Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for June 1st, 2010

Having signed the New START bilateral arms-control agreement, Brother O now wants it ratified before the details of what’s in it are known.

The treaty allows Russia to build new and modern weapons to reach New START limits, whereas the United States is locked into reducing its current number. That means Russia will have new and tested weapons, but the U.S. will be stuck with its current, out-of-date, untested warheads.

New START gives up the verification, on-site inspections and monitoring of production that were requirements of previous treaties.

This treaty gives Russia a veto over all U.S. defenses against incoming missiles. Article V contains a binding clause that we “shall not convert and shall not use ICBM launchers and (submarine-launched ballistic missile) launchers for placement of missile defense interceptors therein.”

The US Constitution requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate to ratify a treaty, which means only 34 senators are needed to stand up for America and oppose the New START treaty.

Only a third of the Senate is needed to help save America from her enemies, but then again, Abraham needed only ten to save Sodom and Gomorrah from destruction, and look how that turned out.

(H-T Harris Sherline)

I.M. Kane


 

Obama STARTs to disarm America

By Phyllis Schlafly

Would you be satisfied if your only access to a computer was to try to boot up one that hadn’t been used or tested since 1992? That’s the predicament of our nuclear deterrent on which we depend for our ultimate physical survival.

On April 8, in Prague, President Obama signed what is called the New START bilateral arms-control agreement. It reads like it was written by the Russians and has nothing good in it for the United States.

Obama is demanding a rush to ratification, after which we can then discover the details of what the treaty requires. Does that remind you of the procedure used for Obamacare?

If there ever were a need for the Senate to read the bill and for the Senate to use its “advice” power as well as its “consent” power, this is it, including reading the treaty’s protocols and annexes. Harry Reid’s Senate promptly held one hearing, but heard only from treaty advocates, not from its critics.

In the globalist world that Obama inhabits, he dreams of a nuclear-zero world. But his “world without nuclear weapons” would be a world where the United States is a sitting duck for nukes fired by a rogue nation.

The treaty allows Russia to build new and modern weapons to reach New START limits, whereas the United States is locked into reducing its current number. That means Russia will have new and tested weapons, but the U.S. will be stuck with its current, out-of-date, untested warheads.

How dangerous is Iran’s nuke program, really? Discover Ahmadinejad’s chilling plans in Mike Evans’ “Showdown with Nuclear Iran”

We live in a dangerous world in which bad guys respect strength and weapons, and disdain weakness and disarmament. Yet Obama is already presiding over the steady obsolescence of our aging deterrent, a failure to test our weapons and the phasing out of our skilled workforce to sustain them.

The fantasy that our abandonment of nuclear weapons will inspire other nations to follow our example is so foolish that it can only be described as nuts. When the Cold War thawed and the U.S. and the old U.S.S.R. dramatically reduced their nuclear warheads, that encouraged proliferation – with India, Pakistan, North Korea, Syria and Iran trying to join the nuclear club.

New START allows the United States to have only as many nuclear warheads as Russia can afford to build. And Russia gets to set the count of weapons.

Equal ceilings on warheads are ridiculous because, while Russia only has to defend its own people, our allies all over the world count on us for protection. If the treaty prohibits us from having weapons to fulfill those expectations, they will try to build their own.

The treaty does not limit tactical nuclear weapons, leaving Russia with a 10-to-one numeric superiority, which Russia has threatened to use in regional conflicts. We could build more tactical missiles, but there is no chance Obama will do that.

New START gives up the verification, on-site inspections and monitoring of production that were requirements of previous treaties. Whatever happened to Ronald Reagan’s maxim, “Trust, but verify”?

Obama has made it clear that his eagerness for a nuclear-zero world also means a world without any defense against nuclear weapons. He has cut spending for missile defenses and killed or mothballed the few innovative programs we have to knock down incoming rockets in their boost phase.   

Ever since President Reagan announced his Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983, the Kremlin has tried to ban all U.S. missile defenses. The Kremlin brags that it achieved this goal in New START.

This treaty gives Russia a veto over all U.S. defenses against incoming missiles. Article V contains a binding clause that we “shall not convert and shall not use ICBM launchers and (submarine-launched ballistic missile) launchers for placement of missile defense interceptors therein.”

Article XIV confirms this prohibition, stating that any party can withdraw from New START if “extraordinary events … have jeopardized its supreme interests.” Russia explained that this means it will stick with New START “only if the (U.S.) refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.”

The wisdom of the Founding Fathers is available to save us from New START folly – i.e., the constitutional provision that ratification requires approval by two-thirds of senators. That’s the provision the globalists hate the most.

The Council on Foreign Relations complained in print on May 1, 2008, that “the separation of powers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress a critical voice in the ratification of treaties and endorsement of global institutions, complicates U.S. assumptions of new international obligations.”

Our Constitution can save us from New START if 34 senators will stand up for America.

Read Full Post »

About Sen. Bob Casey’s union pension bailout and the multi-employer pension union racket

By Mark Hemingway

Here’s a not uncommon scenario:

A union takes over a hypothetical trucking company — let’s call it XYZ Trucking. The first thing they’re going to do is use their newly acquired powers of mandatory binding arbitration to force them into a multi-employer pension plan, usually with companies represented by the same and/or affiliated unions. So the workers at XYZ Trucking now find themselves in the same pension plan as ABC Trucking.

But let’s say that XYZ trucking gets hit hard by the economy or its business suffers for some other reason. Meanwhile, union strictures make the company less adaptable or otherwise able to respond to the changing business environment, even as the union continues to strong-arm better benefits and salaries year after year. Union pension plan liabilities grow to the point that it affects the company’s balance sheet so adversely the company can’t get a loan. Eventually, XYZ trucking declares bankruptcy.

The good news for XYZ trucking employees is that they are in a multi-employer pension plan. Under “last man standing” accounting rules, ABC Trucking now has to pick up the tab for all the workers at XYZ Trucking even though they never worked at the company.

So union management bleeds one company dry, then makes an unrelated company responsible for picking up their pension obligations. Then they start bleeding them dry. When there’s no one left to bleed dry, they have Democratic senators and House members in their pocket to push this bill on the taxpayer.

Read the entire Washington Examiner story at http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/about-sen-bob-caseys-union-pension-bailout-and-the-multi-employer-pension-union-racket-95056214.html


 

Issa: Explanation of Sestak Deal Is Bad Cover-Up of Crime

From Fox News

Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had asked [former boy President Bill] Clinton to talk to Sestak about a presidential appointment if the congressman would withdraw his bid to run against Arlen Specter for the Democratic Senate nomination.

The Republican charged:

“It’s a crime because they’ve admitted that they offered [an unpaid position on an advisory board] … a job that President Clinton himself should have known Sestak couldn’t take?”—Republican Rep. Darrell Issa

The Democrat settled it:

“Barack Obama has brought a new level of ethical standards to Washington. … But he’s not perfect. And there are certain things that have to go on to make things work.  [The job offer in exchange for political cooperation]… is one of them. [Job offers jobs for political cooperation have happened] for time immemorial.”—Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell

And all is well in America.

Read the entire Fox News story at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/30/issa-id-accept-fbi-exoneration-white-house-sestak-affair/


 

Defrocking edict favored abusive priests

By Matt Sedensky

The future Pope Benedict XVI refused to defrock an American priest who confessed to molesting numerous children and who even served prison time for it, simply because the cleric wouldn’t agree to the discipline.

The late Rev. Alvin Campbell served about seven years of a 14-year sentence after admitting to molesting seven boys while pastor of St. Maurice Parish in Morrisonville, Illinois.

Ratzinger, following the church’s new policies at the time, refused a bishop’s request to defrock Campbell because the abuser wouldn’t go along with it.

“The petition in question cannot be admitted in as much as it lacks the request of Father Campbell himself.”—Ratzinger’s July 3, 1989, letter to Bishop Daniel Ryan of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill.

Critics contend:

“Ratzinger chose to put concerns about dangerous pedophiles and the church’s reputation above concerns about children’s safety.”—David Clohessy, director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests

While supporters argue:

“Ratzinger was just obeying his boss.”—the Rev. Tom Doyle, a canon lawyer who reviewed the Campbell case

Read the entire Portland Press Herald story at http://www.pressherald.com/news/nationworld/defrocking-edict-favored-abusive-priests_2010-05-31.html


 

Democrats stop bid to send 6,000 troops to border

From Breitbart

America’s “compassionate conservative” President George W. Bush sent thousands of National Guard troops to the U.S-Mexico border in 2006, but that was then and this now Democrat Party rule.

Brother O and Senate Democrats dismissed Senator John McCain’s request to send an additional 6,000 troops and opted to “promise” 1,200 instead.  

Read the entire Breitbart story at http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9FV86NG4&show_article=1


 

Cancer patient forced by judge to have surgery

By Martin Beckford and Stephen Adams

UK judge forces a woman with “learning difficulties” to undergo cancer surgery against her will.

Treatment was ordered by Sir Nicholas Wall, the President of the Family Division, in the Court of Protection, after surgeons at the woman’s local hospital applied for permission to force the surgery on her. They argued that without it, advanced cancer of the uterus would kill her.

The judge ruled that doctors can forcibly sedate the 55-year-old woman in her home, and then remove her to a hospital for surgery and keep her there afterwards if necessary.

“The right to refuse treatment is a cornerstone of human rights and medical ethics, but so too is the duty of care. The head states that saving the woman’s life is right; the heart recoils at the thought of deceiving and compelling her into undergoing a procedure which she does not want.”—Liz Sayce, chief executive of Radar, a disability network.

Dr Lisa Bortolotti, a lecturer in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, said the ruling would be “more controversial” if the patient understood her condition but feared surgery more than death.

Read the entire Telegraph story at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7769243/Cancer-patient-forced-by-judge-to-have-surgery.html


Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.