that "In his 2006 autobiography, In the Line of Fire, President Musharraf boasted that, in return for handing over 369 terror suspects (including many transferred to Guantánamo), "We have earned bounty payments totaling millions of dollars.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#United_States
If you cannot find the links in this blog, I have majority of them filed, Email me!
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Did You Know.......
that “because the USA is one of only two states that have not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognizes that children need special safeguards and care, it feels free to trample on the human rights of juveniles in its ‘war on terror,”’
See it Here
"The United States has not so far ratified the CRC, in part due to possible conflicts with U.S. law and because of opposition by some political and religious conservatives to the treaty.[20]
The administration of president George W. Bush has explicitly stated its opposition to the treaty:
"The Convention on the Rights of the Child may be a positive tool for promoting child welfare for those countries that have adopted it. But we believe the text goes too far when it asserts entitlements based on economic, social and cultural rights. ... The human rights-based approach ... poses significant problems as used in this text." [21]
Active opposition to the Convention in the United States has been concentrated in politically conservative groups.[22] Senator Jesse Helms, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, described it as a “bag of worms,” an effort to “chip away at the U.S. Constitution”.[23]
Legal concerns over ratification have mostly focused on issues of sovereignty and federalism.[24] The United States generally does not sign treaties that it believes would impair its sovereignty.[25] Most United States laws for the protection of children are state rather than federal laws, and the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution restricts some of the authority of the United States government to pass legislation or ratify treaties that will protect children. The US Constitution not only limits federal jurisdiction over children, the US Supreme Court has held that to some significant degree, no government, federal, state, or local may interfere with the parent-child relationship.[26][27].
The Heritage Foundation sees the conflict as an issue of national control over domestic policy: "Although not originally promoted as an entity that would become involved in actively seeking to shape member states’ domestic policies, the U.N. has become increasingly intrusive in these arenas."[28] They express concern about "sovereign jurisdiction over domestic policymaking and preserving the freedom of American civil society",[29] and argue that the actual practice of some UN Committees has been to review national policies that are unrelated, or are marginally related to the actual language of the Convention.[30] Supporters of homeschooling express concern that the Convention will "subvert the authority of parents to exercise important responsibilities toward their children. Under the UN Convention, parental responsibility exists only in so far as parents are willing to further the independent choices of the child."[31]
David Smolin argues that the objections from the religious and political conservatives stem from their view that the U.N. is an elitist institution, which they do not trust to properly handle sensitive decisions regarding family issues.[32] He suggests that legitimate concerns of critics could be met with appropriate Reservations, Understandings and Declarations by the U.S. [33]"
From Wikipedia
If you cannot find the links in this blog, I have majority of them filed, Email me!
See it Here
"The United States has not so far ratified the CRC, in part due to possible conflicts with U.S. law and because of opposition by some political and religious conservatives to the treaty.[20]
The administration of president George W. Bush has explicitly stated its opposition to the treaty:
"The Convention on the Rights of the Child may be a positive tool for promoting child welfare for those countries that have adopted it. But we believe the text goes too far when it asserts entitlements based on economic, social and cultural rights. ... The human rights-based approach ... poses significant problems as used in this text." [21]
Active opposition to the Convention in the United States has been concentrated in politically conservative groups.[22] Senator Jesse Helms, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, described it as a “bag of worms,” an effort to “chip away at the U.S. Constitution”.[23]
Legal concerns over ratification have mostly focused on issues of sovereignty and federalism.[24] The United States generally does not sign treaties that it believes would impair its sovereignty.[25] Most United States laws for the protection of children are state rather than federal laws, and the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution restricts some of the authority of the United States government to pass legislation or ratify treaties that will protect children. The US Constitution not only limits federal jurisdiction over children, the US Supreme Court has held that to some significant degree, no government, federal, state, or local may interfere with the parent-child relationship.[26][27].
The Heritage Foundation sees the conflict as an issue of national control over domestic policy: "Although not originally promoted as an entity that would become involved in actively seeking to shape member states’ domestic policies, the U.N. has become increasingly intrusive in these arenas."[28] They express concern about "sovereign jurisdiction over domestic policymaking and preserving the freedom of American civil society",[29] and argue that the actual practice of some UN Committees has been to review national policies that are unrelated, or are marginally related to the actual language of the Convention.[30] Supporters of homeschooling express concern that the Convention will "subvert the authority of parents to exercise important responsibilities toward their children. Under the UN Convention, parental responsibility exists only in so far as parents are willing to further the independent choices of the child."[31]
David Smolin argues that the objections from the religious and political conservatives stem from their view that the U.N. is an elitist institution, which they do not trust to properly handle sensitive decisions regarding family issues.[32] He suggests that legitimate concerns of critics could be met with appropriate Reservations, Understandings and Declarations by the U.S. [33]"
From Wikipedia
If you cannot find the links in this blog, I have majority of them filed, Email me!
Another Scare Raises Its Ugly Head: WHEAT
"THE world is only ten weeks away from running out of wheat supplies after stocks fell to their lowest levels for 50 years.
The crisis has pushed prices to an all-time high and could lead to further hikes in the price of bread, beer, biscuits and other basic foods."
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3423734.ece
AND
"Consumers usually reduce their purchases of goods and services if prices become too high. Buyers of United States corn, soybeans and wheat seem to be ignoring that economic principle, however, as the nation‘s grain stocks reach critically low levels, said Chris Hurt, a Purdue University agricultural economist. With global demand for grain and oilseeds at record levels and a weak U.S. dollar, foreign buyers are outbidding domestic buyers for American grain. While the higher commodity prices are good for crop agriculture there are disconcerting downsides, Hurt said. "Food consumers worldwide are going to have to pay more," Hurt said. "We ended 2007 with our monthly inflation rate on food nearly 5 percent higher. I think we‘ll see times in 2008 where the food inflation rate might be as much as 6 percent. "I also think we‘ll have discussions about food security in 2008. We‘ll have discussions about whether we should allow the foreign sector to buy our food. Is food a strategic item that we need to keep in our country?""
"Wheat prices have been near $10 a bushel, more than $6 a bushel higher. Cash prices for soybeans are about $13 a bushel, up more than $7 a bushel. Corn is pricing at near $5 a bushel, an increase of greater than $3 a bushel."
http://www.hoosieragtoday.com/wire/news/00392_World-Grain-Demand-Straining-U_S_-Supply_171358.php
AND then BBC has it's say.
"The price of higher-quality spring wheat jumped almost 25% on Monday - the biggest one-day increase to date.
The rise comes as the UN's World Food Programme warns that it will have to start cutting rations or feeding fewer people if it does not get more money to cope with the higher cost of food.
Wheat is used to make staple foods such as bread, pasta and noodles."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7264653.stm#subject
Feed The World? We Are Fighting a Losing Battle, UN Admits
If you cannot find the links in this blog, I have majority of them filed, Email me!
The crisis has pushed prices to an all-time high and could lead to further hikes in the price of bread, beer, biscuits and other basic foods."
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3423734.ece
AND
"Consumers usually reduce their purchases of goods and services if prices become too high. Buyers of United States corn, soybeans and wheat seem to be ignoring that economic principle, however, as the nation‘s grain stocks reach critically low levels, said Chris Hurt, a Purdue University agricultural economist. With global demand for grain and oilseeds at record levels and a weak U.S. dollar, foreign buyers are outbidding domestic buyers for American grain. While the higher commodity prices are good for crop agriculture there are disconcerting downsides, Hurt said. "Food consumers worldwide are going to have to pay more," Hurt said. "We ended 2007 with our monthly inflation rate on food nearly 5 percent higher. I think we‘ll see times in 2008 where the food inflation rate might be as much as 6 percent. "I also think we‘ll have discussions about food security in 2008. We‘ll have discussions about whether we should allow the foreign sector to buy our food. Is food a strategic item that we need to keep in our country?""
"Wheat prices have been near $10 a bushel, more than $6 a bushel higher. Cash prices for soybeans are about $13 a bushel, up more than $7 a bushel. Corn is pricing at near $5 a bushel, an increase of greater than $3 a bushel."
http://www.hoosieragtoday.com/wire/news/00392_World-Grain-Demand-Straining-U_S_-Supply_171358.php
AND then BBC has it's say.
"The price of higher-quality spring wheat jumped almost 25% on Monday - the biggest one-day increase to date.
The rise comes as the UN's World Food Programme warns that it will have to start cutting rations or feeding fewer people if it does not get more money to cope with the higher cost of food.
Wheat is used to make staple foods such as bread, pasta and noodles."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7264653.stm#subject
Feed The World? We Are Fighting a Losing Battle, UN Admits
If you cannot find the links in this blog, I have majority of them filed, Email me!
Is EU buying up charities
I wrote to all my MEPs to object to the EUs policy on bio-fuels. One of the MEPs; BOOTH Graham H, The UK Independence Party (UKIP), is the only one so far who has written to me. He is against the legislation, which is good. And he is explaing about the charities like the Friends of Earth who are been bought by the EU. Bought means been funded by EU. Well the whole letter I recieved is below.
"Dear Enquirer,
Thank you for your message regarding the EUs policy on bio-fuels. Wewill be voting against any legislation, which is based on those policies.
The UK Independence Party (UKIP) has always condemned these targets asirresponsible, and we have tried to highlight the dangers of ploughingforward with them. As usual our protests went unheard, but yet again, wewere proved to be correct. We are the only party in the Parliament thathas consistently voted against these targets, and the EU's drive (at anycost)for such legislation.
It may interest you to learn that a number of "green" charities, such as Friends of the Earth - even though they have the integrity to opposethese biofuel-targets (and GMO's, for that matter)- receive substantialamounts of EU funding. It has been suggested that part of the reason theEU is "buying up" charities like this, is that they will then call foraction, which the EU has already decided to take. Indeed, this isusually what happens. The appearance is of a democratic and responsiveEU. In fact, the EU is the paymaster of its own lobbyists. In this case,however, everyone agrees that the Commission's position is indefensible.Even the "captive NGO's" cannot be seen to be supporting it.The target of a 5.75% market share for bio-fuels, in the overalltransport-fuel supply, is wholly un-reasonable and un-sustainable for anumber of reasons:
(i) The damage caused in developing nations, by cultivation of oil-palmand soya etc - for the purposes of the export of bio-fuels toEU-controlled markets - is destroying precious, tropical habitats, and
(ii) This expansion would be contributing more to carbon-imbalance (werethat possible) than the substitution of bio-, for fossil-, fuels wouldredress it.
(iii) Given increasing food-shortages, it is not a good idea to beproducing bio fuels at the expense of food production.
It may also interest you to learn that the EU has a number of otherpolicies, which are devastating for the environment. For example, itsCommon Fisheries Policy sees countless dead fish thrown out of nets torot on the ocean surface, as the CFP only allows fishermen to catchcertain types of fish, and nets are not renowned for their ability to discriminate between types of fish. The EU also has its Common Agricultural Policy, which vindictively condemns poor farmers in theDeveloping World to poverty - and an inability to compete withsubsidised, European farmers - and obliges them to exploit their environment more ruthlessly. Incidentally, the EU also funds farmers inSpain, whose consequent expansion threatens the habitat of the IberianLynx, one of Europe's rarest animals.
We at UKIP feel that the inherently remote, un-democratic and corrupt,nature of the EU, coupled with its laughable attempts to cloak its cynical intentions in altruistic camouflage ("environmental protection","health and safety", "human rights" etc) mean that it deserves nothingbut contempt. We look forward to the day we can abolish the EU (inBritain, to begin with) take our billions of pounds with us, and spendthem on serious and sensible measures to support public services,including the protection of the environment.
Thank you for your message. Please rest-assured that UKIP MEPs willcontinue to vote against the biofuel-targets.
Yours sincerely,
Michael McManus
Office of Graham Booth MEP"
So I wrote toFOE like this:
Is it true that the EU is funding FOE? If that is true, then, when the EU is discussing about Bio Fuels, the FOE will be taking a positive posture towards the coming legislation. Is that what most of the members of FOE want? What is your position towords the up-coming legislation. I wrote to my MEP Mr Booth and he says that FOE is not aggressively lobbying against the Bio Fuel quotas for 2020. Thank you for your time ,patience and an early reply.
I will post anything which comes from them.
If you cannot find the links in this blog, I have majority of them filed, Email me!
"Dear Enquirer,
Thank you for your message regarding the EUs policy on bio-fuels. Wewill be voting against any legislation, which is based on those policies.
The UK Independence Party (UKIP) has always condemned these targets asirresponsible, and we have tried to highlight the dangers of ploughingforward with them. As usual our protests went unheard, but yet again, wewere proved to be correct. We are the only party in the Parliament thathas consistently voted against these targets, and the EU's drive (at anycost)for such legislation.
It may interest you to learn that a number of "green" charities, such as Friends of the Earth - even though they have the integrity to opposethese biofuel-targets (and GMO's, for that matter)- receive substantialamounts of EU funding. It has been suggested that part of the reason theEU is "buying up" charities like this, is that they will then call foraction, which the EU has already decided to take. Indeed, this isusually what happens. The appearance is of a democratic and responsiveEU. In fact, the EU is the paymaster of its own lobbyists. In this case,however, everyone agrees that the Commission's position is indefensible.Even the "captive NGO's" cannot be seen to be supporting it.The target of a 5.75% market share for bio-fuels, in the overalltransport-fuel supply, is wholly un-reasonable and un-sustainable for anumber of reasons:
(i) The damage caused in developing nations, by cultivation of oil-palmand soya etc - for the purposes of the export of bio-fuels toEU-controlled markets - is destroying precious, tropical habitats, and
(ii) This expansion would be contributing more to carbon-imbalance (werethat possible) than the substitution of bio-, for fossil-, fuels wouldredress it.
(iii) Given increasing food-shortages, it is not a good idea to beproducing bio fuels at the expense of food production.
It may also interest you to learn that the EU has a number of otherpolicies, which are devastating for the environment. For example, itsCommon Fisheries Policy sees countless dead fish thrown out of nets torot on the ocean surface, as the CFP only allows fishermen to catchcertain types of fish, and nets are not renowned for their ability to discriminate between types of fish. The EU also has its Common Agricultural Policy, which vindictively condemns poor farmers in theDeveloping World to poverty - and an inability to compete withsubsidised, European farmers - and obliges them to exploit their environment more ruthlessly. Incidentally, the EU also funds farmers inSpain, whose consequent expansion threatens the habitat of the IberianLynx, one of Europe's rarest animals.
We at UKIP feel that the inherently remote, un-democratic and corrupt,nature of the EU, coupled with its laughable attempts to cloak its cynical intentions in altruistic camouflage ("environmental protection","health and safety", "human rights" etc) mean that it deserves nothingbut contempt. We look forward to the day we can abolish the EU (inBritain, to begin with) take our billions of pounds with us, and spendthem on serious and sensible measures to support public services,including the protection of the environment.
Thank you for your message. Please rest-assured that UKIP MEPs willcontinue to vote against the biofuel-targets.
Yours sincerely,
Michael McManus
Office of Graham Booth MEP"
So I wrote toFOE like this:
Is it true that the EU is funding FOE? If that is true, then, when the EU is discussing about Bio Fuels, the FOE will be taking a positive posture towards the coming legislation. Is that what most of the members of FOE want? What is your position towords the up-coming legislation. I wrote to my MEP Mr Booth and he says that FOE is not aggressively lobbying against the Bio Fuel quotas for 2020. Thank you for your time ,patience and an early reply.
I will post anything which comes from them.
If you cannot find the links in this blog, I have majority of them filed, Email me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)