It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Senate Republicans on Thursday stalled further work on confirming former Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., as the next secretary of defense, likely prolonging the fight over the Pentagon nominee for at least another week and a half. The Senate voted 58 to 40 to end debate on Hagel's nomination, falling short of the 60-vote threshold they needed to move toward a final confirmation vote, and subjecting the former Republican senator to an unprecedented, de-facto filibuster. Four Republicans supported Hagel and one GOP senator voted present, though Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., switched his vote to "no" in a procedural move to be able to bring up Hagel's nomination at a later date.
"...he attacked President Bush mercilessly and say he was the worst President since Herbert Hoover and said the surge was the worst blunder since the Vietnam War..."
Originally posted by LeatherNLace
Why filibuster to stop something that will be voted on and approved with a simple majority on February 26th? I'm pleased that the GOP took this route though; it shows once again that they are the jackasses most Americans see them to be. GOP mantra: Fiscal conservationism. GOP reality: waste taxpayers time and money.
Here are seven major reasons that no U.S. Senator should ever consider signing the UN LOST treaty (and should consign it to the ash heap of history forever):
1. Loss of our national sovereignty. The treaty was created during the 1970s and according to a report by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), “it is a monument to the failed socialist thinking of a bygone era.” The treaty creates a global government that supersedes all national governments and the U.S. Constitution. That’s why President Reagan refused to sign LOST in 1982, and it has been hanging around like a lost soul ever since.
2. International taxation. According to LOST, the oil, minerals, fish and other resources of the ocean are the “common heritage of mankind,” so any nation with the capability to harvest those resources must share the wealth. The U.S. would owe a tax of 7 percent on anything it recovers on or under the deep ocean floor, which would be redistributed according to a new International Seabed Authority, headquartered in Kingston, Jamaica. According to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), “This is the first time in history that an international organization…would possess taxing authority over the United States.”
3. Giving away our technology. LOST requires all states to “cooperate in promoting the transfer of technology and scientific knowledge” to explore and recover resources in the ocean. U.S. innovations in robotics, geologic mapping and deep-water drilling would be transferred to hostile nations and corrupt third-world dictators. In 1994, President Clinton signed the treaty. Although the Senate refused to ratify it, CEI reports that his administration insisted on following this provision of LOST and giving American microbathymetry equipment and advanced sonar technology to China, to prospect for minerals in the ocean. Unfortunately, the technology could also be used for anti-submarine warfare.
4. Back door cap and trade. “For ten years now, since the Kyoto treaty [was formed], the U.S. House and Senate have rejected over and over again the idea of cap and trade, that would amount to a tax on the American people somewhere between $300 billion and $400 billion,” Senator Inhofe said in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. “They are attempting to do under this LOST treaty what they couldn’t do with legislation.”
5. Environmental lawsuits. Article 194(2) of LOST states that each member nation “shall take all measures necessary to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction or control are so conducted as not to cause damage by pollution to other States and their environment.” By signing the treaty, the U.S. could be liable for environmental damage, such as “ocean acidification” and “human induced climate change,” in places far from our homeland. These regulations could possibly include inland air and water emissions that migrate out to the oceans. According to Senator Inhofe, environmental groups, such as Greenpeace and the Environmental Defense Fund, are already lining up these suits. In one case, CEI reports that Ireland has filed a suit against a land-based nuclear plant in Britain “on the ground that it would indirectly affect marine life in Irish waters by slightly increasing water temperatures.”
6. We’ve already got it covered. For over 200 years, the U.S. has operated its oceangoing vessels under customary international law. It is also a party to a number of conventions, including the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and bilateral and multilateral agreements, such as protecting fisheries in international waters. With these in place, there is no real reason to add another huge layer of international law.
7. An endless line of treaties. There are more of these over-reaching U.N. treaties lining up right behind LOST, looking to give more and more of our liberties away to globalist bureaucrats: the UN Small Arms Treaty, which would outlaw our second amendment gun rights; the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which would usurp parental rights; and an agreement that would allow Americans to be tried in an international court. Ratifying LOST “would seem to endorse the notion that American rights can only be secured by appealing to new international institutions,” says CEI. “We would not only open ourselves to immediate risks and complications regarding actions on the seas, we would also make it harder to resist more ambitious schemes of global governance in the future.”
The treaty creates a global government that supersedes all national governments and the U.S. Constitution. That’s why President Reagan refused to sign LOST in 1982, and it has been hanging around like a lost soul ever since.
hough Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., switched his vote to "no" in a procedural move to be able to bring up Hagel's nomination at a later date.
Originally posted by neo96
So the Gop "stalls" eh.
Yeah right bash the GOP bash Isreal since the Democrats do currently hold the majority in the Senate.
Originally posted by neo96
Reid voted no which would have made 59 what other voted no that would have made the 60 ?
In the final minutes of the tally, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., switched his vote from “yes” to “no,” a procedural move that allows him to revive the nomination after the break. He set another vote for Feb. 26. Read more: dailycaller.com...
Republicans, however, signaled they're willing to allow the nomination to proceed after recess, when only a simple majority of 51 votes are required to stop a filibuster. The Senate is not in session next week.
Democrats had a chance to eliminate or restrict the use of the filibuster last month. Instead, Reid chose to cut a “deal” that gave the Republican minority an effective veto over everything in the chamber. It’s not surprising that after Democrats handed Republicans this incredible power the GOP is choosing to exercise it.
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by BritofTexas
Yeah lets talk about spin evil zionist supporters (gop) blocks Hagel nomination just pay no attention there is going to be a SECOND vote.
Is all of this disqualifying? Just consider how future generations will judge the leaders of our time, when we had the opportunity to slow the rise in temperatures and all the related Katrina/Sandy-sized disasters that will ensue -- and those leaders chose to obstruct and play politics, in accord with the interests of their Big Oil and Big Coal donors, rather than do ANYTHING of consequence about the issue.
The U.S Defense Department has a larger environmental footprint than any organization on the planet. It also must, to be truly strategic and forward-looking, incorporate climate change into all of its planning. What DOD does on the issue will be of enormous consequence -- and under this administration, the Army and Navy have both taken strong steps to start to reduce their footprints.
Will Defense Secretary Hagel rein in these efforts as getting ahead of the "free market"? Will he kill efforts to incorporate climate change in DOD strategic planning because the science is "uncertain"? Will he be a voice in White House debates to continue the tradition to which he has so substantially contributed, of the US doing nothing but delay, delay, delay getting serious about this global threat?
All of these questions need to be asked, both by those considering Hagel's nomination, and those who may be asked to approve it. Because we cannot afford any more delay in tackling climate change, and anyone who counsels such must be simply and completely pushed out of the way.
Originally posted by bjax9er
Ahhh. Yes it's those evil joooooos again.
The guy hates America just like the rest of the commies.