Warning Goes Forth, Again, Over Ratifying UN Treaty

UN-convention-disability-12.5.12.gif.pagespeed.ic.0PYOddysVu

A U.S. Senate panel has advanced to the full senate a treaty that could pose a danger to parents and to preborn babies. 

Written by Charlie Butts

After a contentious hearing this week, the Judiciary Committee advanced the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which one expert says has a nice title but is deceiving.

Will Estrada of the Home School Legal Defense Association says there are three concerns, beginning with an intrusion into national sovereignty. The treaty would change America’s current system to allow “unelected United Nations bureaucrats” to monitor how the United States implements the treaty and advise it, he says.

Estrada also alleges the treaty surrenders the sovereignty of parents to bureaucrats, quoting from Article 7 of the treaty. That portion reads, “In all issues concerning the child with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration.”

In other words, warns Estrada, the treaty could override the authority of parents.

The treaty passed out of committee with a 12-6 vote on Tuesday.

The same treaty received a 13-6 committee vote in 2012, when The Washington Times warned in an editorial that the U.S. could “soon find itself taking orders from international bureaucrats on how to treat people with disabilities.”

Disability news website Disability Scoop credits Home School Legal Defense Association for leading the effort against the treaty but claims more than 800 groups support the treaty.

Citing those groups, the website also claims concerns about sovereignty are “unfounded” and suggests that ratifying it would give the United States a “leadership role in the international community.”

Still another warning from Estrada is that Article 25 in the treaty creates a “right” to abortion, stating that countries that ratify the treaty must ensure “that every person with disabilities gets free sexual and reproductive health services.”

That includes free, UN-guaranteed access to abortion – for the disabled.

The Washington Times editorial from two years ago reported then that Democrats insisted the UN treaty wouldn’t override restrictive U.S. abortion laws. But they rejected an amendment, offered by Sen. Marco Rubio, to exclude abortion from the phrase “sexual and reproductive health.”

Estrada encourages people to contact their state’s two senators and ask for a “Nay” vote when the UN treaty comes up for a vote.


This article was originally posted at OneNewsNow.com.

U.S. Representative Gutierrez Admits Amnesty is About New Voters

Written by David E. Smith

U.S. Representative Luis Gutiérrez (D-Chicago) inadvertently admitted that the Left’s interest in pursuing amnesty for tens of millions of illegal immigrants in the United States is about infusing new voters into the Democratic Party.

While appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program, U.S. Rep. Gutiérrez confidently spoke about going to the White House later in the day to work out how the president could unilaterally issue amnesty for 4 or 5 million illegal immigrants:

“Let me just say in about an hour, I’m going over to the White House.  I’ll be meeting with Jeh Johnson and the Chief Legal Counsel to the President of the United States. We’re going to sit down and we’re going to negotiate additional terms and avenues the president can use and prosecutorial discretion, and I think we can get three or four or maybe even five million people.”

Watch the segment yourself:

The Shrill is Gone! Who’s Got Next in the Demokratik Party?

hillarywinking

Written by Luke Hamilton

It is never too early to start planning the completion of a communist coup. We are only midway through Dear Leader’s second term, but the Demokrat primary for the 2016 Presidential election is beginning to take shape. It almost seems as if the party has already abdicated this year’s mid-term election and is instead marshalling forces for the next major election season. It wouldn’t be the worst strategy, given the fact that the prognosis is dire for Demokrats this year. Even Chris Mathews has lost the thrill up his leg, predicting on his show this week that the Republicans will take back the Senate.

At one point, it seemed virtually predetermined that Shrillary would be the 2016 Demokratik Presidential candidate. So it’s surprising that recently she has looked more ready for a knockout than the Oval Office. It’s hard to tell with her pantsuits, but those legs look rubbery and her corner has got to be concerned. Her political blunders over the past several weeks seem to confirm the fact that the political acumen in that family resides exclusively in Bubba. For someone with such extensive experience with the limelight and televised interviews, it is hard to believe that she misspoke so badly by claiming poverty after Bill left office. She has since tried to fall back on relativism and insist that she and Bill aren’t broke but they’re also not like some of those people who are “truly well off”.

Riiiight, because the rest of us have made $100m over the past 20 years.

This struggle to associate herself with the middle class is failing miserably and it is not a fight she can win; much like the one she’s been fighting to distance herself from Benghazi. This Just-Folks populism she’s slathering upon herself reeks of artifice and pandering. She has always appealed to the limousine liberal and the progressive corporatist and she should know better than to think she could shed her skin that easily.

That being said, Shrillary carries a political heft which cannot be ignored. The Clinton machine has a network which verges on legendary and can probably call in favors from cronies around the world. Despite the breathless hagiographies written of her political prowess, Shrillary’s greatest political asset is still Bill, both for his eye-popping paychecks and for his diplomatic wizardry. Even this far removed from office, Bill can still make or break a candidate with his support or his ridicule. I firmly believe that he could’ve taken out Barack if he had been allowed to drop gloves in ’08. Someone must’ve given him the order to ‘stand down’. I suppose it could’ve been his wife, as she seems fond of issuing that order.

But hold the phone! There appears to be a new snout in the pigpen. The whisper campaign is gaining a full head of steam to draft U.S. Senator Elizabeth “Fauxcohontas” Warren into the race for President. According to Edward Klein, the author of Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. The Obamas, the President has tasked Valerie Jarrett with the job of convincing Elizabeth Warren to run in 2016. It is hard to know if Klein’s sources are accurate, but it is logical to think that Obama is involved in this effort. Primarily because Obama is incessantly distracted from doing his actual job by anything and everything.

This project would allow him to avoid geopolitical crises like the Islamification of Iraq, unknown numbers of people (with unknown identities!) pouring over our borders, ongoing attacks faced by our allies Ukraine & Israel, and an American economy more fragile than the sanity of Ed Schultz. Also, it’s logical to think that Obama would be interested in convincing Warren to run for President because playing Kingmaker to the next progressive socialist in the White House would scratch his egomaniacal itch and cement his name as the first of a new generation of Marxist “forefathers” who fundamentally transformed the United States into poverty-stricken irrelevancy.

A Chicago Machine Marxist is an unfortunate accident, a Chicago Machine Marxist followed by an East Coast Socialist Egghead is a contiguous communist coup with long-ranging repercussions.

Senator Warren has made no secret of her ambition to gain a larger slice of Farmer Jones’ pie. She represents a vocal, growing wing of the Demokratik party which is unabashedly socialist. Over the last few months, she has made at least 7 appearances to generate support for struggling Demokratik candidates. During those appearances, her adoring fans have been treated to plenty of her trademark rabble rousing about the evil banks, blame-worthy corporations, and how the system is “rigged” against ordinary Americans. I don’t disagree that the system is rigged to benefit certain people, but I do disagree that the answer is to create more system.

What would a Warren Presidency mean for the country? Like Obama, she’s a hardcore socialist progressive, but there is a subtle difference. Obama seems to feel the need to explain his redistributive policies, almost apologetically at times. Warren is unashamed of her avarice. Her boilerplate stump speech seems to suggest that she would be able to tap into the populist anger which Clinton is so desperately trying to access; anger at the capitalist cronies who have benefitted from the Clinton, Bush, and Obama presidencies. But unlike libertarian Conservatives, who share her anger at crony capitalism, her only solution seems to be the vilification of success and the exponential growth of central authority. In many ways, a Warren presidency would complete the transformation begun on Barack’s watch, which explains why Jarrett is helping measure lawn-space for Elizabeth’s presidential teepee.

Media Hit Obama for Placing Fundraising Above World Crises

PresidentObamaFundRaising

Written by Don Irvine

Despite increasing criticism from the mainstream media over how President Barack Obama has responded to the downed Malaysian plane and the latest conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, the White House remains defiant, arguing that his response has been appropriate.

Rather than issue a statement immediately after Malaysian flight MH17 was shot down by pro-Russian separatists while flying over Ukraine, Obama continued on with his planned events, which included grabbing a cheeseburger at The Charcoal Pit in Delaware and fundraisers in New York.

When asked by ABC’s Jonathan Karl if this was, in hindsight, a mistake, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that it wasn’t. He said that they wouldn’t have hesitated to make a change to the President’s schedule, if necessary, in order for him to attend to an urgent priority and fulfill his responsibilities as Commander in Chief.

Last week, White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri told The New York Times Michael Shearer that “It is rarely a good idea to return to the White House just for show, when the situation can be handled responsibly from the road.” She said that abrupt changes to the President’s schedule can unduly alarm the public or create a false sense of crisis.

The National Journal’s Ron Fournier, however, isn’t convinced by the White House ‘s explanation:

First, the phrase ‘just for show’ is indicative of the Obama White House conceit that their guy is above politics. The fact is, all presidents do things just for show, because the office is inherently political, and one of the levers of power can be found in the public theater. … The hypocrisy is staggering. How is playing pool and drinking beer with the governor of Colorado not ‘just for show?’ Obama and his team consistently respond to criticism by dismissing the media’s focus on ‘optics,’ even as they craft and control the President’s image more aggressively than perhaps any previous White House.

Second, while Palmieri is correct that gutting a presidential schedule is rarely a good idea, there are times when it is. You could make an argument that Thursday was one such time, when the Gaza Strip erupted with violence and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s allies shot a passenger plane from the sky. A president can bring calm and clarity to a confusing situation, or he can add to public anxiety.

Fournier is right. With Obama’s approval ratings in the tank, he had a golden opportunity to provide some reassurance and show some true leadership. But instead, he blew it by placing politics above everything else, only reinforcing the belief that he is increasingly out of touch. 


This article was originally posted at the Accuracy in Media website.

‘Imperialist President’ at it Again

 

obamaHRC

Written by Charlie Butts

An expert on constitutional law says it’s apparent Barack Obama hasn’t learned his lesson from a recent Supreme Court decision.

On Monday President Obama issued an executive order requiring federal contractors to provide special protections for homosexuals, lesbians, and transgender people in the workplace. The order essentially implements the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) for federal contractors – legislation that Congress has failed to pass.

Matt Barber is vice president of Liberty Counsel Action and founder of Barbwire.com.

“Here we have this president acting and ruling as the imperialist president – circumventing Congress, circumventing the separation of powers in order to force his radical, leftist agenda on the rest of America – and targeting and discriminating specifically against Christian companies in order to do so,” he tells OneNewsNow.

Barber argues the president isn’t heeding the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision last month that permits business owners of faith to operate their business on the basis of the their faith. He says with this latest executive order, the president is doing exactly what the ruling forbids.

“[He's] telling Christian companies that they have to leave their biblical beliefs at the workplace door and that … under penalty of law and if they want to have any kind of contract or work with the federal government, that they must hire people who embrace a value system that is counter-biblical,” he explains.

The executive order contains no religious exemption, which means Christian ministries contracting with the government will have to comply.

The co-founder of another legal group stated yesterday that he predicts implementation of the executive order will be challenged in court on the basis that it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – the law on which the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision hinged.


This article was originally posted at the OneNewsNow.com website. 

U.S. Sen Durbin Threatens Radio Station

81717_4ddd91684aeaeaa318e3cbcd650327a3_2bbfe6bb9344e7ed8d4c078dfdbfbdeb

Written by IllinoisReview.com

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin is not happy with a radio ad (HERE) that focuses on the wage gap between men and women working on his Senate staff. So unhappy in fact, that he is threatening legal action against a Quincy, Illinois radio station airing the spot.

Quincy radio station WTAD 930AM, which is owned by STARadio and Quincy Journal, has been running the ad for a week. According to Quincy Journal reporter Bob Gough, STARadio was contacted by someone representing Sen. Durbin. Gough writes:

“WTAD received an email and phone call from a firm representing Senator Durbin earlier in the week,” said STARadio VP/GM Mike Moyers. “A letter attached to the email implied that the commercial being aired by Americas PAC contained false information and that WTAD would be liable should we continue to air it. Sources provided by Americas PAC were checked and proved to be in line, so the commercial in question is still on the air.”

Threats were anticipated by Americas PAC back in April when they announced they would be running $310,000 in ads against the Durbin.

“I fully anticipate Americas PAC, and myself personally, to be attacked by the full force of the Federal Government and given the full Al Salvi/Tea Party treatment,” Tom Donelson, Chairman of Americas PAC said. “I expect to be audited by the IRS, to have my tax returns leaked to the media, to be investigated by multiple government agencies and be raided late at night.”

Explaining the radio ad causing Durbin the heartburn, Donelson said:

“Dick Durbin likes to talk about the Republican war on women, but how can he talk of a war on women when he doesn’t even pay his female staffers the same as the men?”

Analysis of Senate Staff payroll found that in 2012 Durbin “paid men $13,063 more, a difference of 23 percent,” or about 77 cents for every dollar earned by his male staffers.

In 2014, a follow-up report by the Free Beacon found that Durbin was still paying his female staff less than his maile staff. “The average female salary is $11,505 lower than the average male salary in Durbin’s office,” the paper reported.

More HERE

Modified by Matthew Medlen.com