Democrats seek to put national security under thumb of United Nations, unions.
Does anyone remember the comotion stirred by John Kerry during the 2004 election when he talked about America needing to listening to foriegn leaders and pass some sort of a global test? Well to my suprise Democrats decided to put this into law.
Earlier today congressional sources alerted me to provisions within "H.R. 1" which would put a vital security initiative under the "authority" of the United Nations. I thought for a moment maybe my source was kidding me. Democrats really would not try to put a provision into effect which would put part of our country's national security under direct authority of the United Nations would they?
So I did a search in the bill for "PROLIFERATION SECURITY INITIATIVE" and sure enough there is the provision.
SEC. 1221. PROLIFERATION SECURITY INITIATIVE IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORITIES.
(a) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress, consistent with the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, that the President should strive to expand and strengthen the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) announced by the President on May 31, 2003, with a particular emphasis on the following:
(1) Issuing a presidential directive to the relevant government agencies and departments that establishes a defined annual budget and clear authorities, and provides other necessary resources and structures to achieve more efficient and effective performance of United States PSI-related activities.
(2) Working with the United Nations Security Council to develop a resolution to authorize the PSI under international law.
(3) Increasing PSI cooperation with non-NATO partners.
(4) Implementing the recommendations of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in the September 2006 report titled `Better Controls Needed to Plan and Manage Proliferation Security Initiative Activities' (GAO-06-937C), including the following:
(A) The Department of Defense and the Department of State should establish clear PSI roles and responsibilities, policies and procedures, interagency communication mechanisms, documentation requirements, and indicators to measure program results.
(B) The Department of Defense and the Department of State should develop a strategy to work with PSI-participating countries to resolve issues that are impediments to conducting successful PSI interdictions.
(5) Expanding and formalizing the PSI into a multilateral regime to increase coordination, cooperation, and compliance among its participating states in interdiction activities
Okay so what we have here is a bill which would make the PSI "authorized" under the United Nations Security council and making the PSI a "multilater regime" to improve cooperation for interdiction activities.
What does this mean? This means that the United States would need to ask permission before interdicting illicit WMD traffic and provide our enemies in the United Nations vital national security information contained within the PSI system.
Democrats wish to take a key national security system and turn it over to the United Nations and our enemies. Kinda funny that we havent heard about this provision, isnt it? That was in the 9/11 Commission recommendations, right? I am sure that was in their mandate too, right? Of course the answer is no to both.
The madness doesnt stop there.
While the media reports that the same bill will allow airport security employees to form unions and "protect whistle blowers," they fail to mention that the same provision would allow them to strike.
Yup, thats right. A key cog in the national security and our economy will be at the whim of union bosses. God forbid a strike happen during some key time of crisis. New York Congressman Peter King put it best:
King cited last summer's alleged plot in Britain to blow up U.S.-bound airliners. King said if Transportation Security Administration screeners had union protections, he wondered if "would we have been able to move round the inspectors as quickly as possible" in the stepped-up U.S. security precautions that followed.
King would be correct in his analysis. If the bill was ever implemented as passed it would cripple our ability to make needed personel shifts, not to mention hiring and firing based on a merrit system. These are key elements to keeping the TSA as lean as possible.
I also believe that it is important to note the heavy lobbying influence from unions we have here. These are the same groups who poured millions into the Democratic candidates running for office. You do not hear anything in the media about these lobbyist either, do we?
I could go on and on about this bill and how bad it is because it creates more expansive government programs without improving our security. In fact if implemented as passed this bill would critically wound our national security efforts on both a fundamental and operational way.
Just remember this law has not gone through committee hearings and the Republicans will not be able to offer any ammendments to change this bill and it will not recieve a full debate in the public eye.
Then again, Democrats have a mandate for all this, right?