights and liberties in
accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are
no longer being reflected by the federal government.”I'm
just saying go ahead - I certainly will not fight for the south to stay in the
union. Be free, secede, PLEASE.
To "Screwdriver" sorry, put that tinfoil hat back on. The discussion is
the UN resolution that the US turned down, not succession. Lets focus on one
topic here. I know liberals tend to wander when they don't have any
evidence or proof to back up their claims, so lets focus here and discuss the
UN.Since you have nothing more to say about that, I will conclude
that you now agree with my previous post.
Umm, four posts by RedShirt on the Enterprise followed by two more from
RedShirt1701 in Deep Space, all similar in tone and content. I think the four
comment per person limit here is overly restrictive, but let's play by the
same rules, can we? Or at least choose less similar names for our sock puppets.
Maybe the DesNews would consider raising the number of comments allowed?
@ECR - are you kidding me? Why don't you tell us which Countries are on the
UN's "human rights" commission and tell me how legitimate this
organization or any treaty ratified by it is. If you are disabled and gay in
Iran you still get executed- no treaty is going to change that.
So let me understand this... our responsibilities to our brothers and sisters,
particularly those born disadvantaged, ends at the US boarders. Wow..... does
the church know that?It is a bit scary to think so many put party
about country..... but when you see party put ahead of faith.. that really
highlights how twisted this whole conversation has become. Or perhaps I missed
something when I failed to find anything in scripture or by leaders of any faith
that indicate that our responsibilities to our brethren ends at man made
@Utah Blue Devil- some people worship God and others worship at the altar of Big
Government. Some people walk the walk while others talk the talk. Signing a
worthless UN piece of paper is "talking the talk". Thousands of
missionaries of different Christian faiths are walking the walk and helping the
disabled in countries all over the world. Before you blame America for failing
to sign a worthless treaty maybe you should give thanks to all the people who
are putting their money where their mouth is and giving service to the disabled
red state pride - what the heck are you rambling on about. Of course having
missionaries around the world, from many faiths, is a good thing. They are
walking the walk... agreed. But giving people legal status so that they can get
the benefits needed.... that is hardly a worthless piece of paper.What those well intended people can't do is help deal with the issue of
child abandonment, or infanticide that is still practiced in some corners of the
world. It doesn't help with children with disabilities being used as props
for begging schemes. The idea giving these kids a legal status and protection
of the law is "worthless paper" really points to where some aspects of
our society have gotten. Having legal status is a pathway to get services
needed, and protection against abuse. It provides a path for all to live in
dignity, and not shoved off into some back corner as we saw in some of the worst
examples around the world.And the notion that UNICEF is a waste of
time and money.... hardly an opinion I share. UNICEF truly walks the walk.