Category Archives: Treaty Ratification

Sold out again

Posted on by

BOEHNERThe Drudge headline this morning is uncannily accurate. On it is a photo of John Boehner, looking down his nose at us…just like Obama. Why? Because he, with McConnell, are about to sell us out. Again!

I first saw the news from an email alert by Erick Erickson of Red State. That was followed by others. Then I saw the Drudge headliner and I knew the fix was in. Boehner and McConnell have been embarrassed by the revolt in their ranks by the conservatives. Boehner received no-so-subtle threats to his Speakership. McConnell had a hissy-fit and behind closed doors, cussed Ted Cruz and Mike Lee.

Neither Boehner nor McConnell care about the effects of higher debt, funding Obamacare, the continued degradation of our nation. Nor are they concerned by the growing dictatorial acts by Obama. Boehner and McConnell are firmly entrenched as members of The Ruling Class. Big government is their personal goal as much as it is for Reid, Obama and the dems.

So what is their current plan? To give in and approve a debt-limit increase AND funding Obamacare. No spending cuts. No reining of government. No, just complete capitulation.

House GOP Preparing to Give Up

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  October 10th, 2013 at 04:30 AM

I’m being told by several sources that Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor are plotting to give up trying to either defund or delay Obamacare.

This comes at the same time the Obama administration admits it will be months before their Obamacare website will be fixed and Kathleen Sebelius is saying if people want out of the mandate they can pay a fine.

Nonetheless, Cantor, Boehner, and with them Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn are expected to cave in and fully fund, unimpeded, Obamacare.

They will work up a new deal that includes a debt ceiling increase with a few sops to the GOP as cover. The only change they are still considering it the medical device tax repeal, which is being heavily lobbied for by former Boehner and McConnell staffers who left for K Street.

A number of Democrats who are recipients of campaign cash along with these Republicans may provide a crony capitalist bridge over which this one tax repeal can pass while leaving in place all the other taxes, penalties, and fees.

But John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, and John Cornyn will ensure that Obamacare is fully funded and give the American public no delay like businesses have.

In doing so, they will sow the seeds of a real third party movement that will fully divide the Republican Party.

 I’m not so sure about that last paragraph, but Boehner and McConnell are undermining any confidence by the GOP core in the party establishment in Washington. If the rank and file of the GOP have no confidence in their party, what obligation do they have to continue to vote for the party? None.

Facebook

We’re not L.O.S.T.

Posted on by

U.S. Navy CarrierBy L.O.S.T., I mean the Law of the Sea Treaty.  It’s a treaty that has been in the works for decades. Everytime it’s come forth, it has failed to be ratified.  Until Obama, I don’t believe any President has actually been stupid enough to sign it. Obama says he will. why am I not surprised?

Even with Obama’s signature, the treaty will still require a 2/3’s (67 votes) approval in the Senate. Senator Jim DeMint says he now has 34 votes of those who will not vote for the Treaty.  It should be 40 votes…if it weren’t for the RINOs.

DeMint: Law of the Sea Treaty now dead

The United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty now has 34 senators opposed to it and thus lacks the Senate votes needed for U.S. ratification, a key opponent of the treaty announced Monday.

But the treaty’s main Senate proponent denies the treaty is sunk, saying plenty of time still exists to win support before a planned late-year vote.

The Law of the Sea Treaty, which entered into force in 1994 and has been signed and ratified by 162 countries, establishes international laws governing the maritime rights of countries. The treaty has been signed but not ratified by the U.S., which would require two-thirds approval of the Senate.

Critics of the treaty argue that it would subject U.S. sovereignty to an international body, require American businesses to pay royalties for resource exploitation and subject the U.S. to unwieldy environmental regulations as defined.

The list of treaty opponents has been growing, and on Monday, Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican and a leader of efforts to block it, announced that four more Republicans have said that they would vote against ratification: Sens. Mike Johanns of Nebraka, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Rob Portman of Ohio and Johnny Isakson of Georgia.

There is great wailing and gnashing of teeth from the liberal side. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) says passage is, “a matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’ for the Law of the Sea.”

Proponents of ratification argue that member nations are establishing rules of the sea that the U.S. would have to adhere to without a vote. They also argue that by ratifying the treaty, the U.S. would protect its claims and rights to mine America’s continental sea shelves and offshore waters for natural resources without interference from other countries or other entities.

Without ratification, U.S. energy companies won’t have the security they need to invest in exploring those areas for resources, supporters say. — Washington Times.

It is difficult for me to understand how giving up our sovereignty of our own coastal shelf is beneficial. Why should we pay a UN tax to drill on our own continental shelf?  The protection of our shores is a primary reason why we have a Navy — to secure our shores from foreign encroachment.

Advocates point to the Bush (43) administration’s support for the treaty.  Let’s get real here. As much as I like George Bush, he wasn’t much of a conservative.  This is more like a child explaining why he jumped off the bridge into the creek because, “Johnny and Paul did it!” (Real life experience there.)  There is too much “Me too-ism” in Washington as it is. So much of the activity of our government, the senseless proposals that appear because some other country has done it, is just plain stupid, a whim of someone with little thought or care of the consequences.

Return of the Friday Follies

Posted on by

It’s my habit to listen to one of my local radio stations in the morning.  One segment today had a local financial adviser, a PhD, as a guest and the subject was the price of gas.  After the unemployment numbers were announced today, the futures price of light crude dropped $2 in a few minutes.  Light crude is the source for gasoline.

People think that lowering gas prices (locally now at $3.169/gallon) is good…and it is for many. But it is important to understand the cause.

The price drop yesterday was triggered by the expectation of continued decreases in crude oil consumption.  When the job numbers are bad, as they are, there is less demand by business and, by extension, by individual consumers.  People and businesses will retrench, hoard assets, minimize expenses, and will reduce the cost of doing business until the economy recovers.

That last sentence is the key. The economy isn’t recovering despite the announcements coming out of the White House and their lib sycophants. As my Dad would say, “People are hunkering down to survive the times.”

Enjoy the low gas prices and remember they are low not due to more production but to less demand.

***

Ray Lahood, is a Obama lib from Illinois who unintentionally spoke the truth.  They envy the Chinese because it only take 3 people to make a decision instead of 3,000 or 3,000,000.

“The Chinese are more successful [in building infrastructure] because in their country, only three people make the decision. In our country, 3,000 people do, 3 million,” LaHood said in a short interview with The Cable on the sidelines of the 2012 Aspen Ideas Festival on June 30. “In a country where only three people make the decision, they can decide where to put their rail line, get the money, and do it. We don’t do it that way in America.” — Foreign Policy Magazine.

Yep, these wannabe dictators reveal themselves in so many ways. It behooves us to be aware and forewarned.

***

The employment announcement today added to an ongoing situation — 41 continuous months with unemployment above 8%.

“When we get an increase in general uncertainty, employers tend to postpone investment and hiring decisions,” Michael Gapen, senior U.S. economist with Barclays, told CNNMoney.

Well, duh!

***

Finally, this piece — the UN “Gun Ban” treaty. Ordinarily, I’d not give this much thought for a number of reasons. First, just signing a treaty doesn’t put in into force. Look at Wilson’s League of Nations for example. Woodrow Wilson devised the concept in his 14 Points at the end of WW1. 

The League was created but the US didn’t participate. Even though Wilson originated the idea and fought heavily for its creation, the US Senate did not ratify the treaty. A decade later, the League quietly folded its tent and disbanded.  It proved, like the UN, to be ineffective in blocking acts of aggression, it’s primary purpose.

This time, however, the passage of the treaty may be different.  We still have a democrat controlled Senate. No treaty can usurp the constitution. A treaty could not, for example, repeal the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution trumps treaties.

That was before Chief Justice Roberts turned his coat.

If the treaty is passed and Obama uses it to attempt more gun control using the Treaty as authorization, people will resist.  I don’t know what will happen if Obama uses force to enforce the treaty. No good will come from it.

When we no longer have confidence in the Courts to uphold the Constitution, our alternatives to resist tyranny become limited.

As I said, ratification of this treaty will bring no good to the nation.

Facebook

How do you determine who is a RINO?

Posted on by

When he displays by his actions that he has no firm core conservative beliefs.

Case in point.  In 2007, a treaty came before the Senate to ratify the UN’s Convention on the Law of the Sea, also known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

“If you want a U.N. on steroids, you want the Law of the Sea Treaty,” Senator Trent Lott (Miss.) declared at the news conference. Lott is the Senate Republican Whip, his party’s number two leadership position. 

The Treaty needed 67 votes to pass…or in the opposite view, on 34 votes to defeat it. After a lot of accusations and cross-accusations, the Treaty was not ratified.

Now flash-forward five years. As I scan the news items this morning, what do I see?  A hypocrite!  A “republican” hypocrite! A person we label a RINO or a Republican In Name Only.

Former Senator Trent Lott Lobbies for U.N. Treaty He Vehemently Opposed

Lachlan Markay
April 30, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Former Senator, Trent Lott
Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott is lobbying for the Senate to ratify a treaty that would undermine American sovereignty and damage the country economically – incidentally, characterizations that Lott himself has advanced.
During his time in the Senate, Lott vehemently opposed the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, also known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), saying it would create a “U.N. on steroids” that “would undermine U.S. military operations … and impair navigational rights” by subjecting maritime disputes to U.N. authority.

Lott denounced the measure in this 2007 press conference held by Sen. Jim DeMint.

If Trent Lott had any core values, he would not be supporting that Treaty now.  But then, he showed us his true colors in the campaign of 2008.

Insanity–Lindsey Graham, Trent Lott blast Tea Party, Palin

RINOS blast Tea Party 

November 4, 2010

In a stunning double-proned statement in the aftermath of the largest Republican gains in Congress since 1938, RINO Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and former Senator Trent Lott blame Sarah Palin and the Tea Party for the failure to capture control of the Senate.
 
Perhaps the two RINOS have become certifiably insane…or have indicated the dire necessity for them to leave the GOP altogether–or both.
 
Let’s look at Palin’s record on Tuesday, shall we?
 
62 candidates endorsed by Palin won.  23 lost.  7 are yet to be decided.
 
No matter which method of calculation is used, that is an extraordinary record of success.
 
So what is the beef?
 
Graham and Lott are still miffed about Palin-endorsed candidates Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell, both of whom lost their bid to pick up 2 Senate seats for the Republicans.  However, had these seats been won by the RINO candidates they preferred, the GOP still would not have enough seats for a majority.
 
Thus, another issue must be sticking in the craw of these sore losers.
 
The two also blasted Senator Jim DeMint, R-SC, for endorsing conservatives over establishment candidates.
 
Once again, what is the beef?  DeMint’s most celebrated endorsement was none other than Marco Rubio of Florida, who won in a historic landslide over Governor Charlie Crist and the Democratic candidate.
 
Thus, the crux of the issue is not the minimal losses but the success of conservatives.  RINOS view conservatives as beneath their dignity. RINOS are all about trying with all their might to be accepted by the political ruling class of the Left by cutting deals and compromising on key principles of liberty.
Oh, yeah.  And of whom do Graham and Lott remind me?  Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.
If I recall correctly, John Boehner has a primary opponent is year. I’m going to find who that is and send him a few bucks.
What we need in the House and Senate are not more roll-over RINOs.  We need principled conservatives who have core values and stay consistent to those values. 

Obama’s START Treaty: Dead on Arrival

Posted on by

Obama continues to erode our nation’s security. He’s signed a nuclear weapons reduction treaty that limits our ability to defend ourselves. All the while, Vladimir Putin is upgrading and expanding Russia’s nuclear missiles and warheads

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said that a condition of the treaty was the cessation of development and deployment of America’s ABM systems. Obama initiated some of those terms earlier this year by reducing funding for continued development and reneging on the basing agreements with Poland and other European states.

Russian President: If U.S. Builds up Missile Defense START Treaty Could Be Jeopardized

April 12, 2010 7:12 AM

I sat down with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev over the weekend where he cautioned that any rapid build-up of defensive missile systems could lead to an early withdrawal from the historic START treaty he signed with President Obama last week. He said if “an imbalance” between strategic offensive and defensive weapons systems “this would be certainly the reason to have a review of that agreement.”

Here’s Senator Joe Liberman’s (I-CT) comments from this last weekend in The Hill.

Lieberman: Not enough votes in Senate to ratify new START treaty

By Bridget Johnson – 04/11/10 10:17 AM ET

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said the administration may have problems getting the START treaty signed last week ratified in the Senate.

Lieberman said he’d arrived at his belief on the vote tally falling short after conversations with colleagues over the congressional recess.

“I don’t believe that there will be 67 votes to ratify the START treaty unless the administration does two things,” Liberman said on “Fox News Sunday.” “First, commit to modernize our nuclear stockpile so as we have less nuclear weapons we know they’re capable, if, God forbid, we need them; and secondly, to make absolutely clear that some of the statements by Russian President Medvedev at the signing in Prague that seem to suggest that if we continue to build the ballistic missile defense in Europe that they may pull out of this treaty — they’re just unacceptable to us.

“We need that defense to protect our allies and ourselves from Iran,” Lieberman said.

President Barack Obama backed away from the controversial missile shield, a plan launched under President George W. Bush, at the beginning of his term, earning kudos from Russia but disappointment from Poland and the Czech Republic.

Lieberman stressed that as stockpiles are slashed, “we have to make darn sure that our nuclear warheads are capable, are modern. And a lot of them are decades old.”

“Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace asked Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) about the chances of getting nine Republican votes need in the Senate to ratify the treaty.

That depends on the administration’s answers to the concerns posed by those like Lieberman, Alexander said.

“I mean, reducing the number of nuclear weapons that are deployed to 1,500 gives us plenty to blow everybody to kingdom come if that’s what we choose to do,” Alexander said. “But the questions are some of the ones mentioned by Senator Lieberman, and we need to take plenty of time to answer them.”

Alexander also took issue with Obama’s “troublesome” Nuclear Posture Statement, which declared that the U.S. wouldn’t hit a non-nuclear country with nuclear weapons.

“It takes away the ambiguity about our use of nuclear power,” Alexander said. “Ambiguity in foreign policy is sometimes very useful, as we’ve found.”

It appears, at least for now, that Obama’s plans to leave the country defenseless has some opposition. It remains to be seen how much of the damage already inflicted upon our relations with Eastern Europe can be repaired before Obama has been tossed out of office.

Obama’s START Treaty: Dead on Arrival

Posted on by

Obama continues to erode our nation’s security. He’s signed a nuclear weapons reduction treaty that limits our ability to defend ourselves. All the while, Vladimir Putin is upgrading and expanding Russia’s nuclear missiles and warheads

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said that a condition of the treaty was the cessation of development and deployment of America’s ABM systems. Obama initiated some of those terms earlier this year by reducing funding for continued development and reneging on the basing agreements with Poland and other European states.

Russian President: If U.S. Builds up Missile Defense START Treaty Could Be Jeopardized

April 12, 2010 7:12 AM

I sat down with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev over the weekend where he cautioned that any rapid build-up of defensive missile systems could lead to an early withdrawal from the historic START treaty he signed with President Obama last week. He said if “an imbalance” between strategic offensive and defensive weapons systems “this would be certainly the reason to have a review of that agreement.”

Here’s Senator Joe Liberman’s (I-CT) comments from this last weekend in The Hill.

Lieberman: Not enough votes in Senate to ratify new START treaty

By Bridget Johnson – 04/11/10 10:17 AM ET

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said the administration may have problems getting the START treaty signed last week ratified in the Senate.

Lieberman said he’d arrived at his belief on the vote tally falling short after conversations with colleagues over the congressional recess.

“I don’t believe that there will be 67 votes to ratify the START treaty unless the administration does two things,” Liberman said on “Fox News Sunday.” “First, commit to modernize our nuclear stockpile so as we have less nuclear weapons we know they’re capable, if, God forbid, we need them; and secondly, to make absolutely clear that some of the statements by Russian President Medvedev at the signing in Prague that seem to suggest that if we continue to build the ballistic missile defense in Europe that they may pull out of this treaty — they’re just unacceptable to us.

“We need that defense to protect our allies and ourselves from Iran,” Lieberman said.

President Barack Obama backed away from the controversial missile shield, a plan launched under President George W. Bush, at the beginning of his term, earning kudos from Russia but disappointment from Poland and the Czech Republic.

Lieberman stressed that as stockpiles are slashed, “we have to make darn sure that our nuclear warheads are capable, are modern. And a lot of them are decades old.”

“Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace asked Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) about the chances of getting nine Republican votes need in the Senate to ratify the treaty.

That depends on the administration’s answers to the concerns posed by those like Lieberman, Alexander said.

“I mean, reducing the number of nuclear weapons that are deployed to 1,500 gives us plenty to blow everybody to kingdom come if that’s what we choose to do,” Alexander said. “But the questions are some of the ones mentioned by Senator Lieberman, and we need to take plenty of time to answer them.”

Alexander also took issue with Obama’s “troublesome” Nuclear Posture Statement, which declared that the U.S. wouldn’t hit a non-nuclear country with nuclear weapons.

“It takes away the ambiguity about our use of nuclear power,” Alexander said. “Ambiguity in foreign policy is sometimes very useful, as we’ve found.”

It appears, at least for now, that Obama’s plans to leave the country defenseless has some opposition. It remains to be seen how much of the damage already inflicted upon our relations with Eastern Europe can be repaired before Obama has been tossed out of office.

Facebook