Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is there anything worse than a UN treaty? [How to spot a John McCain]
Daily Caller ^ | November 8, 2013 | Christopher Bedford

Posted on 11/10/2013 2:24:52 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife

CRPD won’t establish the United States as some kind of global leader because, well, why the hell would it? The United States leads by the example she lives within her borders, as well as through the millions of dollars the USAID spends improving conditions for the disabled around the world. (That Mr. McCain thinks our leadership role is based on a U.N. convention is troubling.)

Conservatism is a nuanced philosophy, fiercely debated and rarely serving up easy answers on policy — especially foreign policy. But if we could dare offer one easy, cookie-cutter note for all Republicans to keep in mind, it’s this: If something has the phrase “United Nations convention” or “United Nations treaty” in it, vote “No.”

That is pretty much final.

And the reasons are simple: At their worst, these deals, crafted by the “global community,” seek to undermine the interests of America and her allies (see: Arms Trade Treaty); at their best, they simply force our representatives to appear before panels of “experts” in Geneva to be abused for any number of the perceived grievances ruffling our European friends’ feathers that day (see: International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination).

The latest offender is the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). What kind of modern monster could be against that, right?

Certainly not the GOP’s reliable internationalists, Sens. Mark Kirk, John McCain, Kelly Ayotte and John Barrasso, nor former Sen. Bob Dole, whose letter to the Senate fretted that American “leadership” on disabilities “will be imperiled without the United States’ ratification of the CRPD.”

Imperiled, we fear, if we don’t put our stamp alongside Uganda and Togo’s on that piece of paper.

So what the hell is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and why do Sens. McCain and Robert Menendez think it “embodies ‘equality’ and ‘unalienable rights’ in the best tradition of our ideals”?

In the minds of its proponents, CRPD is a grand treaty that will help disabled Americans (including wounded veterans; enter: Mr. McCain) at home and abroad; and maintain American leadership in global access for disabled people, even spurring other countries to get their act together.

In reality, CRPD is a bunch of feel-good hogwash that will embarrass the United States without doing any of the things its proponents say it will.

CRPD won’t benefit anyone in the United States because U.S law is already at — or above — the levels of protection guaranteed in the convention. (That our country’s senators don’t know that is troubling.)

CRPD won’t benefit U.S. citizens abroad, because it only requires countries to meet the conditions for their own people within their own borders — something that is not impacted by the America’s signature, nor, per typical U.N. fashion, the slightest bit enforceable. (That leading Republicans don’t realize that is troubling.)

CRPD won’t establish the United States as some kind of global leader because, well, why the hell would it? The United States leads by the example she lives within her borders, as well as through the millions of dollars the USAID spends improving conditions for the disabled around the world. (That Mr. McCain thinks our leadership role is based on a U.N. convention is troubling.)

And the idea that America signing the CRPD will spur foreign countries to action is about as believable as the notion that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights led Iran, Uzbekistan and similar signatories to respect those ideals. (Troubling. And stupid.)

All CRPD will do is embarrass for U.S. officials. America’s reward for signing the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, for example, was being told to close Guantanamo Bay, end the death penalty and give voter rights to convicted felons. Oh, and when we declined the suggestions, we got a dressing down from countries like China. And Iran.

So when senators hold up pictures of wounded veterans and say that ratifying this scrap will lessen their challenges abroad, they’re promising something they cannot deliver. Which in most places is called lying.

And while they are quick to say that a “Yes” vote is a litmus test for whether a senator supports wounded U.S. veterans, it’s really litmus test for whether a senator is actually conservative.

“Some people ask if someone is a conservative or not,” Steven Groves, a treaty expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Caller. “A good indication is if you’re in favor of global treaties and grand agreements that pretend to be the solution to a global problem, that progressives hold up as a magical solution for global problems. If you’re in favor of those, you’re probably not a conservative. If you’re going to turn over some kind of discretion to a U.N. organization or U.N.-style of organization, that’s a good indication of if you’re a conservative or not.”

A healthy republic is a difficult thing to maintain. Conservative ideas aren’t easy to translate into politics and policy. And it’s even more difficult to consistently apply conservative ideas to an ever shifting world. But this one is pretty easy: Just say no to the U.N.

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: treaties; un

1 posted on 11/10/2013 2:24:53 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Mclumpy is an arrogant vindictive old coot

2 posted on 11/10/2013 2:59:15 AM PST by ronnie raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Time for McCain and the other 90% of the US Congress to fully retire and seek other employment and get OUT OF GOVT permanently!

3 posted on 11/10/2013 3:18:06 AM PST by BCW (Salva reipublicae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Actually the number is 94%.

That is the number of Senators who voted to confirm a traitor to be Secretary of State, and that is how many should be fired.

4 posted on 11/10/2013 3:32:54 AM PST by Venturer (Keep Obama and you aint seen nothing yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

My idiot in the Senate sits on the Foreign Affairs committee. I wrote him against CRPD and he replied with some nonsence that it’s a states rights issue and the UN has no power over the states. (Since when has a liberal had any regard for the 10th amendment?) The day they had the hearing, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial about a SCOTUS case thay are hearing soon to determone if the states are under UN control.

I sent the “esteemed Senator” a copy and said “I assume like most smart people you read the WSJ, but in case you missed it...)

Given the SCOTUS case, it is their absolute duty to table discussion until then.

5 posted on 11/10/2013 5:22:46 AM PST by cyclotic (Hey BSA-I'm gone. Walk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

The meme, or keyword, that conservatives politicians should use is very self-explanatory. Importantly, in no way does it suggest “isolationism”, which was turned into a derogatory word in the 1960s.

It is “de-internationalization” of American domestic and foreign policy.

The word “de-internationalization” covers a litany of things that conservatives find objectionable. The greatest of these is the socialism espoused by the Socialist International, an organization of political parties from around the world, of which the Democrat party is a “de facto”, if not “de jure” member. Likewise, many Republicans have been persuaded by its ideas, or perhaps think it is inevitable.

Foremost of its bizarre ideas is that nations, cultures, languages and unique histories are just foolish constructs that should be replaced by socialist economic blocs under a one world government.

Anyone who espouses any parts of this is “the enemy”, no matter what they say on any topic. This includes the Bush family and their “New World Order”, and those that embrace international organizations like the UN, IMF, G-whatever, ad nauseum.

So the most important aspect of “de-internationalization” is for a conservative president and congress to abrogate such treaties, leave such organizations, and make it abundantly clear that United States laws are national laws, and that federal judges follow them only, without regard to international laws.

“De-internationalization” also means that there are no “sub-treaties or foreign agreements or modifications to existing treaties” that the POTUS can join without the approval of the US senate, on the grounds that they do not rise to the level of treaties.

“De-internationalization” also means clamping down on internationalist multinational corporations that both seek access to US markets, but evade our taxes and other laws, and hold no national loyalties to the United States.

Another big goal of the Socialist International is the elimination of all national borders and free immigration, which furthers their goals of diluting ethnic homogeneity and culture with countless immigrant foreigners who are permitted in on condition that they support the socialist party.

Therefore, “de-internationalization” requires strict immigration quotas, based on quantity *and* quality. No more uneducated, poverty stricken peasants from every corner of the world. And bluntly, a moratorium on any Islamic immigration for at least 50 years, based on the willingness of Muslims currently in the US to integrate.

“De-internationalization” also means choosing our battles and our military deployments. First and foremost, unless there is a direct and obvious US national interest at stake, it is not our business. Right now the US military is deployed to over 100 nations; but we need to be in perhaps one or two dozen. The rest of these deployments are superfluous and expensive, and degrade our military.

Finally, “de-internationalization” means that we again pay attention to our national trade balance with other nations. “Neither borrowers nor lenders be” is a great place to start. As needed, after abrogating treaties that damage us economically, including membership in the WTO, the FTAA, NAFTA, etc., we should indeed erect tariffs.

This is done to restore our domestic industries, most of which have fled overseas. We cannot survive as just a nation of indebted consumers. We must also produce.

6 posted on 11/10/2013 6:28:25 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Welfare is the new euphemism for Eugenics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson