[Nfbf-l] Frantic GOP fringe turns back on Bob Dole and the Persons with Disabilities convention!

[Bill Outman]

You've called them Repugnants instead of Republicans.  I've come up with
Publicans instead, as in the Gospel parable of the publican praying at the
temple proclaiming loudly how he was not like those awfull sinners.  

It gets annoying how they often refer to the Democrat party, Democrat
policies, etdc. In cases where the proper term should be Democratic.  It's
intentional disrespect.  

I hope we will be successful with this treaty in the new Congress.  You
could say we got blindsided this time.  

Bill Outman 



-----Original Message-----
From: Nfbf-l [mailto:nfbf-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Alan Dicey
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 11:19 AM
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Subject: [Nfbf-l] Frantic GOP fringe turns back on Bob Dole and the Persons
with Disabilities convention!


Editorial from USA Today

Frantic GOP fringe turns back on Bob Dole and the Persons with Disabilities
convention.


Dole, a former party leader and a disabled veteran, tried to champion the 
treaty in the Senate. The opponents persuaded 38 Republican senators to vote

no, enough to deprive the pact of the two-thirds needed for ratification. By

walking away from the treaty, the U.S. loses a chance to champion the 
principles of non-discrimination overseas.


Last week, when the Senate rejected a United Nations treaty banning 
discrimination against the disabled, the vote received relatively little 
attention. And why would it? The United States already has laws that prevent

such bias. They've made curb cuts and wheelchair ramps common sights across 
America.


But the Senate's failure to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities  was nevertheless remarkable - for what it said 
about the state of domestic politics. Despite GOP efforts to recalibrate 
after last month's election losses, the treaty vote reflected the continuing

influence of a fringe that gets frantic about anything involving the United 
Nations.


If that sounds unduly harsh, consider the treaty's history. It sprang from 
an effort to promote worldwide adoption of the values of equality and 
non-discrimination pioneered by Americans.


One of the treaty's biggest backers is Bob Dole, the former Senate 
Republican leader, former party chairman and 1996 GOP nominee for 
president - not to mention a disabled World War II veteran. When Dole, 89, 
came to the Senate for last week's vote, he was received politely but kept 
at considerable distance.


Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., another distinguished combat veteran and 
presidential candidate, is also a big supporter, as are a host of military 
and veterans organizations.  Not long ago, the treaty would have passed 
easily amid lots of self- congratulations.


But too many in today's GOP have turned their backs on the party's past and 
embraced concocted scenarios of U.N. bureaucrats telling Americans how to 
lead their lives and structure their laws. The opponents persuaded 38 
Republican senators to vote no, enough to deprive the pact of the two-thirds

needed for ratification.


Supporters are vowing to try again next year in the new Senate, but the 
failure leaves the United States in an odd position. Since 1990,  the 
Americans with Disabilities Act (or ADA) has barred discrimination against 
the disabled and afforded greater access to buildings and public facilities.

Now that a movement is spreading for similar laws worldwide, the current 
Senate has conspicuously declined to give its endorsement.


To be sure, the U.N. is hardly the most efficient or effective organization.

It is ponderous, politicized and easily distracted by petty squabbles. But 
it has no interest in micromanaging U.S. laws or telling Americans how to 
parent their disabled children, as critics charge. And if it did, it would 
have no success because it has no tools to pose a threat, nor cause to act 
because the U.S is the world leader in rights of the disabled. Those who 
hold the treaty up as some kind of threat are seeing boogeymen.


A more interesting question is how U.S. courts would interpret the treaty. 
While the ADA is much more detailed, a close reading of the treaty shows a 
few areas that could be seen as going further. For instance it requires that

disabled people have affordable access to mobility devices. Would courts 
give credence to claims made entirely on the basis of the treaty? Possibly. 
But with 20 years of case law on discrimination, the chances that major 
changes would be required  seem slim.


By walking away from the treaty, the U.S. loses a chance to champion the 
principles of non-discrimination overseas. And the Senate looks captive to 
fringe members  peddling half-baked ideas about the U.N.


With Best Regards,
Alan
And they ask why I call them "Repugnents"  instead of Republicans!
Miami, Florida
__._,_.___ 


_______________________________________________
Nfbf-l mailing list
Nfbf-l at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbf-l_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Nfbf-l:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbf-l_nfbnet.org/woutman%40earthlink.net