In keeping with our interest to provide you with a way to sort through all the news chatter these days, I have provided links to the ERLC's recently completed highlights on President Obama's first 100 days. You will see that he has shifted policy in significant ways on both the domestic and foreign fronts. The challenges before us are enormous and of great consequence. We must pray fervently that God will give our elected leaders wisdom and that He will empower us to be the salt and light our nation desperately needs.
Obama's first 100 days: Domestic Policy
http://erlc.com/documents/pdf/Obama_First_100_Days_Domestic.pdf
Obama's first 100 days: Foreign Policy, http://erlc.com/documents/pdf/Obama_First_100_Days_Foreign.pdf
Best regards in Jesus,
Barrett
Monday, April 27, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
The EPA and CO2
Today the EPA proposed to find that certain greenhouse gases, including CO2, pose a threat to human health. The statement can be found here, http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Determination.pdf.
Here are the two findings:
Endangerment Finding: The Administrator is proposing to find that the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator is further proposing to find that the combined emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change. If the EPA moves forward with this, they could end up regulating CO2 and these other gases under the Clean Air Act.
I have attached the comments the ERLC submitted to the EPA during the pre-comment period so you can see some of what has us concerned about this. Essentially, just about everybody will pay a fee to emit greenhouse gases if the EPA does this.
Of special interest is this statement toward the end of their press release: "Before taking any steps to reduce greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, EPA would conduct an appropriate process and consider stakeholder input. Notwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy," http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0EF7DF675805295D8525759B00566924.
You should consider this as a threat to act and impose really dreadful limitations on CO2 emissions if Congress doesn't pass global warming legislation.
So now we come to what this is really all about. It's about the President's interest in securing a carbon tax to fund his budget initiatives. We will be told that a cap and trade plan is better than the EPA imposing its heavy hand on all of us through the Clean Air Act. This helps create pressure to look the other way as the President's budget moves through Congress. If that still doesn't get the votes needed in the Senate, then it is likely the whole package will be run through the Senate under the reconciliation process. Under this process, they just need 50 senate votes, plus Biden, to pass the budget.
Here are some comments from others:
Phil Kerpen: "Note below that Dan Clifton fears, as I do, that cap-and-trade in the budget means it will be moved under budget reconciliation, meaning it needs only 50 votes, not 60. That is going to make our job enormously more difficult. It also means the program will have to sunset after the budget window, which will most likely be 5 years. So they will have to explain the value of a 5-year program to combat a 100+ year problem. It also lays bare the fact that this is all about raising revenue, that is, taxes, since that's the only reason it can be made part of the budget."
Dan Clifton: "We think the biggest policy takeaway is inclusion of cap & trade in the budget rather than as a stand alone measure as we noted in yesterday's "Policy Outlook." Should Congress place the provision under reconciliation protection (Washington speak for filibuster proof in the Senate due to budget rules), legislative approval may just require 51 votes (including Vice-President Biden) and not the traditional 60 votes.This is the procedure for how President Clinton passed his tax increase and President Bush passed his tax cuts. Cap & trade is a revenue raiser and Obama is seeking to use this money to reduce the deficit. Should reconciliation protection be given to the measure, we would raise our probability of passage. Should the provision not receive the protection we think the legislation is unlikely to garner the needed 60 votes for passage. The tax increases are not large enough for Obama to close the $2tn budget deficit while making good on his major promises in health,energy, and education."
Inclusion of the global warming measure in the budget provides the Administration with two wins: 1. They get the revenue from selling emissions credits to businesses, essentially a new tax on every business in the country; and 2. They get to force the US to adopt a system to curb greenhouse gases.
Continuing on the energy front, here's an article by Kimberley Strassel in the April 17 Wall Street Journal. She discusses Congress' efforts to encourage the use of alternative fuels. I think you'll find it informative, and hilarious if it weren't all so distressing, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993344387627879.html.
Finally, I think these two articles on energy in the April 20 Newsweek sum up very well the two opposing views on our energy future. Gingrich's article, http://www.newsweek.com/id/192480, is strongly argued with very substantive proposals. Chu's article, http://www.newsweek.com/id/192481, is weak on viable immediate solutions.
The most disturbing part of Chu's article is his call for US farms to produce more alternative energy. Such an approach will drive up the cost of food as valuable farm land is diverted to growing crops for the more lucrative fuel market instead of food. We continue to press the case for common sense.
Barrett
Here are the two findings:
Endangerment Finding: The Administrator is proposing to find that the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator is further proposing to find that the combined emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change. If the EPA moves forward with this, they could end up regulating CO2 and these other gases under the Clean Air Act.
I have attached the comments the ERLC submitted to the EPA during the pre-comment period so you can see some of what has us concerned about this. Essentially, just about everybody will pay a fee to emit greenhouse gases if the EPA does this.
Of special interest is this statement toward the end of their press release: "Before taking any steps to reduce greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, EPA would conduct an appropriate process and consider stakeholder input. Notwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy," http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0EF7DF675805295D8525759B00566924.
You should consider this as a threat to act and impose really dreadful limitations on CO2 emissions if Congress doesn't pass global warming legislation.
So now we come to what this is really all about. It's about the President's interest in securing a carbon tax to fund his budget initiatives. We will be told that a cap and trade plan is better than the EPA imposing its heavy hand on all of us through the Clean Air Act. This helps create pressure to look the other way as the President's budget moves through Congress. If that still doesn't get the votes needed in the Senate, then it is likely the whole package will be run through the Senate under the reconciliation process. Under this process, they just need 50 senate votes, plus Biden, to pass the budget.
Here are some comments from others:
Phil Kerpen: "Note below that Dan Clifton fears, as I do, that cap-and-trade in the budget means it will be moved under budget reconciliation, meaning it needs only 50 votes, not 60. That is going to make our job enormously more difficult. It also means the program will have to sunset after the budget window, which will most likely be 5 years. So they will have to explain the value of a 5-year program to combat a 100+ year problem. It also lays bare the fact that this is all about raising revenue, that is, taxes, since that's the only reason it can be made part of the budget."
Dan Clifton: "We think the biggest policy takeaway is inclusion of cap & trade in the budget rather than as a stand alone measure as we noted in yesterday's "Policy Outlook." Should Congress place the provision under reconciliation protection (Washington speak for filibuster proof in the Senate due to budget rules), legislative approval may just require 51 votes (including Vice-President Biden) and not the traditional 60 votes.This is the procedure for how President Clinton passed his tax increase and President Bush passed his tax cuts. Cap & trade is a revenue raiser and Obama is seeking to use this money to reduce the deficit. Should reconciliation protection be given to the measure, we would raise our probability of passage. Should the provision not receive the protection we think the legislation is unlikely to garner the needed 60 votes for passage. The tax increases are not large enough for Obama to close the $2tn budget deficit while making good on his major promises in health,energy, and education."
Inclusion of the global warming measure in the budget provides the Administration with two wins: 1. They get the revenue from selling emissions credits to businesses, essentially a new tax on every business in the country; and 2. They get to force the US to adopt a system to curb greenhouse gases.
Continuing on the energy front, here's an article by Kimberley Strassel in the April 17 Wall Street Journal. She discusses Congress' efforts to encourage the use of alternative fuels. I think you'll find it informative, and hilarious if it weren't all so distressing, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993344387627879.html.
Finally, I think these two articles on energy in the April 20 Newsweek sum up very well the two opposing views on our energy future. Gingrich's article, http://www.newsweek.com/id/192480, is strongly argued with very substantive proposals. Chu's article, http://www.newsweek.com/id/192481, is weak on viable immediate solutions.
The most disturbing part of Chu's article is his call for US farms to produce more alternative energy. Such an approach will drive up the cost of food as valuable farm land is diverted to growing crops for the more lucrative fuel market instead of food. We continue to press the case for common sense.
Barrett
Saturday, April 11, 2009
A Growing Uneasiness
While there was plenty in the news this week, I figure most of it had pretty broad exposure and that you have been able to track the most egregious day-to-day developments. Here are some articles that I thought I should bring to your attention just in case you missed them.
The first three links reveal a growing uneasiness with patterns in President Obama's practices. I think you'll find them useful as catalogs of things that are troubling to you as well. The fourth link illustrates my growing concern about the Obama administration's embrace of the UN. The Reason piece, http://www.reason.com/news/show/132541.html, lists a number of instances of the President's willingness to overlook his campaign promises when it suits his purpose. This link to an article by Camille Paglia, http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/03/11/mercury/, certainly no conservative voice, was published last month. When you read it, you'll want to make a mental note to add the President's recent bow to the King of Saudi Arabia and the incident with the Queen of England to the list Paglia offers. I included the article so you can have the context to her recent response to a reader, http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/04/08/bow/index.html.
This link, http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTM3N2FhODVlMDM5NDM0MjE4ZmNlMjEzMjViZmY4ZGU=, is an article about the UN Human Rights Council. The Obama administration has decided to seek a seat on it, though, as Bayefsky points out, the Council is a sham. Some are hopeful the US will be able to prevent some of the Council's worst abuses, but I think the US presence on the Council will just provide the group with the appearance of legitimacy, which it will exploit to the fullest. I am grateful that our joy does not depend on human events. God is our joy and strength and ever-present help. As you prepare to celebrate the resurrection tomorrow, may God fill you with all the hope that great event instills.
Best regards in Jesus,
Barrett
The first three links reveal a growing uneasiness with patterns in President Obama's practices. I think you'll find them useful as catalogs of things that are troubling to you as well. The fourth link illustrates my growing concern about the Obama administration's embrace of the UN. The Reason piece, http://www.reason.com/news/show/132541.html, lists a number of instances of the President's willingness to overlook his campaign promises when it suits his purpose. This link to an article by Camille Paglia, http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/03/11/mercury/, certainly no conservative voice, was published last month. When you read it, you'll want to make a mental note to add the President's recent bow to the King of Saudi Arabia and the incident with the Queen of England to the list Paglia offers. I included the article so you can have the context to her recent response to a reader, http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/04/08/bow/index.html.
This link, http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTM3N2FhODVlMDM5NDM0MjE4ZmNlMjEzMjViZmY4ZGU=, is an article about the UN Human Rights Council. The Obama administration has decided to seek a seat on it, though, as Bayefsky points out, the Council is a sham. Some are hopeful the US will be able to prevent some of the Council's worst abuses, but I think the US presence on the Council will just provide the group with the appearance of legitimacy, which it will exploit to the fullest. I am grateful that our joy does not depend on human events. God is our joy and strength and ever-present help. As you prepare to celebrate the resurrection tomorrow, may God fill you with all the hope that great event instills.
Best regards in Jesus,
Barrett
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Tension in the Democrat Camp
The article below identifies examples of the tension beginning to surface in the Democrat party on various pieces of President Obama's policies. The global warming legislation is an especially divisive issue among them.
Best regards in Jesus,
Barrett
-----------------------------------------------
Tensions Emerging Between Obama, Hill Allies
Areas of tension are opening up between President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats on a variety of fronts as Democratic factions, coveting the chance to realize long-held dreams, want to make sure Obama does it right. Perhaps the best predictor of conflict down the road is the simple fact that in recent weeks each of the main Democratic caucuses has met at the White House with the president — and each has walked out feeling satisfied and optimistic, despite competing agendas. Many of the worries are bubbling up on the left, where Members are concerned Obama will move too far to the right with an eye on his expected re-election bid or as a way to sop up a few Republican votes so he can govern with the veneer of bipartisanship. There is also concern that Obama might try to clear the deck of contentious issues Democrats want to push in order to focus Congress and the public on his top priority for the year: passing health care reform. But with Obama embarked on an aggressive agenda that will cost some money, potential problems also lurk with fiscal conservatives.
Global Warming
In a telephone conference call with members of the moderate-to-conservative Blue Dog Coalition on April 24, Obama gave what the lawmakers understood to be a commitment to support statutory pay-as-you-go budgeting rules requiring new spending or tax cuts to be offset — and to help persuade the Senate to get on board with the idea. While Obama’s support for PAYGO has gone a long way toward building goodwill with the Blue Dogs, there remains concern in the group about his support for a carbon emissions cap-and-trade program. Many of the coal-fired plants that might be most affected by proposed legislation are in Blue Dog districts. Some Blue Dogs also object to requirements for greater use of renewables like wind and solar energy. One reason is that many Blue Dogs hail from the South where it’s not that windy, according to an aide to a top member of that group.
Health Care
Obama may also run into trouble with the Blue Dogs if his health care bill starts to ring up too many costs. While many Blue Dogs like Obama’s commitment to reducing earmarks, the president has already tangled at the White House with the Democratic leadership, who believe Members have a right to them. Many Democrats are also ready with objections if they don’t like a package of fiscal 2009 omnibus bill rescissions that Obama is expected to send to Capitol Hill any day, according to a Democratic leadership aide. While Blue Dogs believe Obama is in their corner on spending, progressives are confident that he shares their commitment to a strong public health plan, which will not come cheaply.
Afghanistan
The key concern among Progressive Caucus members is Obama’s Afghanistan policy. The House liberals were shocked that so much of the wartime supplemental spending bill recently unveiled by Obama was devoted to military spending instead of outlays for peaceful rebuilding in the country. “They looked at it and thought it was something that could have been expected of Bush,” said an aide to one member of the progressive group. The spending allotments did not appear to match Obama’s rhetoric on the issue. Obama has assured liberal Members that, going forward, the emphasis will increasingly be on non-military aid.
Iran
Another possible point of contention is on Iraq, where recent violence has led to speculation Obama may have to slow up the wind-down of the U.S. combat role.
Interrogations
The progressives also expect Obama to support some type of inquiry into the prisoner interrogation policies developed and implemented under former President George W. Bush. After some equivocation, Obama seemed last month to be firming up his opposition to a “truth commission” backed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and many other Democrats. And he left a decision on whether to prosecute former Bush officials to Attorney General Eric Holder. “If there’s nothing, people will be upset,” the aide to the progressive lawmaker said.
Card Check
Obama will also have to meet the expectations of his union backers who, as soon as Al Franken is seated as the Senator from Minnesota — assuming he is — will demand the president pick a fight with business and try to move “card check” legislation.
Abortion
One area of possible conflict that Obama appears to have skirted is on the subject of abortion. Though he had once pledged that signing the Freedom of Choice Act — which would bar most federal, state and local restrictions on abortion — would be “the first thing that I’d do” as president, Obama, during last week’s White House press conference, said the act is not his “highest legislative priority.” Obama appears to have calculated correctly that he could get away with it. NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan said Obama’s comments had not created any tension between her group and the White House, arguing the legislation does not have any chance of passing anyway, even with Democratic control of Congress. She noted that Obama during the press conference had expressed his strong support for abortion rights, and she noted that Obama is a confirmed believer in a constitutional right to privacy. In any case, she said, the main game now is the Supreme Court and the selection of a replacement for Justice David Souter. Whatever Obama says about the Freedom of Choice Act, abortion-rights backers are confident they have in him a president determined to uphold Roe v. Wade.
Roll Call, "Tensions Emerging Between Obama, Hill Allies," May 4, 2009http://www.rollcall.com/issues/rosegarden/
Best regards in Jesus,
Barrett
-----------------------------------------------
Tensions Emerging Between Obama, Hill Allies
Areas of tension are opening up between President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats on a variety of fronts as Democratic factions, coveting the chance to realize long-held dreams, want to make sure Obama does it right. Perhaps the best predictor of conflict down the road is the simple fact that in recent weeks each of the main Democratic caucuses has met at the White House with the president — and each has walked out feeling satisfied and optimistic, despite competing agendas. Many of the worries are bubbling up on the left, where Members are concerned Obama will move too far to the right with an eye on his expected re-election bid or as a way to sop up a few Republican votes so he can govern with the veneer of bipartisanship. There is also concern that Obama might try to clear the deck of contentious issues Democrats want to push in order to focus Congress and the public on his top priority for the year: passing health care reform. But with Obama embarked on an aggressive agenda that will cost some money, potential problems also lurk with fiscal conservatives.
Global Warming
In a telephone conference call with members of the moderate-to-conservative Blue Dog Coalition on April 24, Obama gave what the lawmakers understood to be a commitment to support statutory pay-as-you-go budgeting rules requiring new spending or tax cuts to be offset — and to help persuade the Senate to get on board with the idea. While Obama’s support for PAYGO has gone a long way toward building goodwill with the Blue Dogs, there remains concern in the group about his support for a carbon emissions cap-and-trade program. Many of the coal-fired plants that might be most affected by proposed legislation are in Blue Dog districts. Some Blue Dogs also object to requirements for greater use of renewables like wind and solar energy. One reason is that many Blue Dogs hail from the South where it’s not that windy, according to an aide to a top member of that group.
Health Care
Obama may also run into trouble with the Blue Dogs if his health care bill starts to ring up too many costs. While many Blue Dogs like Obama’s commitment to reducing earmarks, the president has already tangled at the White House with the Democratic leadership, who believe Members have a right to them. Many Democrats are also ready with objections if they don’t like a package of fiscal 2009 omnibus bill rescissions that Obama is expected to send to Capitol Hill any day, according to a Democratic leadership aide. While Blue Dogs believe Obama is in their corner on spending, progressives are confident that he shares their commitment to a strong public health plan, which will not come cheaply.
Afghanistan
The key concern among Progressive Caucus members is Obama’s Afghanistan policy. The House liberals were shocked that so much of the wartime supplemental spending bill recently unveiled by Obama was devoted to military spending instead of outlays for peaceful rebuilding in the country. “They looked at it and thought it was something that could have been expected of Bush,” said an aide to one member of the progressive group. The spending allotments did not appear to match Obama’s rhetoric on the issue. Obama has assured liberal Members that, going forward, the emphasis will increasingly be on non-military aid.
Iran
Another possible point of contention is on Iraq, where recent violence has led to speculation Obama may have to slow up the wind-down of the U.S. combat role.
Interrogations
The progressives also expect Obama to support some type of inquiry into the prisoner interrogation policies developed and implemented under former President George W. Bush. After some equivocation, Obama seemed last month to be firming up his opposition to a “truth commission” backed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and many other Democrats. And he left a decision on whether to prosecute former Bush officials to Attorney General Eric Holder. “If there’s nothing, people will be upset,” the aide to the progressive lawmaker said.
Card Check
Obama will also have to meet the expectations of his union backers who, as soon as Al Franken is seated as the Senator from Minnesota — assuming he is — will demand the president pick a fight with business and try to move “card check” legislation.
Abortion
One area of possible conflict that Obama appears to have skirted is on the subject of abortion. Though he had once pledged that signing the Freedom of Choice Act — which would bar most federal, state and local restrictions on abortion — would be “the first thing that I’d do” as president, Obama, during last week’s White House press conference, said the act is not his “highest legislative priority.” Obama appears to have calculated correctly that he could get away with it. NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan said Obama’s comments had not created any tension between her group and the White House, arguing the legislation does not have any chance of passing anyway, even with Democratic control of Congress. She noted that Obama during the press conference had expressed his strong support for abortion rights, and she noted that Obama is a confirmed believer in a constitutional right to privacy. In any case, she said, the main game now is the Supreme Court and the selection of a replacement for Justice David Souter. Whatever Obama says about the Freedom of Choice Act, abortion-rights backers are confident they have in him a president determined to uphold Roe v. Wade.
Roll Call, "Tensions Emerging Between Obama, Hill Allies," May 4, 2009http://www.rollcall.com/issues/rosegarden/
Saturday, April 4, 2009
President Obama and UN Treaties
A magician’s “magic” is often worked by getting his audience to look in the wrong place at just the right time. While the audience is distracted, the magician pulls off that sleight of hand action that surprises everyone. I am concerned that the same thing may be happening in our country.
While we are focused on many important issues, some potentially more important issues are going unnoticed. At this time, I am thinking about the new role of the U.S. at the United Nations. Many of the UN’s centerpiece initiatives which have been languishing because of U.S. inaction are experiencing new life. In her March 2009 newsletter, Phyllis Schlafly summarizes many of the most troubling initiatives:
· The UN Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which Reagan rejected in 1982, is high on Obama's list. LOST has already created the International Seabed Authority (ISA) in Jamaica and given it total regulatory jurisdiction over all the world's oceans and all the riches on the ocean floor. Corrupt foreign dictators dominate LOST's global bureaucracy, and the U.S. would have the same vote as Cuba. Likewise for LOST's International Tribunal in Hamburg, Germany, which has the power to decide all disputes. Even worse, LOST gives the ISA the power to levy international taxes. The real purpose of the taxing power is to compel the United States to spend billions of private-enterprise dollars to mine the ocean floor and then let ISA bureaucrats transfer our wealth to socialist, anti-American nations.
· Next on Obama's list is the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which was signed by Bill Clinton but rejected by the Senate in 1999. It would prohibit all nuclear explosive testing and thereby allow our nuclear arsenal to deteriorate until the American people are defenseless against rogue regimes such as Iran and North Korea.
· A new Global Warming Treaty is starting to be written at the UN Climate Change Conference in Poland in order to replace the Kyoto Agreement which George W. Bush and our Senate refused to ratify. The new treaty would force dramatic reductions in our use of energy, i.e., our standard of living, and impose the "strong international norms" that Obama seeks.
· Obama is toadying to his feminist friends by pushing ratification of the UN Treaty on Women, known as CEDAW. It was signed by Jimmy Carter in 1980 and persistently promoted by Hillary Clinton, but the Senate has so far had the good judgment to refuse to ratify it. This treaty would require us "to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women," to follow UN dictates about "family education," to revise our textbooks to conform to feminist ideology in order to ensure "the elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women," and to set up a federal "network of child-care facilities." Article 16 would require us to allow women "to decide number and spacing of their children." Everyone recognizes this as feminist jargon for a UN obligation to allow abortion on demand. Like all UN treaties, the UN Treaty on Women creates a monitoring commission of so-called "experts" to ensure compliance. The monitors of the Treaty on Women have already singled out Mother's Day as a stereotype that must be eliminated.
· Another UN Treaty on the list is the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child, which was signed in 1995 by Bill Clinton but wisely never ratified by our Senate. This is a pet project of the people who believe that the "village" (i.e., the government or UN "experts") should raise children rather than their parents. This treaty would give children rights against their parents and society to express their own views "freely in all matters," to receive information of all kinds through "media of the child's choice," to use their "own language," and to have the right to "rest and leisure." This treaty even orders our schools to teach respect for "the Charter of the United Nations."
All of these treaties are supported by the Obama administration. And if ever ratified by the Senate, they will have a direct bearing on U.S. law. Our Constitution views treaties that the U.S. enters with other nations as legally binding.
Article Six of our Constitution states: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
So, what would it take for these UN treaties to become part of U.S. law? According to Marci Hoffman, an International & Foreign Law Librarian at UC Berkeley Law Library, here’s the process:
Secretary of State authorizes negotiation
U.S. representative negotiates Agree on terms,
and upon authorization of Secretary of State, sign treaty
President submits treaty to Senate
Senate Foreign Relations Committee considers treaty and reports to Senate
Senate considers and approves by 2/3 majority
President proclaims entry into force
Fortunately, it would be difficult to obtain the 2/3 vote needed in the Senate, but as you can imagine, we are closer to it than we have ever been. We need to keep an eye on these developments, (and many other dangerous trends at the UN like laws against religious speech and attempts to create an international right to abortion), while the administration keeps us busy watching other very important activities.
Barrett
While we are focused on many important issues, some potentially more important issues are going unnoticed. At this time, I am thinking about the new role of the U.S. at the United Nations. Many of the UN’s centerpiece initiatives which have been languishing because of U.S. inaction are experiencing new life. In her March 2009 newsletter, Phyllis Schlafly summarizes many of the most troubling initiatives:
· The UN Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which Reagan rejected in 1982, is high on Obama's list. LOST has already created the International Seabed Authority (ISA) in Jamaica and given it total regulatory jurisdiction over all the world's oceans and all the riches on the ocean floor. Corrupt foreign dictators dominate LOST's global bureaucracy, and the U.S. would have the same vote as Cuba. Likewise for LOST's International Tribunal in Hamburg, Germany, which has the power to decide all disputes. Even worse, LOST gives the ISA the power to levy international taxes. The real purpose of the taxing power is to compel the United States to spend billions of private-enterprise dollars to mine the ocean floor and then let ISA bureaucrats transfer our wealth to socialist, anti-American nations.
· Next on Obama's list is the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which was signed by Bill Clinton but rejected by the Senate in 1999. It would prohibit all nuclear explosive testing and thereby allow our nuclear arsenal to deteriorate until the American people are defenseless against rogue regimes such as Iran and North Korea.
· A new Global Warming Treaty is starting to be written at the UN Climate Change Conference in Poland in order to replace the Kyoto Agreement which George W. Bush and our Senate refused to ratify. The new treaty would force dramatic reductions in our use of energy, i.e., our standard of living, and impose the "strong international norms" that Obama seeks.
· Obama is toadying to his feminist friends by pushing ratification of the UN Treaty on Women, known as CEDAW. It was signed by Jimmy Carter in 1980 and persistently promoted by Hillary Clinton, but the Senate has so far had the good judgment to refuse to ratify it. This treaty would require us "to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women," to follow UN dictates about "family education," to revise our textbooks to conform to feminist ideology in order to ensure "the elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women," and to set up a federal "network of child-care facilities." Article 16 would require us to allow women "to decide number and spacing of their children." Everyone recognizes this as feminist jargon for a UN obligation to allow abortion on demand. Like all UN treaties, the UN Treaty on Women creates a monitoring commission of so-called "experts" to ensure compliance. The monitors of the Treaty on Women have already singled out Mother's Day as a stereotype that must be eliminated.
· Another UN Treaty on the list is the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child, which was signed in 1995 by Bill Clinton but wisely never ratified by our Senate. This is a pet project of the people who believe that the "village" (i.e., the government or UN "experts") should raise children rather than their parents. This treaty would give children rights against their parents and society to express their own views "freely in all matters," to receive information of all kinds through "media of the child's choice," to use their "own language," and to have the right to "rest and leisure." This treaty even orders our schools to teach respect for "the Charter of the United Nations."
All of these treaties are supported by the Obama administration. And if ever ratified by the Senate, they will have a direct bearing on U.S. law. Our Constitution views treaties that the U.S. enters with other nations as legally binding.
Article Six of our Constitution states: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
So, what would it take for these UN treaties to become part of U.S. law? According to Marci Hoffman, an International & Foreign Law Librarian at UC Berkeley Law Library, here’s the process:
Secretary of State authorizes negotiation
U.S. representative negotiates Agree on terms,
and upon authorization of Secretary of State, sign treaty
President submits treaty to Senate
Senate Foreign Relations Committee considers treaty and reports to Senate
Senate considers and approves by 2/3 majority
President proclaims entry into force
Fortunately, it would be difficult to obtain the 2/3 vote needed in the Senate, but as you can imagine, we are closer to it than we have ever been. We need to keep an eye on these developments, (and many other dangerous trends at the UN like laws against religious speech and attempts to create an international right to abortion), while the administration keeps us busy watching other very important activities.
Barrett
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
