Soup McGee
Professor Dude
ENGWR 302
December 15, 2012
Utah
Republican Senator Mike Lee voted no on the United Nation Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the speech justifying his no vote on
the Senate floor was a clear view into the anti-government attitude that has
infected the American process and threatens the integrity of America’s shared
civic institutions. A Tea Party Senator who calls himself a ‘revolutionary’ and
is an avowed protector of States Rights, Lee is just one of many signatories
handcuffed to the Americans for Tax Reform Pledge to never raise taxes. This is
a group representing an interest that would rather grind the entirety of the
American system to a screeching halt than raise one penny of taxes from the
citizenry. Allegedly, the pledge is to never ever raise taxes, but effectively
it prevents government from performing basic functions; in this case, from
signing a standard treaty supported by both wings of the aisles. This pledge is
shepherded by Grover Norquist, a long-time anti-tax advocate and arguably the
most powerful man in politics.
Nearly
every Federal Republican and most State level representatives on the Republican
side have signed his pledge and no Republican has voted for a tax increase at
the federal level since 1994. This alone might explain some of the obvious
financial difficulties and the incompetent, partisan body politic that plague
the US. However, the problem America faces is not merely a financial one, or a
crisis of overexertion in the military. An illustration of the most important
and least discussed looming catastrophe is that of a theocratic takeover of
America, led first by the Federal Congress, slowly followed at the State level,
and eventually supported by a religious military that will emerge to protect
the new ‘republic.’ Sounds crazy? That is the stated intent of the leadership
Senator Lee truly represents. To be clear, this is totally intentional, an
attempt to win the culture war while dissolving slowly civil government. This
is from Chris Hedges, whom Wiki calls ‘an American journalist specializing in
American politics and society,’ writing for Theocracy Watch, a website that
watches for theocratic behavior:
“…(they) obtained a copy of a memo
Pat Robertson handed out to followers at the Iowa Republican County Caucus. It
was titled, "How to Participate in a Political Party" and read:
"Rule the world for God."
"Give the impression that you are there to
work for the party, not push an ideology.
"Hide your strength.
"Don't flaunt your Christianity.
"Christians need to take leadership positions.
Party officers control political parties and so it is very important that
mature Christians have a majority of leadership whenever possible, God
willing."
Please
consider this idea thoroughly before disregarding it; use the following facts:
Conservative society has long opposed the
United Nations as a matter of principle, and this treaty was no different.
Every major veteran’s organization supported the treaty and an agreement from
the United States Senate would have sent the George W. Bush crafted, Bob Dole
requested language to the President’s desk for signature. This would have made
the Americans with Disability Act the standard every member nation would strive
to reach in their domestic legal system. Veterans living abroad as well as
children and others with disabilities in less developed nations would have
benefited. The loudest opposition came from two longtime influential sources on
the right, the Heritage Foundation and the Home School Legal Defense
Association, ran by Michael Farris. The reasons given by each organization to
their followers to oppose the UN treaty were the same as Senator Lee’s on the
floor. It failed in the Senate and so will languish until another session. Why?
Understanding
the convergence of Reconstructionist and
theologian RJ Rushdoony’s ideas on spheres of authority and the radical ideas
of Austrian economist Ludvig von Mises can help new observers recognize and
diagnose the hidden activities of the Americans for Tax Reform coalition and is
key to the speech Lee gave on the Senate floor. The two men saw their ideas
rise in popularity around the same time and in the same circles, and the power
of their suggestions are still seen through the actions of Lee and his cronies.
Hopefully, this brief history can expose the thought process of a group of people
who refuse to accept the American system of government and aim to replace it
slowly with a more theocratic one. This philosophy as exemplified by Senator
Lee believes that man has no authority to govern man, and that God and their
God alone has such Authority. By destroying the trust Americans had in the
ability of the Senate to handle such a simple matter, those holding this
anti-government attitude can celebrate this blow to the America’s image at home
and abroad.
First, Rushdoony and Mises.
Rushdoony believed that the UN was an institution whose role was illegitimate.
From ‘The United Nations, a short article Rushdoony wrote in 1965:
“First of all, the U.N. holds as
its basic premise a thesis which has a long history in both religion and in
politics, the doctrine of salvation by law (emphasis in the original).” Understanding this distinction is
critical to the understanding of Lee’s speech.
Rushdoony really made his mark in
modern Christian Reconstructionism with his explanation of the spheres of God’s
Authority. The following quote is from Humanist,
Dominionist and Reconstructionist Views of Authority Compared, by S.
Micheal Fort, writing here about the ‘major philosophical problem for
non-Christians’ being their source of authority:
“A distinctly Christian society
must necessarily have a distinctly Christian law code (that is, God’s Law) that
binds the actions of it’s individuals, groups, and institutions.
A few practical examples of this idea follows:
1) Sphere of Individual
Government. This is the seat of authority: the individual himself. This sphere
has the authority to do everything that is not forbidden by God’s Law. This
sphere is required to worship the Lord and serve Him by exercising Biblical
dominion in his area of knowledge and influence.
2) Sphere of Family Government.
This is the seat of authority: husband/father.
This sphere is the fundamental sociological group
of society. A primary function of this sphere is to group a man and woman
together for companionship and to work together for Biblical dominion. Another
fundamental function is to raise God’s children according to Biblical
principles so that they may grow to become godly adults.
3) Sphere of Business Government.
This is the seat of authority: owner of the business and appointed managers.
The goal of this sphere is the accomplishment of work, a fundamental purpose of
man’s existence. A man’s vocation is his ministry.
4) Sphere of Church Government.
This is the seat of authority: group of elders.
This sphere proclaims God’s message to the
unbelieving world, builds Christians in the knowledge of God’s Word, provides a
means of fellowship for the edification of God’s people, is a forum for the
visible worship of God, and is the primary agency of mercy to the world.
5) Sphere of Civil Government.
This is the seat of authority: regional judges.
This sphere is God’s agent of wrath and justice on
the earth. Any lack of conformity to God’s Law is sin. Crime is that subset of
sin that God has told us in the Bible to punish carnally. The punishment of
crime (with restitution to the victims by the criminal) is the fundamental
purpose of civil government. In this manner, the civil government is also
empowered to provide for national defense (to keep other nations from
committing crimes against it’s citizens).
A fundamental idea of spheres of
government is the inability to transfer power between spheres. However, within
a sphere, delegation of powers may occur if done so within a Biblical fashion.
For example, a father cannot rightly give his disciplinary authority over his
children to his church (transfer between spheres). However, he may delegate
that authority to his wife in his absence (delegation within a sphere). As
another example, civil government may not transfer it’s power of judgement to the
business community (transfer between spheres). However, different judges as
agents of the civil government rightly make judgements in its name (delegation
within a sphere).
Perhaps a good way to visualize
this is: God in the Person of Jesus at the top of all the spheres. These
spheres would be horizontally placed adjacent to one another below Him.
Delegation of Jesus’ authority comes directly from Him to each individual
sphere to the extent of the earthly authority portioned to each. No power
transfers occur between the sphere’s of any sort as this would be a usurpation
of Jesus’ rightful position.”
The idea is clearly that man and
his laws hold no authority to govern man. Senator Lee could not be more obvious
in his expression of these beliefs, given his absolute disregard for reality. A
Google search ensued, and reformedtheology.org had this helpful tidbit to add:
“Regardless of who non-Christians
choose as their source of authority, it ultimately resides with man (whether
many distinct individuals or one collective group). Christians, on the other
hand, have a Trinitarian view of the one and the many. This view places as much
importance on the individual as it does the group with no subordination or
tension between them. The Trinitarian philosophy of the one and the many
rightly holds the Eternal One and Many as the only legitimate source of
authority. Since God created all that is, He alone holds ultimate authority
over all creation. From this, it is obvious that all earthly authority is
derived authority (that is, no authority exists which is not derived from God’s
ultimate authority). He is the creator of all humans (individuals), human
groups (sociological units: families, countries, etc.), and human institutions
(churches, civil governments, etc.). It is He who decides the scope and form of
authority for all human groups and institutions. This is very similar to the
Christian theory of property. God created everything so He alone owns
everything. However, He has decided to put His property under our stewardship
(with specific people as stewards of specific portions of His property).
This website continues,
“Plainly stated, in Christian
philosophy it is God who determines what functions an individual, family,
church, business unit, civil government, and so-forth is to serve. God sets the
boundaries on their activities – He determines what they can do, what they
can’t do, and what they must do. These boundaries are revealed completely and
perfectly to humanity through God’s Law contained in the Old and New Testaments
of the Holy Bible. Rushdoony spent a considerable portion of his life’s work
explaining that the source of a society’s law is the god of that society.”
A
plain reading reveals a mindset saying, ‘Man and mans law are not good enough
for me.’ Rushdoony and his ideas on law are central to this viewpoint.
To
better understand Lee’s speech though, a brief introduction to Ludwig von Mises
and his definitions of state, family, and government is necessary. James
Bovard, in ‘Government Equals Force’, masterfully describes the Mises
philosophy, which is heard daily in America, particularly on the Religious
right:
“What
is the "STATE? ‘The State’ is something of a technical term. Political and
Ecclesiastical "experts" may also use the term to justify their
control over others. When most people think of the "State" they are
thinking of "the government," e.g., Washington, D.C. We hear the phrase
"the separation of Church and State." It refers not to a particular
"State," but rather to all who call themselves the "State."
What is a "State," and what gives a person or group the right to so
call themselves?
Ludwig
von Mises, the most influential political economist of the "Austrian"
school of economics, gives us this definition of a "State":
The
state is essentially an apparatus of compulsion and coercion. The
characteristic feature of its activities is to compel people through the
application or the threat of force to behave otherwise than they would like to
behave. So what is Government? Easy. Suppose I come up to you and say, "If
you murder anyone I'll kill you." I am compelling you through the
application or threat of force to behave otherwise than you might like to
behave; am I a "State?" Not necessarily; Mises continues his
definition:
But
not every apparatus of compulsion and coercion is called a state. Only one
which is powerful enough to maintain its existence, for some time at least, by
its own force is commonly called a state. A gang of robbers, which because of
the comparative weakness of its forces has no prospect of successfully
resisting for any length of time the forces of another organization, is not
entitled to be called a state. The state will either smash or tolerate a gang.
In the first case the gang is not a state because its independence lasts for a
short time only; in the second case it is not a state because it does not stand
on its own might. The pogrom gangs in Imperial Russia were not a state because
they could kill and plunder only thanks to the connivance of the government.”
This
sounded like familiar language. A random search through Google using key words
like “Obama” Anti-Christ” “Jesus” and “America” brought up an ecclesiastical
website,
and
this discussion which should by now sound familiar:
"Family vs. The State
In the Marxist scheme, the transfer of authority
from the family to the State makes any talk of the family as an institution
ridiculous. The family is to all practical intent abolished whenever the State
determines the education, vocation, religion, and the discipline of the child.
The only function remaining then to the parents is procreation, and, by means
of birth control regulations, this too is subject now to a diminishing role.
The family in such a society is simply a relic of the old order, maintaining
itself only surreptitiously and illegally, and subject at all times to the
intervening authority of the State. In all modern societies, the transfer of
authority from the family to the State has been accomplished in varying
degrees.
In scripture, the authority of the family is basic
to society, and it is a God-centered authority. The authority of the woman as
help-meet (Genesis 2:18) is no less real than that of a prime minister to a
king; the prime minister is not a slave because he is not king, nor is the
woman a slave because she is not a man. The description of a virtuous woman, or
a godly wife, in Proverbs 31:10-31 is not of a helpless slave nor of a pretty
parasite, but rather of a very competent wife, manager, business-woman, and
mother – a woman of real authority.
In modern education, the State is the educator, and
the State is held to be the responsible agency rather than man. Such a
perspective works to destroy the pupil, whose basic lesson becomes a dependence
on the State. The State, rather than the family, is looked to for moral
decision and action, and the moral role of the individual is to assent to and
bow down before the State. State education is at the very least implacably
anti-scriptural, even when and if it gives the bible a place in the curriculum.
Basic to the calling of every child is to be a
member of a family. Virtually all children will someday become husbands and
wives, and fathers or mothers. The State school is destructive of this calling.
It attempts to meet the need are essentially external and mechanical, i.e.,
home economics courses, sex education, and the like. But the essential training
for family life is family life! It means scriptural education, discipline, and
training in godly responsibility.
The State school, moreover, basically trains women
to be men; it is not surprising that so many women are unhappy at being women.
Nor are men any the happier, in that dominion in modern education is
transferred from man to the State, and man is progressively emasculated. The
major casualty of modern education is the male student. Since dominion is by
God's creative purpose a basic aspect of man, any education which diminishes
man's calling to exercise dominion also diminishes man to the same
degree."
Forgive the length; the accuracy and entirety of this
quote is essential to understanding the worldview and what does any of this has
to do with Mike Lee’s no vote.
Lee,
with his ‘government isn’t the solution, it’s the problem’ attitude represents
people both literally and figuratively who are separating from American
culture. This is a faction within American society goaded further by Heritage
Foundation founder and Norquist hero Paul Weyrich. As Wiki puts it:
“Frustrated
with public indifference to the Lewinsky scandal, Weyrich wrote a letter in
February 1999 stating that he believed conservatives had lost the culture war,
urging a separatist strategy where conservatives ought to live apart from
corrupted mainstream society and form their own parallel institutions:
I believe that we probably have lost the culture
war. That doesn't mean the war is not going to continue, and that it isn't
going to be fought on other fronts. But in terms of society in general, we have
lost. This is why, even when we win in politics, our victories fail to
translate into the kind of policies we believe are important.
Therefore, what seems to me a legitimate strategy
for us to follow is to look at ways to separate ourselves from the institutions
that have been captured by the ideology of Political Correctness, or by other
enemies of our traditional culture.
What I mean by separation is, for example, what the
homeschoolers have done. Faced with public school systems that no longer
educate but instead 'condition' students with the attitudes demanded by
Political Correctness, they have seceded. They have separated themselves from
public schools and have created new institutions, new schools, in their homes.
I think that we have to look at a whole series of possibilities for bypassing
the institutions that are controlled by the enemy. If we expend our energies on
fighting on the "turf" they already control, we will probably not
accomplish what we hope, and we may spend ourselves to the point of exhaustion.
This was widely interpreted as Weyrich calling for
a retreat from politics, but he almost immediately issued a clarification
stating this was not his intent. In the evangelical magazine World he
wrote:
...[W]hen
critics say in supposed response to me that 'before striking our colors in the
culture wars, Christians should at least put up a fight,' I am puzzled. Of
course they should. That is exactly what I am urging them to do. The question
is not whether we should fight, but how... in essence, I said that we need to
change our strategy. Instead of relying on politics to retake the culturally
and morally decadent institutions of contemporary America, I said that we
should separate from those institutions and build our own.”
Homeschooling
indeed, is on the rise in America. According to the National Center on
Education Statistics,
“The
percentage of the school-age population that was homeschooled increased from
1.7 percent in 1999 to 2.9 percent in 2007. The increase in the percentage of
homeschooled students from 1999 to 2007 represents a 74 percent relative
increase over the 8-year period and a 36 percent relative increase since 2003.”
Clearly,
the separation call was heard.
From
an article on Theocracy Watch about Schools,
“Christian
schools and a strong home schooling movement are the foundations of
dominionism. "Until the vast majority of Christians pull their children
out of the public schools," writes Gary North, "there will be no
possibility of creating a theocratic republic." Gary North, it should be mentioned, is
Rushdoony’s son-in-law, and though they did not agree on everything, the
connection is clear. There is a possibility of creating a theocratic republic;
protecting homeschoolers is the key to making this happen.
The
Home School Legal Defense Association is headed by Michael Farris, and has been
active since 1983. From their ‘About’ page,
“Home School Legal Defense Association is a nonprofit
advocacy organization established to defend and advance the constitutional
right of parents to direct the education of their children and to protect
family freedoms. Through annual memberships, HSLDA is tens of thousands of
families united in service together, providing a strong voice when and where
needed.
HSLDA
advocates on the legal front on behalf of our members in matters which
include conflicts with state or local officials over homeschooling. Each year,
thousands of member families receive legal consultation by letter and phone,
hundreds more are represented through negotiations with local officials, and
dozens are represented in court proceedings. HSLDA also takes the offensive,
filing actions to protect members against government intrusion and to establish
legal precedent. On occasion, HSLDA will handle precedent-setting cases for
nonmembers, as well.
HSLDA
advocates on Capitol Hill by tracking federal legislation that affects
homeschooling and parental rights. HSLDA works to defeat or amend harmful
bills, but also works proactively, introducing legislation to protect and
preserve family freedoms.
HSLDA
advocates in state legislatures, at the invitation of state homeschool
organizations, by assisting individual states in drafting language to improve
their homeschool legal environment and to fight harmful legislation.
HSLDA
advocates in the media by presenting articulate and knowledgeable
spokesmen to the press on the subject of homeschooling. HSLDA staff members are
regularly called upon for radio, television, and print interviews, and their
writings are frequently published in newspapers and magazines across the
country. HSLDA’s own bimonthly magazine, The Home School Court Report,
provides news and commentary on a host of current issues affecting
homeschoolers. And its two-minute daily radio broadcast, Home School
Heartbeat, can be heard on nearly 500 radio stations.
HSLDA
advocates for the movement by commissioning and presenting
quality research on the progress of homeschooling. Whether it’s in print, from
the podium, or on the air, HSLDA provides insightful vision and leadership for
the cause of homeschooling.
Home School
Legal Defense Association . . . tens of thousands of American
families working together with HSLDA to preserve each other’s right to
homeschool . . . together, “Advocates for Family & Freedom.”
According
to RightWingWatch,
“Michael
Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association appeared on Today’s Issues with Family Research
Council president Tony Perkins and American Family Association head Tim
Wildmon…to call on Religious Right activists to mobilize against the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities” and told the
audience:
“So
you never know what you’re signing up for, that by itself is a good enough
reason to leave it alone and to never enter into one of these things. But in
particular, you hit the nail on the head Tony, the definition of disability is
not defined in the treaty. My kid wears glasses, now they’re disabled, now the
UN gets control over them; my child’s got a mild case of ADHD, now you’re under
control of the UN treaty. There’s no definitional standard, it can change over
time, and the UN, not American policymakers, are the ones who get it decided.”
From
the Heritage Foundation regarding the treaty,
“If
the U.S. were to ratify the CRPD, U.S. policies would be subjected to the
oversight and commentary of the CRPD committee, which could issue unlimited
recommendations that the U.S. would be expected to implement. This prospect
should be especially concerning to the parents
and caregivers of disabled Americans, whose decision making authority would be
subjected to the pronouncements of international “experts” and whose rights
would be undermined by the CRPD’s language concerning the “best interests of
the child” and its lack of explicit protection of parental rights.”
Together
with the Heritage Foundation, the HSLDA, and the rest of the Norquist
coalition, the Senator (whose father, Rex Lee, who served as the Solicitor
General under President Ronald Reagan and so should have known better than to
make the argument he was about to) headed to the Senate floor.
In
his speech, Senator Lee begins by asserting that the Americans with Disability
Act should be made the standard that other countries use to write their law,
seemingly oblivious to the stated intent and plain language of the treaty.
Lee’s entire case rests on the baseless claim that the best interest of the
child provision will destroy personal and US sovereignty, which in turn will
allow UN forces to remove children from their religious home schools. At 26:50,
a thin slice of the discussion can be heard and is central to this contention:
“Many
of my constituents…have justifiable doubts that a foreign UN body, a committee
operating out of Geneva, Switzerland should decide what is in the best interest
of the child at home in Utah or any other state…”
This
is absurd. From thefreelibrary.com,
“When
the United States ratifies a treaty, (1) it accepts and is bound by the
treaty's requirements as a matter of international law. (2) Not all of these
international obligations, however, may be enforced directly. In the United
States, treaties are divided into "self-executing treaties"--which
can be immediately enforced in courts (3) and may create private rights of
action (4)--and "non-self-executing treaties"--which may not be
judicially enforceable or may have no status as domestic law unless Congress
passes implementing legislation. (5) In light of this distinction, the
political branches often ratify treaties with language identifying them as
self- or non-self-executing. When the self-executing status of a treaty is
unclear, courts examine its text, its history, and subsequent state practice to
determine the parties' intentions. (6).”
Senator
Kerry from Massachusetts makes this point clear in the following exchange:
Kerry:
I’m having difficulty finding where the threat finds any reality…Will the Senator
agree that there is no power to change our law?
Lee:
No, I don’t agree with that.
Kerry:
Can the senator show where it is specifically? When the Supreme Court has held
this is not self executing, that there is no access to the American courts, it
is clear by the statements of the treaty itself that no American law is
changed…what is it that the Senator suddenly has that suggests otherwise that
has any basis in fact?
Lee:
First of all, whenever we ratify a treaty, it becomes law of the land under Article
6 of the US Constitution…It becomes part of the corpus of customary
international law… is it direct? No. Does it directly undo US law? No. But that
does not mean it has no effect. If it had no effect we wouldn’t be here
debating it today, it’s the type of effect….but that is not to say it has no
effect. We shouldn’t be ratifying a treaty that we think might offset US law as
it exists now, and we believe this will have that impact. I can’t prove to you
exactly where this will happen.”
An
extremely effective rebuttal can be read in the revised and extended remarks of
that day’s floor speech by Senator Kerry:
“In five simple words, this treaty
says to other countries that don’t respect the rights of the disabled, be more
like us. That’s what we are asking people to do. It doesn’t require any changes
to American law, zero. This has no tying of the hands of America. There isn’t
one law in the United States that will be negatively affected, but it will
push, it will leverage, it will require the countries by their commitment to be
held accountable to the standard we have set and take our gold standard and
extend it to the rest of the world. So there are three reasons that I've heard
that we can't do this. When I hear them, I’m reminded what I learned when I was
a prosecutor quite a few years ago now. I learned that, you know if – if the
facts are against you, then argue the law. If the law is against you, then
argue the facts and if both of them are against you, just make it up.
Well, that's exactly what's happening here, Mr.
President. Neither the law nor the facts support any argument that has been
made on the other side of this treaty. So accordingly we're facing an entirely
fictitious set of arguments on abortion, on home schooling, on lame-duck
sessions. All of their arguments have been contradicted by the facts and the
law, let me document that. This treaty is based on the Americans with
Disabilities Act. We passed that 20 years ago. In all those 20 years, the
father of the act is sitting here, the senator from Iowa. Has any child been
straight separated from a parent because of the A.D.A? No. Has home school been
hurt? No. in fact, it's grown and flourishing across the nation.
How is it possible that a treaty that according to
our Supreme Court offers no recourse, no change in American law, no access
to American courts, how is it possible that such a treaty could threaten
anybody in our country? The answer is simple, it doesn't, and it can't, but
let's go through the arguments one by one. First they say it would undermine
our sovereignty. I've heard several people suggest that. You know, the laws
governing the disabled. Well, that's wrong and Senator Lee just admitted it
doesn't affect any law in the United States. All it does is create a
committee on the rights of persons with disabilities.
What can this committee do? All it can do is review reports and make a suggestion. Are we scared in the United States of America of someone making a suggestion to us about how we might do something? Has no recourse in the court, no legal standing. The Foreign Relations Committee even included language in the resolution of advice and consent to make it crystal clear. So what are we afraid of? That the committee would give us this advice?”
Despite
common sense being for it, and Constitutional precedent being against the
opponents, the treaty failed. America looked really bad as a result. Quite a
number of observers agree on that point. From Foreign Policy magazine:
“As
near as I can determine, critics don't like the treaty because... it's a
treaty. Most of the objections are either bogus or unsubstantiated by
practice. As Joshua Keating notes, "a perfectly reasonable treaty
was just rejected based on a complete misreading of it." Or, as Tim
Fernholz explains: “The treaty’s critics, like the conservative Heritage
Foundation, were left arguing that the treaty shouldn’t be ratified if the US
already complied with its intent, since endorsing the treaty could lead to
problems down the road by unspecified means. That dismayed the treaty’s
advocates, who see the treaty’s value in the message it sends to other
countries about the importance of protecting disabled people. “It’s a treaty to
change the world to be more like America,” protested John
Kerry, the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
before the failed vote.
Dana Milbank notes that sometimes
the treaties opponents contradicted their own arguments:
[O]pponents couldn’t agree on how this box would be
opened. “Do I believe that states will pass laws or have to pass laws in
conformity with the U.N. edict?” [Rick] Santorum asked himself. “Do we have to
amend IDEA?” the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. “I don’t have any
fear anytime soon that IDEA will be amended. But I do have concerns that people
will go to courts and they will use this standard in this convention.”
This was contradicted by the next man at the
microphone, home-schooling advocate Mike Farris, who pointed out that the
document has a provision stating that “you can’t go to court automatically. You
must have implementing legislation first” — the very thing Santorum says he
does not expect to happen.
Still, their spurious theory of a U.N. takeover of
parenting was enough to lead Lee and Santorum to oppose a treaty that would extend
American values worldwide and guarantee disabled people equal treatment, and
freedom from torture and exploitation.
Now I'm honestly pretty dubious
about whether U.S. ratification of the treaty would accomplish all that.
Unlike Law of the Sea, not ratifying this treaty doesn't appreciably harm U.S.
interests. It does, however, make the United States look pretty
dysfunctional. In essence, the U.S. Senate just rejected a treaty on
protecting the disabled that would have globalized the status quo in U.S. law
on this issue. To use the parlance of international relations scholars,
this is dumber than a bag of hammers.”
An intentional misreading of the intent of the treaty as
well as the power and enforcement ability of the United Nations on multiple levels
is hereby uncovered. Understanding the why behind the fear mongering seen in
Lee’s speech exposes the how. This is
from an expose in The Baffler on the
money-making schemes used by the religious Right in America to fund their
theocratic coup:
“The typical ploy
ran a little something like this, from Heritage Foundation founder Paul
Weyrich’s Free Congress Research and Education Foundation:
Dear Friend:
Do you believe that children should have the right to sue their parents for being “forced” to
attend church?
Should children be eligible for minimum wage if they are being asked to do household
chores?
Do you believe that children should have the right to choose their own family?
As incredible as they might sound, these are just a few of the new “children’s rights laws” that could become a reality under a new United Nations program if fully implemented by the Carter administration.
If radical anti-family forces have their way, this UN sponsored program is likely to become an all-out assault on our traditional family structure.
Do you believe that children should have the right to sue their parents for being “forced” to
attend church?
Should children be eligible for minimum wage if they are being asked to do household
chores?
Do you believe that children should have the right to choose their own family?
As incredible as they might sound, these are just a few of the new “children’s rights laws” that could become a reality under a new United Nations program if fully implemented by the Carter administration.
If radical anti-family forces have their way, this UN sponsored program is likely to become an all-out assault on our traditional family structure.
Following
the standard scare-mongering playbook of the fundraising Right, Weyrich
launched his appeal with some horrifying eventuality that sounded both entirely
specific and hair-raisingly imminent--Closer inspection reveals the looming
horror to be built on a non-falsifiable foundation (“could become”; “is likely
to become”). This conditional prospect, which might prove discouraging to a
skeptically minded mark, is all the more useful to reach those inclined to
divide the moral universe in two—between the realm of the wicked, populated by
secretive, conspiratorial elites, and the realm of the normal, orderly, safe,
and sane.”
Since the problem isn’t the United
Nations but in fact, man being governed by man’s law, how can this group remove
a common enemy, the US government? Easy, says Grover Norquist, gleefully
holding the American Checkbook in his vault, easy. End taxation. Limit severely
the federal government’s ability to tax its citizens. From the Americans for
Tax Reform Website, the following is from a letter Grover wrote to the
conservative movement as a whole:
“The
deficit was the difference between two more important numbers—how much the
federal government took from the American people by force in taxes and how much
the federal government spent each year. By the 1980s liberals discovered they
could use concern over the deficit to oppose tax cuts and to push for tax
hikes.
Now that
the federal budget is in balance—indeed in substantial surplus—it is the right
time for the conservative movement to establish a new goal. We said we wanted
to balance the federal budget—we did. Now what? What is the measure of our
success or failure in the years and decades to come?
I
recommend that we set the goal of reducing the cost and size of government by
half over the next twenty-five years—one generation. Why half? Because it is a
large enough challenge to be worth the candle. Because it is eminently doable.
Why a twenty-five year time horizon? Because it will take time to turn the nation
around. Because we have to expect to have setbacks, lost opportunities, bad
election years, wars and recessions. Certainly, we would welcome achieving our
goal of "In Half" in a shorter time frame.
There are
four measures of the size and scope of government. We should look to cut each
in half over the next twenty-five years.”
Here
is Grover’s description of those four measures:
“#1
– Total government spending as a percentage of the economy.
#2
– The cost of all government regulations as a percentage of the economy.
#3
– Total government employment: How many Americans work for the government at
all levels.
#4
– Total assets controlled by government.”
Please note that Grover mentions a ‘substantial
surplus’ in this letter. America is certainly not holding a current
‘substantial surplus,’ thus the reasoning here is easily questioned. Further,
this disrespect and disconnect from what is empirical is suggestive of Senator
Lee’s steadfast refusal to accept Constitutional precedent as legal precedent. See, that’s man’s law, not God’s law. Find and read a list of signatories to this contract; by
and large, the signatory holds these views and acts upon them as a member
representative of the American people. Grover, as evinced by Lee’s speech on
behalf of the noxious Norquist coalition, is the fulcrum modern American society
wobbles upon.
Norman Ornstein
and Thomas Mann, respected political observers from quite opposite
ideological ends of the spectrum, early in 2012 made news and promptly
disappeared. Blame the liberal media! The news? That the American political
situation is worse than people think, and Republicans, not both Democrats and
Republicans, Republicans , and a strict adherence to a tax-cut only ideology,
Republicans and a ‘defeat Obama at all costs’ strategy is the problem America
faces today.
.
To
conclude, only one side of the political conversation focuses talks on, as Lee
himself puts it on his website, ‘Congress’ spending problem.’ America can only
have a spending problem if the belief is a), that America taxes and then spends
those tax dollars with an illegitimate authority, and b), that America shouldn’t
spend at all. The lack of revenue the Federal government has been starved of
since 1994 is the consequence of such beliefs, and the current fiscal situation
can be directly attributed to such nonsense.
This paper ought to have made clear who
supports the democratic system of man-made and man-enforced laws that make the
American republic exceptional. Citizens who value democracy will identify by
their speech and their actions those attempting the abortion of democracy. The
threat America faces from men like the Senator is much more sinister and
pressing than any threat the UN could make or follow through on. The Military
Religious Freedom Foundation has been battling a particularly alarming front of
this attack, on the First Amendment’s protection from state-authorized
religion. From their ‘About’ page,
“The Military Religious Freedom
Foundation is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed
Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom to
which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause
of the First Amendment.
MRFF recognizes that military life requires
individual adherence to shared patriotic principles. MRFF also recognizes the
need for military personnel to at times temporarily relinquish some
Constitutionally granted personal freedoms for the sake of military discipline
and objectives.
However, MRFF believes that religious faith is a
Constitutionally guaranteed freedom that must never be compromised, except in
the most limited of military circumstances, because of its fundamental
importance to the preservation of the American nation and the American way of
life.
Additionally, MRFF adheres strongly to the
principle that religious faith is a deeply personal matter, and that no
American has the right to question another American’s beliefs as long as they
do not unwontedly intrude on the public space or the privacy or safety of
another individual.
Therefore, MRFF holds that:
No religion or religious philosophy may be advanced
by the United States Armed Forces over any other religion or religious
philosophy.
No member of the United States Armed Forces may be
compelled in any way to conform to a particular religion or religious
philosophy.
No member of the United States Armed Forces may be
compelled in any way to witness or engage in any religious exercise.
No member of the military may be compelled to
curtail – except in the most limited of military circumstances and when it
directly impacts military discipline, morale and the successful completion of a
specific military goal – the free exercise of their religious practices or
beliefs.
Students at United States military academies are
entitled to the same Constitutional rights pertaining to religious freedoms and
the free exercise of those freedoms to which all other members of the United
States Armed Forces military are entitled.
No member of the military may be compelled to
endure unwanted religious proselytization, evangelization or persuasion of any
sort in a military setting and/or by a military superior or civilian employee
of the military.
The full exercise of religious freedom includes the
right not to subscribe to any particular religion or religious philosophy. The
so-called “unchurched” cede no Constitutional rights by want of their
separation from organized faith.
It is the responsibility of the military hierarchy
to ensure that the free exercise of religious freedoms of all enlisted
personnel are respected and served.
All military personnel have the right to employ
appropriate judicial means to protect their religious rights.”
According
to the Nobel Committee’s 2013 nomination letter to MRFF President and founder
Mikey Weinstein,
“What Weinstein and MRFF are fighting against
is nothing less than an evangelical
fundamentalist
coup within the United States Armed Forces. This Christian extremist fifth
column has its
roots in a Cold War-era alliance between the U.S. Department of Defense and
militant outfits
such as the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade and the Church of the Christian
Crusade.
However, successive generations of military leadership have preserved this
alliance far
beyond its
original Cold War/anti-communist shelf life. The result has been a U.S.
military that
is steeped in a
highly caustic brew of sectarianism, domineering religious bigotry, and an
arrogant,
dehumanizing attitude towards the civilian populations of the regions where the
U.S.
finds itself militarily
engaged.”
Any
lover of the Constitution and its protections ought to be frightened. What can
be done? Robert Thurman is a Buddhist-studies expert, the Jey Tsong Khapa
Professor of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Studies in the Department of Religion at
Columbia University, and one of Time magazine’s 1997 25 Most Influential People.
He has an excellent diagnosis and suggestion for what Lee, Norquist and the
pledge coalition are up to, and what Americans can do to fight back. As he puts
it, it is treason to make an oath to serve the people with mental reservations,
which a disbelief in the American way of governance by majority and a
pre-Congress pledge to never under any circumstances allow even a vote to raise
taxes shows. Impeach signatories! he says. “People who take that oath cannot
actually serve in the government with good conscience, because their real role
is to act as a mole to destroy the government; they are “starving the beast.”
It
might be too late, though; the anti-government attitude espoused by Lee is
making America all feverish and sick.
Works
Cited
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/13/another-u-n-convention-that-poses-threats-to-u-s-sovereignty/ heritage blog
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/04/ratification-of-the-disabilities-convention-would-erode-american-sovereignty?query=Ratification+of+the+Disabilities+Convention+Would+Erode+American+Sovereignty
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/this-treaty-crushes-u-s-sovereignty/
Santorum http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/05/santorum-un-disabilities-treaty-would-ve-had-bureaucrats-unseat-parents.html
. Click
here to watch Rick Santorum, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Michael Farris (Home
School Legal Defense Association) voice opposition at a recent press conference
on Capitol Hill. http://www.patriotvoices.com/crpd
http://www.examiner.com/article/urgent-un-disability-treaty-message-from-parental-rights-organization
+ http://parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={6C14FAE4-47E9-47BB-A414-7072D541E387}
+ http://www.kerry.senate.gov/press/release/?id=1f52aa7b-041a-4358-ba24-08f00e4140db + http://www.kerry.senate.gov/press/floor_statements/statement/?id=1C5E9B56-6FF9-4CC4-B7B9-299750325C60
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Doherty_9-13-12.html
. http://www.goddiscussion.com/105059/west-point-cadet-blake-page-quits-the-academy-citing-too-much-religion-in-its-ranks/
http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/Updated%20CRS%20Report%2012%3A13%3A12.pdf
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/12/13/1327631/norquist-obama-may-decide-to-go-blow-up-small-countries/
http://radiofreeredoubt.blogspot.com/p/american-redoubt-articles.html
http://www.mediaite.com/online/columbia-professor-blasts-grover-norquist-pledge-as-seditious-and-treasonous/
No comments:
Post a Comment