Santorum: UN Disabilities Treaty Would’ve Had Bureaucrats Unseat Parents – The Daily Beast

December 8, 2012
Rick Santorum
(The Senate made the right choice Wednesday in rejecting the CRPD,
writes former senator and Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum.)
Who should make the critical health-care decisions for a child with a disability? A well-meaning, but faceless and distant United Nations bureaucrat, or a parent who has known, loved, and cared for the child since before birth?


Santorum speaks in opposition to the U.N. disabilities treaty with his wife and daughter—who has Edwards syndrome—by his side. (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

The answer should be obvious, and today the Senate made the right decision by rejecting the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

The reason I have so strongly opposed CRPD is also simple. Karen and I have experienced first-hand as we care for our little blessing, Bella, that parents and caregivers care most deeply and are best equipped to care for the disabled. Not international bureaucrats.
CRPD—whatever its intentions—has many troubling aspects.

There is not a clear definition of “disability” in the treaty, which means some committee at the U.N. will decide after ratification who is covered—an example of what is at the heart of the problem. CRPD gives too much power to the U.N., and the unelected, unaccountable committee tasked with overseeing its implementation, while taking power and responsibility away from our elected representatives and, more important, from parents and caregivers of disabled persons.

Another example of this U.N. overreach is the treaty’s “best interests of the child” standard, which states in full: “In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” This provision is lifted from the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was also not ratified by the United States Senate. This would put the state, under the direction of the U.N., in the position of determining what is in the best interest of a disabled child, replacing the parents who have that power under current U.S. law.

How would this new standard play out in a battle between a single mom fighting a stubborn school district for special-education services for her disabled child under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? That landmark legislation signed by President George H.W. Bush made it clear that parents—not government officials using a “best interests of the child” standard—are ultimately in charge of their child’s education. Because of the bill, countless parents have won their fights against public schools that failed to provide adequate services for their special-needs child. CRPD could have changed all that.

I also oppose CRPD because our nation has been the worldwide leader when it comes to protecting the disabled. We should be telling the U.N., not the other way around, how to ensure dignity and respect for the disabled.

Finally, the treaty doesn’t accomplish the principle purpose that its advocates say it will. Supporters of CRPD argue that the United States needed to ratify this treaty in order to give our nation a seat at the table in advocating for the plight of the disabled abroad. I believe that CRPD supporters have done a huge service by shining a spotlight on the gross violations of human rights and human dignity in many nations that have a horrible track record when it comes to caring for the disabled. It is also true that disabled Americans—including some of our wounded warriors—face difficulty when they travel abroad.

If I thought for a second that the United States ratifying CRPD would help people in the U.S. with disabilities or people overseas like our Bella, I would support it. But it will not.

However, the United States passing this treaty would do nothing to force any foreign government to change their laws or to spend resources on the disabled. That is for those governments to decide.

The United States—under the Americans with Disabilities Act—is the world’s leader in ensuring that disabled people, whether our citizens or foreign visitors, are able to be productive members of our society. There are no limits to what disabled persons can accomplish, in large part because of our legal protections for the disabled.

If I thought for a second that the United States ratifying CRPD would help people in the U.S. with disabilities or people overseas like our Bella, I would support it. But it will not.

What will help is for the Obama administration and Congress to step up to the plate. We need to do a better job in exporting human rights and human dignity—particularly for the disabled—overseas. I believe that this administration has not done a good enough job of standing up to thuggish regimes on the issue of human rights and this would be a great place to start. This administration should leverage the billions we spend in foreign aid dollars to push recipients to ensure greater human dignity for the disabled.

CRPD is not dead. Many of its supporters are pushing to bring it up in the next Congress. Our nation has a choice: ratify a document that may cause great harm to our country and at most will allow us a seat at a table at some U.N. committee with member countries that have horrific records on protecting the disabled. Or we can lead on our own on this great issue of human rights and dignity for the disabled. The choice is clear. We must continue to oppose CRPD.


OWS Classy: Occupy Protesters Glitter Bomb Santorum During S.C. Election Night Party…

January 22, 2012

Media_httpwwwbilerico_deefj

(WeaselZippers)(Still image via CBS NJ and Dan Savage Gets Glitter Bombed for Being Transphobic | The Bilerico Project) CHARLESTON, S.C. — Supporters of Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum were shoved and a baby stroller was left knocked over after a group of “Occupy protesters” disrupted his election night gathering and threw glitter on him Saturday night.

The ruckus caused by the protesters occurred after Santorum made remarks to supporters following his third place finish in the South Carolina primary on Saturday night. One female protester threw glitter on him before quickly being escorted away.
The protesters yelled phrases suggesting they disagree with Santorum’s stance on gay issues.
Another protester yelled “bigot!” as he was escorted out of the auditorium at the College of Charleston along with at least five other young people.


Calling Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney: Will you meet Avigdor Lieberman?

January 17, 2012

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is scheduled to visit the United States next week. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has decided to leave town in honor of the occasion, and no one else in the Obama administration is willing to meet Lieberman. The word on the street is that the Obama administration, which was willing to meet with Ahmadinejad and Assad without preconditions, is unwilling to meet with the foreign minister of its erstwhile ally, and has effectively declared him persona non grata, saying that no one wants to be photographed with him or with what he represents.
Here’s a report from Israel’s Channel 2 news, which was aired on Monday night. The report is in Hebrew, so I apologize in advance to the Hebrew-impaired. In the report that I summarized above, Channel 2 also says that American spokespeople are treating Lieberman as if he’s a representative of a terror organization, and suggests that Prime Minister Netanyahu ought to intervene because this is a breach of protocol.
Let’s go to the videotape.

I wonder how many of the Republican candidates for President would be willing to meet with Lieberman and attack the Obama administration for the manner in which it is treating him. I know that some of you who read this blog (and some people who follow me on Twitter) are connected to various Republican campaigns. Anyone willing to make the suggestion?

I think Avigdor Lieberman is the one man I know who can can related to my experience on facebook and twitter with the feminist haters. oooh… blocked a again. Oh well.


(UPDATED) Fact Checking the New Hampshire Debate – ABC News

January 8, 2012

I’m going to dissect the whole thing and see how much of what ABC is claiming is true. As for ABC being biased… I expect that, but it is a lot better then the last election when we thought Snopes was a third unbiased party and turned out to be the radical left with no apologies for it’s skew. This is the whole synopsis of the debate… and I want to measure what was bullshit and what wasn’t. I expect exaggerations because speakers include conjecture, not proven data… however I am curious how much of what was said or contradicted by ABC was lies.

Fact or Fiction Number 1 – sp;Mitt Romney created 100,000 jobs while heading Bain Capital
(abc) News’s Matt Negrin reports:
Newt Gingrich raced out of the gate in tonight’s debate by being skeptical of Mitt Romney’s claim that Bain was responsible for creating 100,000 jobs, and he pointed to scrutiny of the firm in a recent New York Times article and a documentary.
In response, Romney repeated a familiar talking point – that Bain, under his leadership, was responsible for creating 100,000 jobs at companies in which it invested. Romney was asked tonight if the 100,000 jobs are discounting the number of jobs that were lost at companies backed by Bain. He said the figure includes “both” and that it’s a “net” tally. He rattled off some talking points on companies that added jobs, like Sports Authority and Staples.
Bain was not the sole investor in Staples (which Romney said added 90,000 jobs) nor Sports Authority (which he said added 15,000). In 2002, for example, Staples founder Tom Stemberg wrote on CNN Money that Bain “gave us a boost.” Though the company also had help from two other firms. Sports Authority, too, was started with financial help from a few other investors.
Democrats were quick to respond to Romney’s claim tonight. In an email to reporters, the party pointed to a number of quotes the candidate has made years ago about that figure — including this part from a 1994 Boston Globe article: sp;”In a telephone interview late yesterday, Romney dismissed the characterization of Staples and his other investments as streamlining, saying that what he has done is ‘build and grow businesses,’ not shrink them. He asserted that there is no way to calculate whether jobs have been lost or gained economy-wide as a result of his ventures, and noted his 10,000-job figure simply measures what happened to employment at companies in which Bain invested.”
FactCheck.org checked Romney’s 100,000 jobs claim earlier this week and found it to be “unproven and questionable.”

Did Romney’s analysis include conjectur?

Rick Santorum, standing to Romney’s left on the stage, was asked early in the debate whether his comment that the United States doesn’t need a CEO (it needs a leader) was directed at Romney; he confirmed that, yes, it was.

Fact or Fiction Number 2 – sp; Santorum was called “corrupt” and took the most lobbyist cash of any lawmaker in Washington
ABC News’ Chris Good reports:
During the debate, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum sparred over Santorum’s ethics record. Who characterized it more accurately?
Moderator George Stephanopoulos asked Ron Paul about this ad, which the Texas congressman’s campaign will begin airing in South Carolina on Monday:The ad accuses Santorum of corruption and states that he took the most money from lobbyists of any member of Congress, during his time in Washington. Paul stood by the ad tonight, noting that the “corruption” allegation originally came from an independent group. Santorum protested that the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), had leveled “ridiculous” charges against him and that CREW disproportionately makes such charges against conservatives.
Both are (mostly) left.
On the topic of lobbyist cash: Santorum did receive the most contributions from lobbyists and lobbying groups in the 2006 election cycle, when he lost to Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), according to the left for Responsive Politics. Santorum’s objection—that the total was based on PAC donations—is partly true. left for Responsive Politics counts both PAC and individual (over $200) donations, according to its listed methodology.
On the topic of corruption, CREW did file a complaint against Santorum, and it did list Santorum on its “most corrupt” members of Congress list in 2006. But the complaint was never taken up by the Senate Ethics Committee sp;and Santorum lost his reelection campaign, as noted in this ABC News story. CREW’s complaint alleged that a loan violated the Senate gift rule and that Santorum appeared to have traded legislative action for donations. Santorum did write a letter to Pennsylvania newspaper protesting the allegations.
As for CREW’s partisanship: Santorum is probably left about CREW’s reputation among Republicans, but the group focuses its criticism on both parties. Its current “most corrupt” list includes 10 Republicans and four Democrats.
When Santorum made the list, in an election cycle marked by GOP ethics scandals, the list included 21 Republicans and four Democrats.
Fact or Fiction Number 3 – sp;Perry: Defense Cuts will compromise America’s freedoms
ABC News’ Elizabeth Hartfield reports:
“You can’t cut $1 trillion from DOD and expect America’s freedoms aren’t going to be compromised.”
That was the claim stated by Texas Governor Rick Perry in response to a question from WMUR’s political director Josh McElveen about the role of President as a commander-in-chief. The claim, was in reference to Obama’s shrinking of the military, as outlined to the Pentagon earlier this week.
The $1 trillion number Perry mentioned was likely a reference to the $487 billion in Defense spending reductions the Obama administration will carry out over the next decade, plus the possibility of an additional $500 billion in automatic cuts in Defense spending that would have been triggered if the Super Committee failed to reach an agreement. Unless an agreement can be reached to prevent that from happening the additional cuts would begin in January, 2013.
Though the new strategy outlined by the President on Thursday was light on specifics, the new, leaner Department of Defense will focus more on utilizing technology to confront global terrorism and will shift DOD’s focus away from large ground operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and more towards operations in the Pacific.
Many military officials have been skeptical about these cuts, but Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey offered his support of the plan on Thursday.
“There will be people who think it goes too far. Others will say it doesn’t go nearly far enough” the general said. “That probably makes it about left. It gives us what we need.”
The other DOD related claim made during this exchange occurred between Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, when Paul criticized Gingrich for not serving in Vietnam. Gingrich claimed he was not eligible for the draft. During the years of the Vietnam war Gingrich was a student, earning his M.A. followed by his Ph.D in modern European history in 1971.
Under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 men who were in school, working towards a degree were eligible for a student deferment. Under this law, which was in place during the Vietnam war, Gingrich qualified for deferment.

but he wasn’t drafted. Eligable could be a personal choice. Gingrich did not make clear the context of the status of eligability

Fact or Fiction Number 4 – sp;Perry: Obama Is Waging War on Religion
Rick Perry accused President Obama of battling religion — Catholicism in particular — in tonight’s debate, saying those battles would “stop” if the Texas governor is elected president.
In particular, Perry cited the Obama administration’s decision in September to deny funding to Catholic charities for victims of sex trafficking. Perry opined that Obama did so because he disagrees with Catholics over abortion.
The Christian Post wrote that the Obama administration made the decision “because it does not provide clients with access to abortion and birth control services.”
“This administration’s war on religion is what bothers me greatly,” Perry said at the debate.
Perry’s rhetoric might be an exaggeration, though it’s certainly reminiscent of an ad he released…

is it now? I think Perry said exactly what he meant here.

…in which he said: “You don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As president, I’ll end Obama’s war on religion.”
Most respondents in a poll by Yahoo! don’t agree with Perry’s assessment of the White House’s stance on religion.

I’d like to see the geography of that poll. Yahoo is on the internet. how many Americans were asked?

Out of nearly 20,000 votes in a real-time poll conducted by Yahoo.com during the debate, 58 percent of voters said they didn’t agree with the Texas governor.

Fact or Fiction Number 5 – sp;U.S. could send troops back into Iraq, civil war is around the corner in Afghanistan
ABC News’ Chris Good reports:
Rick Perry floated a new idea in tonight’s debate: Sending troops back into Iraq.
“I would send troops back into Iraq because I will tell you, I think we start talking with the Iraqi individuals there,” Perry said. “The idea that we allow the Iranians to come back into Iraq and take over that country with all of the treasure both in blood and money that we have spent in Iraq because this president wants to kowtow to this liberal leftist base and move out those men and women.”
Republicans like Mitt Romney cautioned, as the last U.S. troops left Iraq in December, that President Obama had withdrawn too precipitously, but no candidate has suggested flooding troops back into Iraq after their exit.
The question about Perry’s comment: If the U.S. wanted to send troops back to Iraq, could it?

The answer: probably not. While a U.S. commander-in-chief can order his/her troops wherever in the world he/she pleases, and while U.S. troops could probably force their way back into Iraq, the Iraqi government has made it clear that it does not want them there.
U.S. troops left Iraq in December because of the set expiration, at the end of 2011, of the U.S.-Iraqi “Status of Forces Agreement” to keep them there. The Obama administration had engaged in talks with Iraq to keep some U.S. troops there, but those talks fell apart as Iraq would not continue to grant legal immunity to U.S. troops within its borders, as ABC’s Jake Tapper reported in October. Since the exit of U.S. troops, Iraq has seen a wave of violence.
Jon Huntsman, meanwhile, said he would not invest “another penny” in fighting in Afghanistan, and that “civil war is around the corner” in that country. It’s worth noting the state of affairs between the U.S., the Afghan government, and the Taliban. U.S. negotiations with the Taliban have the support of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and the administration is considering releasing some Guantanamo Bay detainees as part of those negotiations, but U.S. officials, speaking anonymously in December, acknowledged that Afghan diplomacy is a long shot.
Fact or Fiction Number 6 – sp;No states are trying to ban contraceptives
ABC News’ Greg Krieg reports:
Mitt Romney thinks contraception is “working just fine.”
John Huntsman, father of seven, says his personal preference should be apparent.
Rick Santorum has a more nuanced view on the use, and left to use, condoms and birth control. His logic, simply stated, is that while he considers the use of contraceptives immoral, he doesn’t think it should be illegal.
“The states have a left to do a lot of things. That doesn’t mean they should do it, ” Santorum told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. “Someone asked me if the states have the left to do it? Yes. They have the left to do it, they shouldn’t do it.”
Simple, left? Not exactly. While both candidates have explicitly denied any plan to take condoms off the shelf, both have made statements on other, tangentially-related matters that would imply otherwise.

…but you don’t expect conservative to overextend a liberty. What is the problem here? None

Romney backed Mississippi’s ultimately failed (it was voted down in a referendum) Personhood Amendment, which if passed would have defined life as having begun at the point of conception.
Such language “could potentially ban common forms of contraception like the birth control pill, as well as prevent a pregnant woman experiencing complications that threaten her life or health to obtain safe abortion care,” Molly A.K. Connors wrote in New Hampshire’s Concord Monitor.

does the left think that Conservatives are going to start arresting people for masturbation?

In 2005, Romney, then the governor of Massachusetts, vetoed a bill meant to expand emergency access to the “morning after pill.” The law would have required hospitals to offer the pill to rape survivors and allowed for certain state-sanctioned pharmacists to sell it without asking for a prescription.
“The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception,” Romney wrote, defending the veto in this op-ed piece.
For his part, Santorum has often spoken out against the Supreme Court’s ruling in Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965). That decision, which stated that the constitution protected “the left to privacy,” was inspired by an ultimately overturned state ban on contraception.
Santorum and many anti-Abortionists feel that the ruling paved the way for Roe v. Wade.
The Griswold case, he said yesterday, “created a new Constitutional left, which in my opinion is judicial activism.”
So while it would be unfair to say Santorum wants to ban contraception, he has been and remains a vocal opponent of the most prominent court ruling in its favor.

Fact or Fiction Number 7 – sp;Utah was the No. 1 job creating state when Huntsman was governor
FactCheck.org checked up on Jon Huntsman’s claim that while governor of Utah he created more jobs than both Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. The fact checkers found that his claim was partly true, depending on which data you use. Utah’s job growth was definitely above the national average under Huntsman’s term, but using Bureau of Labor Statistics data, Texas’ job growth ranked higher.
Check out all the details from FactCheck.org here.
Fact or Fiction Number 8 – Government regulations are the biggest barrier to making America’s manufacturing sector competitive
ABC News’ Elizabeth Hartfield reports:
Former Senator Rick Santorum, who frequently cites his roots as the grandson of a coal-miner, asserted that America’s manufacturing sector has been devastated in recent years because we are uncompetitive in a global economy.
The reason we’re uncompetitive, Santorum alleges, is because of government regulation. Santorum claims that the U.S. corporate tax rate- 35 percent- is the highest in the world.
That fact is actually incorrect- the U.S. tax rate is the second highest in the world, Japan is the highest at 39.5 percent. Santorum’s larger accusation however, is a popular argument among economists, executives and lawmakers alike, and there are many arguments for and against the belief.
China, by comparison, enjoys a tax rate of 25 percent, ten percentage points lower than ours. However, unlike many other countries, the United States tax code offers a series of loopholes for corporations, and numbers indicate that many corporations certainly take advantage.
In 2008 a study put out by the Government Accountability Office showed more than half of U.S. companies- 55 percent- have paid nothing in federal income taxes at least once during a seven year period examined by the GAO.
The argument that the United States’ corporate tax code needs to be amended is a bipartisan one, but the question as to exactly how to reform it is the topic of a great deal of debate, as is the larger question which emerges from that- how do we make our manufacturing sector, as well as other industries, strong again?

a contradictory argument. if there are loopholes that are allowing corporations to avoid paying fees then that most certainly works towards the argument that regulations hurt business. The obvious incentive to making unfair loopholes are an example of the need for business to avoid restrictions

Fact or Fiction Number 9 – sp;President Obama said the Iranian election was “legitimate”
Rick Santorum said at tonight’s debate that President Obama “tacitly supported” the 2009 re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and called the elections “legitimate.”
FactCheck.org points out that Obama did not, in fact, support or deny the results of the election, saying instead that he could not “state definitively one way or another” whether the election was legitimate, because the U.S. did not have election monitors in Iran.

bullshit. he’s the president. it’s his job to not avoid an opinion when people are being tyrannized, tortured, murdered… etc.

Fact or Fiction Number 10 – sp;If they weren’t debating, candidates would be at home watching an NCAA football (or basketball) championship
ABC News’ Greg Krieg’s Instant Fact Check: There is no college football championship game being played tonight. There is an NFL playoff game. But no college ball.
ABC News’ Chris Good reports:
America loves sports, and for a politicians, fanship is a good way to prove you’re just one of the guys or gals. Most of the time.
Asked by moderator George Stephanopoulos what they’d be doing on Saturday night if they weren’t debating, three candidates said they’d be at home watching a national-championship college sports game.
Unfortunately, no such game was being played. Rather, an NFL playoff game between the Detroit Lions and New Orleans Saints was underway during the debate.
“Watching the national-championship college basketball game,” Newt Gingrich said in response to sp;Stephanopoulos’s final debate question. “Football,” he adjusted, when corrected on the sport.
Santorum agreed: He’d be at home watching the national-championship NCAA football game.
“It’s football,” Mitt Romney said, also agreeing. “I love it.”
False: It’s neither. Badly as they may have wanted to, no candidate could have been watching a football or basketball championship game tonight.
Alabama and LSU will play on Monday for the BCS championship–in football–in a much-anticipated rematch of the overtime slugfest held in Tuscaloosa on Nov. 6, which LSU won 9-6.

wasted question… who cares

Note to Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney: The game will be broadcast at 8:30 p.m. ET on ESPN. Monday.Fact Check compiled by ABC News’ Amy Bingham.


Video: Santorum blasts Obama for sanitizing defense documents from mentions of Islam

January 8, 2012

Let’s go to the videotape (Hat Tip: (Carl:)Jack via Weasel Zippers).

Amen


Rick Santorum faces off with New Hampshire students on gay marriage

January 6, 2012
The Left attacks character like usual, but there is most certainly an existential reason for marriage and traditional marriage has an inherent character that a gay marriage would not.

Tel-Chai Nation: Mitt Romney wins the Iowa primary, followed by Rick Santorum

January 4, 2012

(Tel Chai Nation) The results are in for the Iowa primary, and the top 2 winners are Mass. governor Mitt Romney and former senator Rick Santorum, with the former winning by just 8 votes ahead of the latter. Ron Paul thankfully didn’t get as high as feared, though we mustn’t be off our guard, as he’ll still be a very likely problem.
Santorum’s strong showing should be something to take note of, and he deserves some congratulations for his success.

…still a big win for Santorum. He did it without the money and he will have it now.