Scott Brown Finally Get’s One RIGHT: Strassel’s Wall Street Article ‘Jumping the Sequester’

March 8, 2013 in Economic Deception, Economy, Obama-Nomics, Politics, President Obama, Scott Brown, Sequestration, The Stakes for the 2014 Election

Brown- StrasselFinally we hear Scott Brown hitting a home run on Sequestration.  He rightly points out that Barack Hussein Obama conceived and created  Sequestration. While he was still serving in the Senate, the leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell both told him that Sequestration would never happen!

Jon Scott: And here we are with the White House closed to school kids The Administration can’t find a better way to save a couple of bucks?

Scott Brown: Listen, the bottom line is the Republicans have offered, and it makes common sense that the president should have what is called “Transfer Authority”.  The ability to get in there and Kind of reopen and tweak the Sequester in a whole, and actually delegate  – do thoughtful, judicious, methodical cuts. For example in the military, they need that. Give it to Heigl.  Let him go in with a fine tooth-comb,  no a scalpel I should say, to make the cuts that you need to make.

The President does not want this authority [“Transfer Authority”] because he wants to make the Republicans look bad. Everybody knows it and it’s time to show real leadership.”

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL – POTOMAC  watch: March 8, 2013, 9:29 a.m. ET

Strassel: Jumping the Sequester

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

When the president canceled White House tours, he revealed his claims as ludicrous.

The phrase “jumping the shark” describes that gimmicky moment when something once considered significant is exposed as ludicrous. This is the week the White House jumped the sequester.

The precise moment came Tuesday, when the administration announced that it was canceling public tours of the White House, blaming budget cuts.

The Sequesterer in Chief has insisted that cutting even $44 billion from this fiscal year will cause agonizing pain—airport security snarls, uninspected meat, uneducated children. Since none of those things has come to pass, the White House decided it needed an immediate and high-profile way of making its point. Ergo, it would deny the nation’s school kids a chance to view a symbol of America.

The act was designed to spark outrage against Republicans, yet the sheer pettiness of it instead provided a moment of clarity. Americans might not understand the technicalities of sequester, but this was something else entirely. Was the president actually claiming there was not a single other government item—not one—that could be cut instead of the White House tours? Really?

image

image

St. Paul’s Lutheran SchoolSixth-graders at St. Paul’s Lutheran School in Waverly, Iowa.

The cancellations were an open invitation for the nation to dive into the gory depths of the federal budget—and re-emerge with a debate over waste and priorities. Over the past week, an entire cottage industry has sprung up of journalists, watchdog groups and average citizens reporting on the absurdities of federal spending. Republicans have lit up Twitter with examples of indefensible projects (#SequesterThis).

We’ve learned that the White House employs three calligraphers, who cumulatively earn $277,000 a year. The Environmental Protection Agency gave $141,000 to fund a Chinese study on swine manure. Part of a $325,000 National Science Foundation outlay went to building a robotic squirrel.

The government gave a $3,700 grant to build a miniature street in West Virginia—out of Legos. It shelled out $500,000 to support specialty shampoo products for cats and dogs. A San Diego outfit got $10,000 for trolley dancing. The feds last year held 894 conferences that each cost more than $100,000—$340 million altogether. But Mr. Obama is too broke to let American kids look around the White House.

Related Video Available at WSJ Online

Columnist Kim Strassel on how the world did and will not end because of sequester.

Speaking of that, the tour stunt itself is turning into a PR fiasco. ABC reports the cancellations save a total of $18,000 a week. A Forbes opinion piece noted the cost of cutting the tours was equal to about two hours operating Air Force One. Speaker John Boehner twisted the knife, announcing that while Congress was also getting hit by sequester, it had planned wisely, and tours of the Capitol would continue. Come on down folks! Visit the government branch that knows how to prioritize!

To top it off, a group of cherubic sixth-graders from St. Paul’s Lutheran School in Waverly, Iowa, became a national sensation in a YouTube video pleading with the White House to reopen tours. “The White House is our house. Please let us visit,” they beg in unison. The White House hasn’t yet responded, no doubt being too busy overseeing its $27 million project that helped fund pottery classes in Morocco. (No joke.)

This is the opportunity Republicans have been pushing for, to pivot the sequester discussion to the problem of spending, and they are taking a lead from Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn. This was the guy, remember, who in 2005 offered an amendment to remove funds from a little thing he called the Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere” and to divert them to a vital bridge destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. The Bridge to Nowhere became such an embarrassing symbol of waste, Congress ultimately gave up earmarks.

Not all Republicans appreciated that episode, but they took away a couple of valuable political lessons. One, the public responds strongly to examples of waste. And two, the way to claim the high ground in such a debate is to contrast that waste with projects of real importance (like the Katrina bridge). Both lessons are tailor-made for today’s sequester fight.

Sen. Coburn himself has daily been sending letters to federal agencies, demanding that they justify their decisions to furlough existing workers rather than forgo new hires or fancy conferences. His efforts were one reason the Department of Agriculture spent this week stuttering out a justification for its sponsorship of a wine junket in California.

Utah Sen. Mike Lee has been producing graphics that show, for instance, pictures of free government cellphones next to pictures of border agents—with the Twitter tag #CutThisNotThat. Since late February, the House GOP has been highlighting its own #CutWaste projects, each of which contrasts Mr. Obama’s call for taxes with an example of embarrassing government outlays.

The White House’s shark-jumping moment has given these efforts new attention and threatens to take the sequester debate to a place this overconfident administration never imagined. The whole point of the White House’s effort to make the cuts hurt was to convince Americans that they couldn’t live without big, sweeping government. Now Americans are asking how the White House justifies living with it.

Read More: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323628804578346811646984052.html#articleTabs%3Dvideo

Write to kim@wsj.com

[subscribe2]

Senator Scott Brown -Treachery be thy name

December 4, 2012 in Scott Brown, Senator Scott Brown, Senator Scott Brown Versus The Tea Party, Treaties, UN CRPD Treaty

treach·er·y  (trch-r)

n. pl. treach·er·ies

1. Willful betrayal of fidelity, confidence, or trust; perfidy.
2. The act or an instance of such betrayal.

   Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don’t have brains enough to be honest

                                – Benjamin Franklin

 

In September the Heritage Foundation posted the following Story:

Senate Conservatives Gather Enough Votes to Block Lame Duck Treaties

Lachlan Markay

September 21, 2012 at 9:28 am

A group of Senate conservatives has gathered enough support to block any treaties that come up for a vote during the lame duck session.

A total of 36 Senators pledged, in a letter drafted by Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) to Majority and Minority leaders Harry Reid (D-NV) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY), to “oppose efforts to consider a treaty during” the lame duck session.

Because treaties require a two-thirds majority in the Senate to reach the president’s desk, the group of Senators will be able to block any treaties considered after the Nov. 6 election.

“The writers of the Constitution clearly believed that all treaties presented to the Senate should undergo the most thorough scrutiny before being agreed upon,” the letter states. “The American people will be electing representatives and senators in November, and the new representatives carrying the election mandate should be afforded the opportunity to review and consider any international agreements that are outstanding at the time of their election.”

Some Senators had expressed hope that their house would ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (commonly known as the Law of the Sea Treaty) in a lame duck session. The treaty was blocked earlier this year by Senators who noted that it would cede some level of U.S. sovereignty to an international body, force the United States to forgo some level oil and gas royalty revenue, and would produce few tangible benefits.

The Heritage Foundation’s Steve Groves testified on LOST before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

A U.N. treaty on persons with disabilities may also be considered during a lame duck session. Lee this week blocked an attempt to pass that treaty by unanimous consent. “For various reasons we don’t think any treaty should come up during the lame duck time period and we will continue to oppose any treaty passage,” Lee said. “If it is true that it is too fast to move a treaty through during a lame duck, then it’s also too fast to move it through now.”

Here is a link  to Lee’s letter to Reid and McConnell: http://www.scribd.com/doc/106565831/Lee-Toomey-lame-duck-letter

 As you can see from the foregoing link,  Senator Scott Brown was a signatory to the Pledge that clearly stated that , “We request that no treaties be brought to the Senate floor during a lame-duck period, and will oppose efforts to consider a treaty during this time.”

 Today, our Senator Scott Brown broke his pledge, voted for the CRPD Treaty and demonstrated his treachery.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress – 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Resolution of Ratification (Resolution of Ratification Treaty Doc. 112-7 )
Vote Number: 219 Vote Date: December 4, 2012, 12:06 PM
Required For Majority: 2/3 Vote Result: Resolution of Ratification Rejected
Treaty Number: Treaty Doc. 112-7
Treaty Title: The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 13, 2006, and signed by the United States of America on June 30, 2009 (the “Convention”)

 

Vote Counts: YEAs

61

  NAYs

38

  Not Voting

1

 

Vote Summary

By Senator Name

By Vote Position

By Home State

 

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Yea 
Alexander (R-TN), Nay 
Ayotte (R-NH), Yea 
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea 
Baucus (D-MT), Yea 
Begich (D-AK), Yea 
Bennet (D-CO), Yea 
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea 
Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea 
Blunt (R-MO), Nay 
Boozman (R-AR), Nay 
Boxer (D-CA), Yea 
Brown (D-OH), Yea 
Brown (R-MA), Yea 
Burr (R-NC), Nay 

Cantwell (D-WA), Yea 
Cardin (D-MD), Yea 
Carper (D-DE), Yea 
Casey (D-PA), Yea 
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay 
Coats (R-IN), Nay 
Coburn (R-OK), Nay 
Cochran (R-MS), Nay 
Collins (R-ME), Yea 
Conrad (D-ND), Yea 
Coons (D-DE), Yea 
Corker (R-TN), Nay 
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay 
Crapo (R-ID), Nay 
DeMint (R-SC), Nay 
Durbin (D-IL), Yea 
Enzi (R-WY), Nay 
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea 
Franken (D-MN), Yea 
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea 
Graham (R-SC), Nay 
Grassley (R-IA), Nay 
Hagan (D-NC), Yea 
Harkin (D-IA), Yea 
Hatch (R-UT), Nay 
Heller (R-NV), Nay 
Hoeven (R-ND), Nay 
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay 
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay 
Inouye (D-HI), Yea 
Isakson (R-GA), Nay 
Johanns (R-NE), Nay 
Johnson (D-SD), Yea 
Johnson (R-WI), Nay 
Kerry (D-MA), Yea 
Kirk (R-IL), Not Voting 
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea 
Kohl (D-WI), Yea 
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay 
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea 
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea 
Leahy (D-VT), Yea 
Lee (R-UT), Nay 
Levin (D-MI), Yea 
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea 
Lugar (R-IN), Yea 
Manchin (D-WV), Yea 
McCain (R-AZ), Yea 
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea 
McConnell (R-KY), Nay 
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea 
Merkley (D-OR), Yea 
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea 
Moran (R-KS), Nay 
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea 
Murray (D-WA), Yea 
Nelson (D-FL), Yea 
Nelson (D-NE), Yea 
Paul (R-KY), Nay 
Portman (R-OH), Nay 
Pryor (D-AR), Yea 
Reed (D-RI), Yea 
Reid (D-NV), Yea 
Risch (R-ID), Nay 
Roberts (R-KS), Nay 
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea 
Rubio (R-FL), Nay 
Sanders (I-VT), Yea 
Schumer (D-NY), Yea 
Sessions (R-AL), Nay 
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea 
Shelby (R-AL), Nay 
Snowe (R-ME), Yea 
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea 
Tester (D-MT), Yea 
Thune (R-SD), Nay 
Toomey (R-PA), Nay 
Udall (D-CO), Yea 
Udall (D-NM), Yea 
Vitter (R-LA), Nay 
Warner (D-VA), Yea 
Webb (D-VA), Yea 
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea 
Wicker (R-MS), Nay 
Wyden (D-OR), Yea 

 

 

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00219

 

Elizabeth Warren Was Getting Paid By A steel Co In A Fight Against the Unions! – Liz’s Law License

September 26, 2012 in Election, Elizabeth Warren, Scott Brown, Senator Scott Brown

Elizabeth Warren Was Working for A steel Company Against Unions

While working for a major coal company, Massachusetts Democrat Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren was paid to circumvent a congressional requirement that provided millions of dollars in health care benefits to retired union coal workers.

[yframe url=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmvcIW_FPGc’]

It turns out the fair-skinned, blonde Democrat, who is already embroiled in controversy over her claims that she is Native American, worked for what liberal environmentalists, part of her base, consider the major polluter of the environment, a major coal producer, according to the Boston Globe.

Unfortunately for her campaign for the Senate, Warren has never produced a shred of evidence that she is Native American even though she listed herself as such when applying for work at universities.

On the hand, and equally unfortunate for the liberal Democrat, the Boston Globe has uncovered evidence that she was paid $10,000 for her role in attempting to take away health care funding from retired cold miners in the 1990s, according to a separate Washington Post report.

http://www.examiner.com/article/massachusettes-elizabeth-warren-petitioned-against-retired-union-coal-miners

 

 

Prisonor Sex Change – Taxpayer To Pay For It!

September 6, 2012 in Anarchy, MA, Scott Brown, Senator Scott Brown, Senator Scott Brown Versus The Tea Party, Socialist, Tax Hike

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered state prison officials to provide taxpayer-funded sex-reassignment surgery to a transgender inmate serving life in prison for murder.
Michelle Kosilek was born male but has received hormone treatments and now lives as a woman in an all-male prison. Robert Kosilek was convicted of murder in the killing of his wife in 1990.
 [yframe url=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8WO-MzoSYs’]
U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf is believed to be the first federal judge to order prison officials to provide sex-reassignment surgery for a transgender inmate.

Kosilek first sued the Massachusetts Department of Correction 12 years ago. Two years later, Wolf ruled that Kosilek was entitled to treatment for gender-identity disorder but stopped short of ordering surgery. Kosilek sued again in 2005, arguing that the surgery is a medical necessity.

In his ruling Tuesday, Wolf found that surgery is the “only adequate treatment” for Kosilek’s “serious medical need.”

“The court finds that there is no less intrusive means to correct the prolonged violation of Kosilek’s Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care,” Wolf wrote in his 126-page ruling.

Prison officials have repeatedly cited security risks in the case, saying that allowing Kosilek to have the surgery would make him a target for sexual assaults by other inmates.

But Wolf, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, found that the security concerns are “either pretextual or can be dealt with.” He said it would be up to prison officials to decide how and where to house Kosilek after the surgery.

Diane Wiffin, a spokeswoman for the prisons department, said the agency would have no immediate comment on the ruling.

“We are reviewing the decision and exploring our appellate options,” Wiffin said.

In a telephone interview last year with The Associated Press, Kosilek said the surgery is a medical necessity, not a frivolous desire to change his appearance.

“Everybody has the right to have their health care needs met, whether they are in prison or out on the streets,” Kosilek said. “People in the prisons who have bad hearts, hips or knees have surgery to repair those things. My medical needs are no less important or more important than the person in the cell next to me.”

Wolf noted in his ruling that the Department of Correction’s own medical experts testified that they believe surgery was the only adequate treatment for Kosilek.

The department’s ex-commissioner Kathleen Dennehy testified that providing Kosilek the surgery would present insurmountable security concerns, but Wolf said Kosilek had proven that those purported concerns masked the real reason for denying surgery: “a fear of controversy, criticism, ridicule and scorn.”

Kosilek’s lawsuit has become fodder for radio talk shows and lawmakers who say the state should not be forced to pay for a convicted murderer’s sex-change operation — which can cost up to $20,000 — especially since many insurance companies reject the surgery as elective.

Inmates in Colorado, California, Idaho and Wisconsin have sued unsuccessfully to try to get the surgery, making similar arguments that denying it violates the U.S. Constitution’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Wolf noted that Kosilek’s gender-identity disorder has caused Kosilek such anguish that he has tried to castrate himself and twice tried to commit suicide, including once while on Prozac.

Kosilek’s lead attorney, Frances Cohen, called the decision courageous and thoughtful.

“We feel very grateful that the judge listened very carefully to the medical experts and has given Michelle Kosilek what the prison doctors had recommended,” Cohen said.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/04/massachusetts-judge-approves-taxpayer-funded-sex-change-for-inmate/#ixzz25hGS23CI

Petition to Senator Brown Regarding UN Treaties

August 16, 2012 in Homeland Security, Net Neutrality, Patriotism, President Obama, Scott Brown, Senator Scott Brown, Treaties, United Nations, United States Sovereignty

Please join us in signing our Mass Tea Party’s Petition to Scott Brown so that we may learn his positions on several UN treaties that would have a devastating effect on our National Security and Sovereignty. We need to understand the Senator’s position on these treaties before November 6th. As you may know Senator Brown Did Not join 34 Senators in signing Senator DeMint’s letter to Harry Reid repudiating the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Sign The Petition to Senator Brown Regarding UN Treaties Click Here

Obama’s Sneaky Treaties

[yframe url=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoFI9golQ9Y’]
By Dick Morris on February 8, 2012

Published on TheHill.com on February 7, 2012

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are entering negotiations over — or seeking ratification of — five treaties that could radically limit our national sovereignty and the reach of our democratic institutions. Particularly scary is that the treaties, once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.

Those who wish to preserve our sovereignty and democratic control over our future must rally to block these treaties, either by pressing Obama and Clinton not to sign them or by blocking their ratification.

Call Your Senators and tell them to vote NO!

Senator John Kerry Senator Scott Brown

 

Washington Office Boston Office Washington Office Boston Office
 
(202) 224-2742 (617) 565-8519 (202) 224-4543 (617) 565-3170
 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++• International Criminal Court — Clinton has reversed George W. Bush’s policy and entered into negotiations over U.S. participation in the court. Specifically, the leftists who are sponsoring the court wish to create a new crime of “aggression,” which is essentially going to war without the approval of the United Nations. If we submit to the court’s jurisdiction, our presidents and Cabinet officials could be prosecuted criminally for going to war without U.N. approval. This would, of course, give Russia and China a veto over our military actions. Clinton says she will stop our military’s hands from being tied, but we all must realize that once we accept the International Criminal Court, we go down a slippery slope. The court could even prosecute Americans who have been cleared by our own judicial system.

Senator Kerry: CALLED 7/24 BUT WILL NOT SAY

Senator Brown: CALLED 7/23 BUT WILL NOT SAY

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) has been signed, and the Obama administration — with the aid of RINO Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.) — will push for its ratification as soon as Lugar’s primary in Indiana is over this year. LOST requires that the United States pay an international body half of its royalties from offshore drilling. The body would then distribute the funds as it sees fit to whichever nations it chooses. The United States would only have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money goes. LOST will also oblige us to hand over our offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it … for free. Our own Senator Kerry is leading the charge for this treaty on behalf of the Obama Administration! Senator Kerry has held hearings on the Treaty and allowed 16 People to testify in favor of the treat and only 2 people to testify against the treaty. He is playing hardball, perhaps he is seeking favor to lock in his next venue as part of the Obama Administration, should they prevail in November! The word on the street from reliable sources is that Republican Senators who face an election in November have told Senator Kerry that if the treaty is brought up for a vote before November 6th hey would have to vote nay, but after they would vote yea! Ala Obama to Russia’s President Medvedev on an open mic.

 

President Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev:” Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

President Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

The American public is being played once again!!!

 

We must vet our Senators including Senator Brown before the election. After the election will be too late!

Senator Kerry: Called 7/24- Supports Treaty
Senator Brown: CALLED 7/23, 8/14 BUT WILL NOT SAY

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Small-arms control Clinton is about to negotiate on a global ban on export of small arms. It would only apply to private citizens but, of course, most small-arms deals come not from individuals or private firms but from governments, specifically those of the United States, Russia, China and Israel. The treaty would require each nation to adopt measures to stop exportation of small arms. It is easy to see how this could be a backdoor way to require national registration of all guns and to assert federal regulation over firearms. It would also require the registration of all ammunition to track its source once a gun is fired. The Second Amendment be damned!

Senator Kerry: CALLED 7/23 BUT WILL NOT SAY
Senator Brown: Called 7/23 – Will not support Treaty

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Outer Space Code of Conduct — Under the guise of stopping debris from accumulating in outer space, the European Union has enlisted Clinton in negotiations over a code of conduct. The code would prohibit activities that are likely to generate debris in outer space — space littering. The code might inhibit or prohibit the United States from deploying anti-missile missiles on platforms in space, denying us the key weapon we need to counter Iranian, Chinese and North Korean missile threats. European leftists reacted angrily when G.W. Bush opted out of the ABM treaty banning defensive weapons. Now they seek to reimpose it under the guise of a code of conduct.

Senator Kerry: CALLED 7/24 BUT WILL NOT SAY
Senator Brown: CALLED 7/23 BUT WILL NOT SAY

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Rights of the Child — Even more fanciful is a treaty Clinton plans to negotiate setting forth a code of rights for children, to be administered by a 14-member court set up for the purpose. The draft treaty obliges rich nations to provide funds for shelter, food, clothing and education for children in poor nations. This provision could create grounds to litigate to challenge the level of foreign aid we give as inadequate to meet our treaty obligations. Already, leftists in the United Kingdom are using the treaty to attack welfare cuts by the Cameron government.

Senator Kerry: CALLED 7/24 BUT WILL NOT SAY

Senator Brown: CALLED 7/23 BUT WILL NOT SAY

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CONVENTION on the RIGHTS of PERSONS with DISABILITIES

Trick or Treaty

Our very own SENATOR KERRY once again is advocating for “…the global community[which] could force America to sanction sterilization or abortion for the disabled–at taxpayer expense! Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) tried to neutralize the threat yesterday during the mark-up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Unfortunately, his amendment (which would have stopped the treaty from forcing abortion policy on countries that sign) was thwarted by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)

It’s the latest threat to parents’ rights that no one knows about–and yesterday, the Senate moved one step closer to making it the law of the land. Like most U.N. treaties, this one sounds harmless enough. But make no mistake–its innocuous name, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), masks a cunning attack on parental authority, unborn life, and U.S. sovereignty. Of course, this is a favorite strategy of liberal administrations: using treaties to get radical policies through the country’s backdoor. In this instance, it would bring our nation even closer to President Obama’s apparent goal of putting America under global governance.

As Phyllis Schafly points out, the U.S. already enacted the strongest piece of disabilities legislation in the world. This idea that the U.N. “can provide more benefits or protections for persons with disabilities than the U.S. is bizarre,” she writes in an excellent column that debunks the need for such a treaty. “The United States always treats individuals, able or disabled, rich or poor, innocent or guilty, better than any nation.” Democrats argue that it would help the rest of the world “catch up” to our standards. But, as Sen. Jim DeMint and others have made clear, the U.S. doesn’t need to sign away its rights to provide leadership in that area.

While this is a noble cause that embodies the American ethic–treating people with dignity and respect–it gives the U.N. a profound stake in U.S. law and the rights of people across the country. Specifically, the CRPD takes aim at parents, declaring that an international body–not moms and dads–will be the ultimate authority on issues like education. The treaty slips in phrases like “best interest of the child,” which, as Sen. Rick Santorum pointed out with me on last week’s radio show, are “red alert alarm words.” They mean that government officials or courts will be in the position of deciding what’s in your child’s best interest–not you. Under CRPD, the government would supersede parents in setting course plans for both gifted and special needs kids. The Homeschool Legal Defense Association is concerned–and rightly so. It maintains that this Convention signals a dramatic turnaround in parental rights.

And, of course, it wouldn’t be a U.N. proposal if it didn’t include a backdoor to greater abortion access. “The feminists saw to it that this treaty about disabilities includes language in Article 25 that requires signatories to ‘provide persons with disabilities… free or affordable health care,” Phyllis notes, “including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based health programs.'” Translation: the global community could force America to sanction sterilization or abortion for the disabled–at taxpayer expense! Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) tried to neutralize the threat yesterday during the mark-up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Unfortunately, his amendment (which would have stopped the treaty from forcing abortion policy on countries that sign) was thwarted by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) after a debate that you can watch here:

[yframe url=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZUHpLqusw4&feature’]

Although Sen. DeMint managed to delay the CRPD a week, the Committee, including three of its Republicans–Sens. John Barrasso (Wy.), Richard Lugar (Ind.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.)–voted yesterday to send the treaty to the Senate floor, where it could be ratified as early as next week. Between now and then, it is absolutely critical for people to see that what’s at stake in this debate, which is nothing short of our authority as parents–and as a nation. By law, the Convention will need 67 votes to pass, which means we need to persuade at least 34 senators to defeat it. Contact your senators today and urge them to vote down this deadly infringement on U.S. sovereignty. Your rights depend on it.

Senator Kerry: Is in Favor of this Treaty

 

Word on the street from reliable sources is that Our Senator Kerry will attempt to push this Treaty thru the Senate in early September as soon as they return to Washington. Our Senator believes that he has the votes to sneak it through while everyone is preoccupied with the election and children returing to school.

The fact of the matter is that this treaty would not benefit a single American!

Senator Brown: CALLED 8/14 BUT WILL NOT SAY

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

European liberalism is advancing — masked — by way of these treaties. Defenders of liberty must say no!

Your Gun Rights On Trial – Michelle Malkin

July 12, 2012 in 2nd Amendment, Congress, Constitutional, Freedom, Gun Control, Politics, President Obama, Scott Brown, United Nations

2nd amendment Under Major Attack
Also The lost Treaty which deal with water rights & Sea Right
US Arms Trade Treaty: UN appoints Iran to key role in negotiating away your 2nd Amendment rights.

[yframe url=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHUd09aA4Xg’]

US Arms Trade Treaty: UN appoints Iran to key role in negotiating away your 2nd Amendment rights

BCNews note: Iran? Are you for real? Iran, with their lifelong stellar record on human rights has been put in charge of treaty enforcement that could eventually lead to us losing our guns and right to own them? Really? Is this the same UN that the Chamber of Commerce created several years ago? I’m sitting here with my tounge hanging out wandering what in the heck is going on? Why is the UN anywhere near our border with this bull?

Then I think again and it astounds me that we still give the Chamber of Commerce so much credibility in light of their Frankenstein type creation! Did anyone, even the Chamber think that they could create such an animal with such fangs. Then I think well everything the Chamber of Commerce does somehow points right back to the United Nations as if by design, as if they were trying to take over the world and replace her with some type of alternative plan. A plan so deviant even our neighbors couldn’t blame on the Chamber!

Where does it stop? When does someone say enough is enough? When does some brave soul say the UN has no right in our country so get the hades out!

Do we hand our guns over to a foreign entity at the behest of the Chamber that is in every community in the US and seemingly and well disguised as red white and blue as apple pie? Some are saying even if our senate repels this treaty our “gun info” will still be in the hands of the UN for global monitoring! Folks, better wake up! I have been told many times by many people “by golly if they come after my guns, then I’m gonna get mad” well, they are after your guns and will be real close to getting them as soon a July 27th, 2012.

Our two Senators in Tennessee Alexander and Corker cant seem to give anyone a straight answer when asked if they are going to vote on it or not! Senators this is a no brainer! This is the gem in the crown that keeps our nation and it’s people free! This is our second amendment rights! Please! What is so difficult about this.

A United Nations treaty on the trade of conventional arms could give enemies of the U.S. access to the records of American gun owners, say critics. (AP)
UNITED NATIONS – A treaty being hammered out this month at the United Nations — with Iran playing a key role — could expose the records of America’s gun owners to foreign governments — and, critics warn, eventually put the Second Amendment on global trial.

International talks in New York are going on throughout July on the final wording of the so-called Arms Trade Treaty, which supporters such as Amnesty International USA say would rein in unregulated weapons that kill an estimated 1,500 people daily around the world. But critics, including the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, warn the treaty would mark a major step toward the eventual erosion of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment gun-ownership rights.

Americans “just don’t want the UN to be acting as a global nanny with a global permission slip stating whether they can own a gun or not,” LaPierre said. “It cheapens our rights as American citizens, and weakens our sovereignty,” he warned in an exclusive interview with FoxNews.com from the halls of the UN negotiating chambers.

“It cheapens our rights as American citizens, and weakens our sovereignty.”
– Wayne LaPierre, National Rifle Association

The world body has already been criticized for appointing Iran to a key role in the talks, even as Tehran stands accused by the UN of arming Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s bloody crackdown on rebels. The Obama administration in 2009 reversed Bush administration policy by agreeing to take part in the talks. But in another exclusive interview with FoxNews.com, the top government official on the issue under President Bush says he’s seen nothing new to convince him the U.S. should be at the table today.

While the treaty’s details are still under discussion, the document could straitjacket U.S. foreign policy to the point where Washington could be restricted from helping arm friends such as Taiwan and Israel, said Greg Suchan, Deputy Assistant Secretary in the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs from 2000 to 2007.

Suchan also highlighted ongoing concern that the treaty may end up giving foreigners access to U.S. gun-ownership records.

On that score, LaPierre, who serves as NRA executive vice president, warns that the “UN’s refusal” to remove civilian firearms and ammunition from the scope of the treaty amounts to a declaration that only governments should be gun owners.

But he revealed he was set Wednesday to tell the UN gathering that 58 U.S. senators had signed a letter saying that they would refuse to ratify any treaty that includes controls over civilian guns or ammunition.

Ratification by two-thirds of the Senate is necessary before an international treaty negotiated by the executive branch can become U.S. law. But the treaty could still go into effect elsewhere once 65 countries ratify it. Such a development could change the pattern of world arms transfers and reduce the U.S. share, which stands at about 40 percent of up to $60 billion in global deals.

The Bush administration opposed a 2006 UN General Assembly resolution launching the treaty process, but President Obama decided the U.S. would take part on condition the final agreement be reached by consensus — thereby giving any of the 193 participating states an effective veto.

The safeguard is insufficient for opponents of the U.S. participation, not least because UN talks invariably involve compromise.

“The administration swears they have a whole bunch of red lines, and they will block consensus if anyone crosses them,” said Suchan, now a government relations consultant as senior associate with the Commonwealth Consulting Corporation in Arlington, Va.

“But the dynamics of international negotiations are that once you get 90 percent of what you seek, you say, ‘Maybe there is a way we can finesse the final 10 percent.’”

A clause permitting arms transfers solely between UN member states would allow UN member China to object to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, a non-UN member that China considers to be a renegade province.

This would be highly problematic for the U.S. at a time when Beijing is engaged in an unprecedented arms buildup.

Another fear is that Arab or other states critical of Israel may use any treaty language on human rights standards to argue against U.S. arms transfers to the Israeli government – much in the same way they currently use the UN Human Rights Council to repeatedly condemn Israel.

Suchan said U.S. arms trade law is seen as the global “gold standard” for regulating arms transfers, but doubted many countries would be willing to raise the bar that high. Instead, the treaty that emerges is expected to set a lower global standard – which Suchan said would have the effect of reducing Washington’s ability to press for voluntary arms embargoes against rogue states.

“We might want to urge a country to not sell arms to a state whose government is particularly odious,” Suchan explained.

“But that government could then ask whether the sale is prohibited under the Arms Trade Treaty – and if it is not, they would argue they are meeting the international standard.”

U.S. gun lobby concern focuses on the emphasis the treaty places on governmental – as opposed to individual – rights to guns, LaPierre explained.

“They’re trying to impose a UN policy that gives guns to the governments – but the UN doesn’t in turn make moral judgments as to whether these governments are good or bad,” he said.

“If you’re the government, you get the guns, if you’re a civilian, you don’t. But this will just end up helping evil governments and tyrants.”

For LaPierre, the emphasis he sees at the UN on governmental rights reflects what he believes is a wider international tradition that contrasts with the historical American emphasis on individual rights.

“The UN view is that governments – not individual citizens – ought to protect people,” he said, signaling that this principle permeates the draft that negotiators are currently working with.

LaPierre says the treaty that is likely to emerge will have the effect of squeezing individual gun owners in the United States and elsewhere by imposing on them an onerous collection of regulations.

“If they get this through, then what comes along is the institutionalizing of the whole gun control-ban movement within the bureaucracy of UN – with a permanent funding mechanism that we [in America] will be mainly paying for,” he said.

“The world’s worst human rights abusers will end up voting for this, while the Obama administration has not drawn a line in the sand like the previous administration did. Instead, it is trying to be a part of this train wreck because they think they can somehow finesse it. But, to me, there is no finessing the individual freedoms of American citizens.”

Source of info and we thank him for his generous contribution!
Steven Edwards is a UN-based freelance journalist

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/11/un-arms-treaty-could-put-us-gun-owners-in-foreign-sights-say-critics/#ixzz20Ms11rMk

Will Senator Brown Join Swiftboat Kerry in Committing US Citizens to a United Nations Global Taxiation Scheme?

July 1, 2012 in Agenda 21, Scott Brown, Tax Hike, United Nations, US Sovereignty

Senator Brown is Among 20 Republican Senators that are  Refusing to Oppose a United Nations Global Taxation Scheme that is Intentionally Designed To Hand Over Our Sovereignty To The Third World.

The Obama Administration’s plan is to Implement several treaties over the next 6 months that signs over crucial segments of US Sovereignty to the United Nations. The first of these Treaties is the Law of the Sea Treaty which would redistribute a large proportion of our offshore oil drilling and mineral  profits to the United Nations to distribute among member nations! 

Our own Do-Bee Senator, Swiftboat Kerry, Chairman of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, is leading the Obama Administration’s  charge in the Senate and is reported to be bringing in  in “Big Guns” to assist him in twisting the  arms of Republican Senators to pass this outrageous Treaty. A Treaty that not only bypasses the People’s House but once ratified cannot be repealed, not even by an affirmative vote to repeal  by the entire  House, the entire Senate and a future President!

The Following 20 Repuplican Members of the United States Senate have failed to sign Senator DeMint’s Letter Opposing The Law Of The Sea Treaty:

 The Hon. Lamar Alexander, The Hon. Kelly Ayotte( Junior Senator from New Hampshire), The Hon. Scott Brown, The Hon. Thad Cochran, The Hon. Susan Collins( Junior Senator from Maine),   The Hon. Bob Corker, The Hon. Michael Enzi, The Hon. Lindsey Graham(Senior Senator from SC), The Hon. Charles Grassley, The Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, The Hon. Johnny Isakson, The Hon. Mike Johanns, The Hon. Mark Kirk, The Hon. Richard Lugar, The Hon. John McCain (Senior Senator from AZ , Former Presidential Candidate and Senator Brown Mentor), The Hon. Mitch McConnell ( House Majority Leader), The Hon. Lisa Murkowski, The Hon. Rob Portman, The Hon. Olympia Snowe( Senior Senator from Maine) and The Hon. Patrick Toomey( Junior Senator from PA)

New federal agency OFR – Unconstitutional

April 20, 2012 in Bail Out, Budget, Constitutional, Economic Deception, Economy, Politics, Scott Brown, Socialist, Tax Hike

It is the most powerful federal agency you’ve never heard of — and lawmakers from both parties on Thursday vowed to keep abreast of its astonishing growth and rein it in, if necessary.

[yframe url=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGJ6KV8dIzQ’]

. Technically housed under the Treasury Department, the agency has until now received its funding not from the Congress, but directly from the Federal Reserve.
 
Starting in July, the OFR Fiscal Year 2013 budget, estimated at $158 million, will be funded entirely through assessments — also known as taxes — on bank-holding firms with consolidated assets worth at least $50 billion.
 
But as became clear at Thursday’s hearing by the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, a close reading of the law the president signed provides no limit on the growth of OFR’s budget, nor on the taxes the agency can impose on big banks to fund it.
 
“We’ll call you on it,” said Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass., warning what would happen if he and his colleagues see the agency growing too large.
 
Yet the Congress’ prospects for doing that are at present limited, as it holds no power of the purse over OFR. Detractors call it “the CIA of financial regulators,” and conjure “Orwellian” visions of “an omniscient Soviet-style central risk manager.”
 
The agency’s official mission is to collect financial data and funnel it to another Dodd-Frank creation: the Financial Stability Oversight Council. These agencies were designed with the idea of preventing another systemic shock of Lehman Brothers magnitude.
 
Toward that end, OFR was invested with virtually unlimited subpoena power. It can compel just about any company in America to turn over to the federal government sensitive internal data, even proprietary information.
 
“We’re only going to be collecting the data that we absolutely need, to fulfill our mission,” testified Michele Shannon, the new agency’s chief operating officer. “We’re trying to fill data gaps. We’re not going to be collecting for collection’s sake. We’re going to be making sure that only those people who absolutely need to have access to sensitive data have that access.”
 
But Republicans on the panel remained skeptical about the potential for abuses of power.
 
“You’re able to tax corporations without any oversight by the U.S. Congress,” said Rep. Steve Pearce, R-New Mex. “Our Constitution is pretty clear, and so if we’re a little scratchy on our side, just understand it’s because you’re conducting things that we feel like are completely unconstitutional.”
 
Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., questioned both the need for OFR to exist and its ability to protect adequately the sensitive data it will collect through its subpoena power.
 
“Your agency…seems to think it can outsmart Wall Street, if they have enough extra people and enough software, that they can see where the next problem is going to be,” Posey said at Thursday’s hearing. “But everyone with half a brain in this country saw the last problem way before it burst. We knew there was a subprime crisis; it was just a matter of how long it would be before it burst.”
 
Posey also noted that the computer systems of some national defense agencies have been hacked. “I wonder whether or not you’ll be able to have a safer process than some of them did,” he said.
 
One of the panel’s most liberal members, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., normally alarmed by unbridled expansions of subpoena power, defended OFR, citing the experience of the Great Recession. “I hope that all my colleagues agree that having, consolidating, and understanding this complex financial data would be key to preventing another systemic risk,” she said
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/19/new-federal-agency-ofr-stirs-orwellian-fears/#ixzz1sZuirxkf

New federal agency OFR

Senator Brown’s Bill for E-3 Guest Workers will Compete With Unemployed MA Workers

February 9, 2012 in Immigration, Jobs, Scott Brown

Summary of Amended Version of S. 1983
Thursday, February 9, 2012

The Fairness for High-Skilled Immigration Act

Sens. Schumer, Brown Lobby for Thousands More Irish Guest Workers

This last week, Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Scott Brown (R-MA) have been quietly lobbying their Senate colleagues to pass an amended version of S.1983, legislation that would bring in thousands of guest workers from Ireland. The legislation, called the “Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act,” would expand the E-3 visa program to admit at least 10,500 Irish guest workers annually, PLUS an unlimited number of visas for spouses and children of E-3 visa holders.

Congress created the E-3 visa program under the 2005 REAL ID Act. It is exclusively for Australian nationals who seek a nonimmigrant visa to come to the U.S. to work in a specialty occupation. (See Pub. L. No. 109-13 § 501(a)) The current annual cap for E-3 visas is 10,500, and there is no cap on the number of derivative visas handed out to the spouses and children (up to age 21) of E-3 visa holders. (INA § 214(g)(11)) While touted by some as a visa for “high-skilled” workers, the threshold for qualifying for it is low. Federal regulations define “specialty occupation” to require only a Bachelor’s degree-or its equivalent-in a broad variety of fields ranging from architecture and the social sciences to accounting. (8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ii))

The amended version of S.1983 allows an additional 10,500 E-3 guest worker visas to be given solely to Irish nationals. (INA § 101(a)(15)(E)(iii); INA § 214(g)(11)) However, rather than holding Irish nationals to the same “specialty occupation” standard as the Australians, the amended version of S.1983 would lower the skill standard even further by only requiring Irish recipients of the E-3 visa to have only two years of work experience in a particular field, OR to have obtained a high school diploma or its equivalent.

In addition to importing more guest workers, the amended version of S.1983 also incorporates H.R. 3012. That bill eliminates the current per-country cap of seven percent for employment-based visas and increases the current family-based cap from seven to 15 percent. (INA § 202(a)(2)) (For more information on H.R. 3012, see FAIR’s Legislative Update, Dec. 5, 2011)

Overall, S.1983 represents poor immigration policy on several levels. By admitting an additional 10,500 individuals into the country (even more with an unlimited number of spouses and children), it would increase immigration-and competition for scarce jobs-at a time when there are already 13 million unemployed Americans seeking jobs. Further exacerbating this problem, the bill lacks a requirement that employers seek legal U.S. workers before they can hire an E-3 visa holder and lowers the skill-set required to gain entry into the U.S. Finally, the amended version of S.1983 carves out a special rule for members of a single nationality, creating a slippery slope in which representatives from every country around the world will seek similar preferential treatment.

Read more here: http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?abbr=leg_&page=NewsArticle&id=24839

Obama Makes Recess Appointments Even Though the Senate Isn’t in Recess and Senator Brown Backs Appointment

January 5, 2012 in Anarchy, Constitutional, MA, Scott Brown, Senator Scott Brown Versus The Tea Party

The Obamarites are claiming that the president  made Recess Appointments. However, according to the official Senate calendar,  the Senate “convened at 12:00 p.m. for a pro forma session” on January 3d.

“This means that officially, technically, and according to the rules and procedures of the United States Senate, it is still in session. This tactic [pro forma secession] was invented and used first by the Democrats to block President Bush recess appointments, and it was successful, because legally the President can not make appointments while the Senate is in session.”

  Therefore, all of President Obama’s appointments are unconstitutional.

The following article by the Heritage Network expounds further on this deliberate abuse of the Constitution.

A Tyrannical Abuse of Power: Obama Attempts to Appoint Cordray to CFPB

The Heritage Network

Todd Gaziano

January 4, 2012 at 12:26 pm

In a revelation that is quite shocking to anyone who knows anything about the 100-plus years of precedent on the recess appointment power or the separation of powers, the White House today announced that the President planned on making a purported recess appointment of Richard Cordray to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This is a position the Senate has refused to confirm Cordray for, and it is also of note that the White House announced this momentous decision in an official tweet from communications director Dan Pfeiffer.

Heritage’s Diane Katz has explained why that position should remain unfilled until the agency’s powers are modified, but the alleged recess appointment is outrageous no matter what position it would supposedly fill. What is shocking is that the Senate is not in a recess that would allow a recess appointment, and it can’t be under the Constitution, even if many Senators are not in D.C.

You can read the entire story here:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/04/a-tyrannical-abuse-of-power-obama-attempts-to-appoint-cordray-to-cfpb/

Meanwhile Senator Brown once again breaks away from the Republican Party to Back Obama’s Unconstitutional  Appointments.

BOSTON (AP) — U.S. Sen. Scott Brown said he supports President Barack Obama’s decision to name Richard Cordray as the nation’s chief consumer watchdog despite the objections of Brown’s fellow Senate Republicans.

“I support President Obama’s appointment today of Richard Cordray to head the CFPB. I believe he is the right person to lead the agency and help protect consumers from fraud and scams,” Brown said in a statement.

 

You can read the entire article here: http://www.eagletribune.com/boston/x191088862/Sen-Brown-supports-Obamas-consumer-chief-pick

You can call Senator Brown in Washingtonand to agree or disaagree  at : (202) 224-4543

or in  Boston at:   (617) 565-3170