Obama Administration using the United Nations to bypass Congress

[vector7]

First the Administration turned Arizona in on human right abuses over immigration reform to the United Nations...now the Administration is using the same tactic to go after states blocking Unions from taking over their free markets.

Stuart Varney Tells Union Rep He Sides “With Our Enemies�

Reported by Ellen - September 5, 2010 - Comments (11)

In honor of Labor Day, a special Cost of Freedom “business block� on Fox News made a special effort to attack unions. Actually, substitute host Stuart Varney didn’t just attack unions, he accused Bruce Raynor, of Workers United, of siding with “our enemies.�

Why?

Because Raynor supported the Obama administration’s report to the United Nations “equating the difficulty of organizing a union here in America to a human rights offense.� That must mean that Varney thinks President Obama and hs administration side with our enemies, too, though he did not say so.

"I've got to say, sir,â€� Varney began with Raynor, “I was shocked and angered by the idea that my government in America would link our behavior in America, vis-Ã*-vis unions, and link it to some kind of human rights abuse. Say it ain't so, Bruce, you can't be serious?"

Raynor, who seemed to have nothing directly to do with the filing of the report, said, "It's true that that’s the position in the report to the United Nations. It’s also true in fact. Millions of American workers, Stuart, today have no right to organize a union." He went on to say that, "Public employees in the State of North Carolina, for instance, have no right to organize unions. South Carolina, Georgia. All throughout the south."

Varney, who was argumentative throughout, interrupted. "Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. That's a human rights abuse?"

Yes it is," Raynor told him.

"…You will take to the United Nations, and embarrass this great country, and put us in the same league as North Korea?" Varney asked incredulously.

"No, not put us in the same league as North Korea," Raynor answered.

"You are!" Varney insisted.

That was a bit of sleight of hand on Varney’s part. Earlier in the segment, he had interviewed the conservative Barbara Comstock on this same subject. When he made the same outraged objection (claiming the report had linked America to North Korea and Saudi Arabia), she made it clear that the report had not done so. Comstock said that the U.S. had said in the report, “We’re not necessarily equating our behavior with other huge, you know, violating countries.�

Raynor continued, "But when the United States, the greatest democracy in the history of the world, we must defend our
democratic principles. The right to free association."

Varney said pugnaciously, "That's it?

That's all you've got?

You say that it's restricted in North Carolina so we’re human rights abusers?"

Raynor answered, "There are over 20 states where public employees have no right to free association. FedEx drivers have no right to form a union because the company says under some technicality that they’re contracters when UPS drivers are workers and have a right to form a union."

"You have picked tiny little examples," Varney accused, "… and you now say that this great democracy abuses human rights? That's embarrassing."

Raynor replied, "Over a million domestic workers in America have no right to organize. Agricultural workers. There are millions of Americans that have no right to free association."

"Are you telling me that they cannot get a secret ballot and vote to unionize? There's a law which says so?" Varney asked.

Yes that was exactly what Raynor was saying. He added, "In over 20 states, public employees can’t organize, which is millions of public employees."

"You're saying every industry should be completely all the same? Police officers, military?" Varney pushed.

"Except for the military," Raynor said. "… (which) is a different institution." He went on to say that the United States is the “hardest country in the free world� to organize unions.

It's hard to believe Varney didn't have this next line pre-prepared and ready for use at the end of the segment, sort of as a coup de grace.

"So you report us to the United Nations… a den of thieves… You have sided with our enemies.



You are in the same camp as our enemies.�

[vector7]

George Soros gives $100M to Human Rights Watch

Sep 7 09:45 AM US/Eastern

Comments (5)

NEW YORK

(AP) - Philanthropist George Soros has announced a 10-year, $100 million grant to Human Rights Watch. The organization said Tuesday that it is receiving the funding from Soros' Open Society Foundations.

The grant challenges Human Rights Watch to raise an additional $100 million in matching private contributions.

It will require Human Rights Watch to increase its annual budget from $48 million to $80 million within five years.

Soros said in the statement that human rights are "at the heart of open societies."

The international human rights group is based in New York and is supported by contributions from individuals and foundations.

[American Patriot]

I wish Soros would give me a million to save the dolphins.

I'd of course need a boat to sail around to make sure the dolphins were doing ok.....

[vector7]

Hillary Clinton: United Nations Is ‘Single Most Important Global Institution’



In a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised the work of the United Nations and said it is 'the single most important global institution.'
Wednesday, September 08, 2010

By Penny Starr (CNSNews.com) – In a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised the work of the United Nations and said it is “the single most important global institution.�

At the CFR in Washington, D.C., Clinton said, “Now the U.N. remains the single most important global institution. We are constantly reminded of its value: The Security Council enacting sanctions against Iran and North Korea. Peacekeepers patrolling the streets of Monrovia and Port-au-Prince. Aid workers assisting flood victims in Pakistan and displaced people in Darfur.�

“And, most recently, the U.N. General Assembly establishing a new entity, U.N. Women, which will promote gender equality, expand opportunity for women and girls, and tackle the violence and discrimination they face,� Clinton said.

Clinton did acknowledge what she described as “limitations� of the U.N. because of “diverse perspective and interests."

“But we are also constantly reminded of its [the U.N.] limitations,� Clinton said. “It is difficult for the UN’s 192 Member States, with their diverse perspectives and interests, to achieve consensus on institutional reform, especially reforming the Security Council itself.�

“The United States believes that the Council must be able to react to and reflect today’s world,� Clinton said. “We favor Security Council reform that enhances the U.N.'s overall performance, effectiveness and efficiency to meet the challenges of the new century.�

Besides the United Nations, other global institutions include religious denominations with worldwide reach, such as the Roman Catholic Church, secular institutions such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, Doctors Without Borders, and the G-20, and multi-national firms such as General Electric, Toyota and ExxonMobil.
Like this story? Then sign up to receive our free daily E-Brief newsletter

[vector7]

Muslim Nations Call for the United Nations to Track 'Islamophobia'

Muslim Nations Call for U.N. to Track ‘Islamophobia’
U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Navanethem Pillay has agreed to consider the proposal, according to the OIC, a bloc of Islamic nations.
Friday, September 24, 2010
By Patrick Goodenough


U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Navanethem Pillay and Human Rights Council President Sihasak Phuangketkeow address the opening of the HRC session in Geneva on September 13, 2010. (UN Photo by Jean-Marc Ferre)

(CNSNews.com) – The Quran-burning controversy in the United States has prompted the Islamic bloc at the United Nations to revive its call for the U.N. to set up an “international monitoring mechanism� to track incidents of “Islamophobia.�

Five years after establishing an “Islamophobia Observatory� of its own, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is now calling on the U.N.’s top human rights official to set up a comparable body at her Geneva office. According to the OIC, human rights commissioner Navanethem Pillay has agreed to consider the proposal.

At the U.N. Human Rights Council this week, OIC members are also seeking support for a resolution condemning Florida pastor Terry Jones’ abortive call to burn copies of the Quran on September 11.

Introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the OIC, the text condemns “the recent call by an extremist group to organize a ‘Burn a Koran Day’� and says it was among “instances of intolerance, discrimination, profiling and acts of violence against Muslims occurring in many parts of the world.�
When it comes to a vote -- before the Council’s session in Geneva ends next Friday -- the measure almost certainly will pass. The OIC controls more than one-third of the Council’s seats, and its resolutions are routinely backed by non-Muslim allies such as China, Russia, Cuba and South Africa.

Moreover, Western democracies which usually oppose OIC “Islamophobia� and “religious defamation� measures at the HRC – on freedom of expression grounds – will not likely do so in this case, having strongly condemned Jones’ threats earlier this month.

U.S. ambassador to the HRC Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe wrote to Pillay in late August, deploring Jones’ threatened action and telling her that the U.S. “supports the full use of your office and moral authority to speak out against intolerance and instances of hate speech where they occur.�


U.S. Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe speaks at the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva (Photo: U.S. Mission, Geneva)

The new resolution was circulated in Geneva after OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, in an address to the Council, urged Pillay to set up an “observatory� in her office to monitor and document acts like threats to desecrate the Quran, and to report back to the HRC annually.

Ihsanoglu in his speech also said national government should take specific steps to combat religious intolerance and stereotyping, including “adopting measures to criminalize the incitement to imminent violence based on religion.�

Ihsanoglu met separately with Pillay and, according to an OIC statement, told her that incidents like Quran desecration “posed grave danger to global peace, security and stability.�

He pressed for her office to set up an “observatory� or “international monitoring mechanism� to monitor and document such acts.

The OIC said Pillay has given Ihsanoglu her assurance that she would “look into reviving the issue of the observatory� proposal.

Asked to confirm this account, a spokesman for Pillay said he would look into the matter, but did not respond by press time.

The call for the U.N. to set up an “Islamophobia monitoring mechanism� was made as early as 1997, when Iran’s ambassador raised the issue at a General Assembly committee meeting. It was repeated during the controversial Durban conference against racism in 2001 and on occasions since.

The OIC set up its “Islamophobia Observatory� at its headquarters in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, as part of a 10-year plan of action adopted in 2005.

The observatory issued its first report in March 2008, covering the period May-Dec. the previous year.

It has since issued two further reports, the most recent of which documented incidents in Western countries ranging from the Swiss ban on minaret building to complaints that pork was served in a supposedly vegetarian dish at a Christmas buffet for postal workers in Britain.

The same report cited President Obama’s June 2009 speech in Cairo, pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and dropping of terminology seen as offensive to Muslims as optimistic indicators.

‘A critical juncture’

The OIC has become increasingly assertive at the four year-old HRC, where the absence of binding entry criteria and regional seat allocation have enabled it to control a significant proportion of seats – currently 18 out of 47.



OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu addersses a U.N. meeting in New York City on September 20, 2010. (UN Photo by Ky Chung)

With support from China, Russia and others it has used its clout to pass multiple resolutions condemning Israel and to get annual resolutions passed on the “defamation� of religion – both at the HRC and in the broader U.N. General Assembly.

The decade-old campaign has prompted mounting opposition in recent years from religious freedom, free speech and other advocacy groups. Critics accuse the OIC of trying to export to the West blasphemy laws in place in some Islamic states, and to restrict free expression to shield Islam and Islamic practices from legitimate scrutiny.

As awareness has grown, the OIC has seen annual support for its resolutions wane (see graph), with more countries – especially in Latin America in the Asia-Pacific – moving to the opposition column.

But the OIC’s activism in Geneva this week signals that it plans to use the Quran-burning controversy to breathe new life into the campaign and stem to declining support.

While visiting Geneva, Ihsanoglu met with Islamic ambassadors, praised them for “enhancing the visibility and credibility of OIC as the second largest international organization.�

“He emphasized the need for improved coordination and greater unity in the ranks with a view to presenting a unified stance on issues of importance to the OIC, including the defamation of religions,� the OIC said in a statement.

“We are at a critical juncture,� Agnes Callamard, executive director of the free expression campaign Article 19, told a panel on the subject in Geneva on Monday.

“There had been a decrease in support for prohibitions on religious defamation here at the U.N. But recent events – the Florida pastor’s plan to burn copies of the Quran, bans on wearing the veil in Europe, the ban on the construction of minarets in Switzerland – mean there is again pressure to entrench this concept in international law.�

‘Thin-skinned’

One of the U.S.-based organizations leading opposition to the religious defamation drive is the American Center for Law and Justice.

ACLJ director of international operations Jordan Sekulow said Thursday that while he “fundamentally disagreed with Jones� he hoped the world would see through the OIC’s actions in Geneva that the Islamic bloc members “enjoy a chance to condemn freedom of expression.�

“ Instead of condemning Quran burning that didn’t happen, the OIC should be condemning Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran for their terrorism and financing of terrorism,� he said.

“For … such tough guys, these Islamic leaders sure do have thin skin – cartoons and a single, crazy pastor push them off their rocker.�

Sekulow said the ACLJ’s international affiliate, the European Centre for Law and Justice is accredited non-governmental organization at the U.N. and was reaching out to big and small countries on the defamation issue.

“As we explain to countries without large Islamic populations what defamation of religion would mean to Christian and other religious minorities, they understand how this resolution would be a green light for U.N.-sanctioned persecution of religious minorities,� he said, noting that this includes persecution of Muslims whose theology differs from the mainstream.

Sekulow expressed optimism that countries would continue to reject the defamation resolutions, and added that “education is the key to defeating the OIC’s propaganda machine.�

[American Patriot]

Start here.

Fuck them.

[vector7]

UN To Make U.S."Comply" On Immigration Law

UN Plan: Carte Blanche Entry For All Illegals Into The U.S.

Alert: The results of this historic vote will determine if the new GOP Congress means business or if their agenda of cutting spending will be crushed by the liberals.

STOP THE UN FROM MAKING AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS A GLOBAL LAW!
Send Faxes To All 535 Congressmen To Say
No To A Global Open-Door Immigration Policy!

On November 5th 2010, representatives from the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) met in Geneva, Switzerland, to scrutinize the United States' "awful" immigration laws.

The UN said the U.S. is not compliant with their international human rights obligations. I guess the UN doesn't think a murdered American border patrol agent is a human rights offense.

In a procedure called Universal Periodic Review (UPR), members of the Council questioned a group of over 30 U.S. officials. The Council, which is composed of 53 countries, conducts human rights reviews of all 192 UN member States every four years.

The UN wants America to open their doors and let each and every illegal immigrant into our country - with no strings attached. Even if they come from terrorist coddling countries! Once the illegals are in the United States, the UN will not charge them criminally. Forget about the safety of your family members; have no fear, the UN is here!

UN: United States' Immigration Policy Hurts Feelings

Navi Pillay, the UN high commissioner for human rights, wants the United States immigration laws to be changed because they discriminate against immigrants. She said, "The principle of non-discrimination is fundamental in international human rights law and runs across all international human rights instruments inspired by the Universal Declaration (of Human Rights), notable the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights."

I guess Pillay and the rest of the UN bureaucrats think its okay to sacrifice American lives in exchange for not offending illegal aliens. Pillay has called for open immigration policies for 214 countries across the globe. The UN could grab control of our immigration policies as soon as 2011!

UN To Decide On Immigration Policies; Not States

During the meeting, the U.S. State Department released a document lambasting the Arizona immigration law. The document said, "A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."

The Arizona Act has been under fire from liberal groups since it was passed last April. The act requires illegal aliens to register with the U.S. government and to carry their registration papers at all time.
It's simple: if an illegal is apprehended without their papers they're charged with a misdemeanor crime. The act also includes numerous "get-tough" measures for housing, hiring, and transporting illegals.

Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer passed these laws in response to the growing violence committed by illegals in Arizona. Illegals are responsible for a disproportionately large number of burglaries, rapes and murders in our border states.

Between January 2007 and June 2009, there were over 2,500 murders in Mexico near the Arizona border. Arizona now has the second highest kidnapping rate in the world behind Mexico City!

If illegals have to pull out a sheet of paper to save American lives, so be it. If an immigrant is in our country (legally or illegally) they should love our country enough that they don't want to see the people they share it with executed.

Harry Reid Wants To Use Your Kid's College Savings To Pay Illegal's College Bills

The laws the UN plans on crushing America with isn't the only trouble brewing in regards to our immigration policy. Scandal-friendly Harry Reid will light the fuse on his own legislative bomb (the DREAM Act) during the lame duck session. There's no time to waste, the lame duck session has already begun!

Harry Reid and his cohorts want to make ALL illegals American citizens. But they didn't stop there - they want to give illegal aliens carte blanche access to federal grant money, scholarships and other benefits to pay for their college tuition. The DREAM Act will give all young people who are here illegally a college education - on our dime!
The DREAM Act shows the complete disdain the liberals have for American citizens. Heck, American college kids can't even get government money to go to school. Regular hard working Americans who save every penny will be sending illegal aliens to college instead of their own kids.

Harry Reid's free-for-all for illegals and the UN's sneaky bid to enact a global immigration law must be stopped. We can't let the UN give the thumbs-up to a mob of violent offenders to cross into our country. We will not pay the price of losing American lives so illegals aren't "offended" by our immigration laws. Enough is enough! The time is now to take action!

[vector7]

Obama Claims The UN Can Usurp Congressional War Authority

by Jeff Dunetz

The Congress shall have Power…. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions… Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution.

Earlier this week Speaker Boehner sent a letter to the President warning Obama that he will clearly will be in violation of the 1973 War Powers Act as of this weekend as the POTUS did not seek congressional consent for the operation within 60 days of the March 19 U.S. air strikes against Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.

“Either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution,� Boehner wrote. “The House and the American people whom we represent deserve to know the determination you have made.�

Yesterday the President gave his response. He sent a 30+ page report (embedded below) justifying continued military involvement U.S. military involvement is “legitimated� by the UN Security Council – saying that therefore no congressional authorization is needed.

U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo.

A major problem with that argument is that the Constitution’s provisions regarding the United States use of military force mentions Congress, but it doesn’t mention the United Nations as having the right to legitimize the use of American forces.

The President’s statement brings to mind George Washington’s farewell address where he said:

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification.

The administration also claims that its actions are not governed by the War Powers Act because the U.S. involvement does not constitute “hostilities� – the term used by the act to limit the time the president may commit U.S. forces into combat.

The President is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of “hostilities� contemplated by the Resolution’s 60 day termination provision.

Maybe its me, whether the action is right or wrong,when one nation drops bombs on another that represents hostilities. It is also interesting that the President says further congressional authorization, as the operation has never been authorized by Congress.

Whether you agree with the rationale behind placing Americans in danger by participating in the Libya operation or not, the President’s explanation sets dangerous precedent that congress needs to address. Who is allowed to “legitimize� the use of American Military, Congress or the United Nations? The Constitution would say Congress. Additionally what is the definition of hostilities? Are bombing operations considered hostilities? Embargoes? Is it “anything goes� as long as there are no troops on the ground?

The answers to these questions are vital to the future direction of the Country, our use of military force, and most importantly are we a sovereign nation or a vassal state of the UN?

[American Patriot]

NOW I will believe in "The New World Order" - Under the COMMIES.

Bush had nothing to do with this.

This is all Obama's fault.

[American Patriot]

Senate Faces Loss of Arms Control Expertise

Print

• Share
• Email
• Twitter
• Facebook
• LinkedIn

Dec. 18, 2012

By Rachel Oswald
Global Security Newswire


U.S. Senators Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), at left, and John Kerry (D-Mass.), shown in May 2009 in Washington. The expected exit of both veteran lawmakers from the Senate would contribute to the upper chamber's loss of institutional knowledge on nuclear arms issues, experts said (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta).
WASHINGTON -- The Senate faces the loss of much of its institutional knowledge of complicated nuclear weapons matters with the imminent exit of two veteran Republican national security hands and the expected departure of the Democratic head of the Foreign Relations Committee, experts say.

Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) is retiring, Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) failed in his re-election bid, and John Kerry (D-Mass.) is widely anticipated to be nominated to become the next secretary of State.
Those three lawmakers are largely what remains of the upper chamber’s expertise on strategic issues as other experienced senators have retired or been ousted by voters. Few arms control accords have come before the Senate since the Cold War ended to force members to keep up with the highly technical and nuanced topic.
“In part it’s a reflection of the departure of senators but also a reflection of the fact that since 1995 when you had the START II Treaty and 2010 [with the New START accord] there was no real requirement for senators to be really smart” on arms control, according to Steven Pifer, director of the Brookings Institution’s Arms Control Initiative.
That lack of institutional knowledge during the 2010 debate on the U.S.-Russian pact forced the Obama administration to explain repeatedly to newer senators the intricacies of weapons verifications and the value of arms control.
“A lot of the muscle memory [built up during the Cold War] was gone,” Pifer said in an interview on Monday. The exit of three more senior senators exacerbates that trend, he added.
Additionally, having a critical mass of senators who understand and appreciate the complexities of arms control makes it easier for presidents to find allies who can rally support among their Senate colleagues, argue the case, and guide the treaty through the ratification process, said Council for a Livable World Executive Director John Isaacs.
Issue experts anticipate that Republicans initially will have a difficult time finding someone who can fill Kyl’s place as an informed arms control skeptic and opponent of matters such as cooperation with Russia on ballistic missile defense.
Kyl, though, told Global Security Newswire he was confident newer members of the party conference were prepared to take on his mantel.
“There are a number of very bright and eager senators, most of whom are not old-timers, who are very capable of taking over some of the portfolios that I’ve sort of delved over the years,” the three-term senator said last week on the sidelines of a missile defense forum in Washington.
The Obama administration itself seems ready to remove a key ally on arms control from the Senate by nominating Kerry as its top diplomat. An announcement could come within days, and Kerry, who has served in the Senate since 1985, would be expected to sale through the confirmation process.
As head of the Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry shepherded ratification of New START. The pact commits Moscow and Washington to reduce their respective deployed strategic nuclear arsenals to 1,550 warheads and 700 delivery systems.
“Kerry did have unparalleled knowledge of the issues and a willingness to hold the hearings” on behalf of the accord, Isaacs said.
Lugar, who has been in the Senate since 1977, was a high-profile GOP voice in favor of the accord, and one of 13 Republican senators to vote for ratification. Kyl, after being courted by top administration officials, ultimately opposed the treaty.
“The arms control community is going to miss Senator Lugar. He has a huge store of knowledge … He really has been a leader on the Republican side” on nuclear matters, Pifer said, adding that “I suspect the arms control side will not miss Senator Kyl.”
“I think there is a great loss for the pro-nuclear weapons defense hawks with the [retirement] of Senator Jon Kyl,” according to Isaacs. “One senator can make a lot of difference when that senator is very engaged, active and a good legislator.”
These looming changes are not academic. The Obama administration has signaled its desire for further nuclear arms reductions, ideally in tandem with Russia under a new accord that could cover both tactical and strategic weapons as well as deployed and reserve warheads. Should the White House open negotiations for a follow-up treaty to New START, the administration from the beginning should keep the Senate informed of details of the talks to smooth the way for eventual ratification, according to Pifer.
“You do want to have a cadre of people who understand what is going on and can break down some fairly technical jargon and arms control and security questions,” said the former Clinton administration National Security Council official.
President Obama could also be expected in his second term to make good on his years-old pledge to pursue Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Kyl was key to defeat of the 1999 effort to secure Senate advice and consent on the pact.
His retirement will remove a certain degree of concentrated fervor from a second CTBT debate, Isaacs said. He cautioned, though, that the Obama administration would still face an uphill battle in securing the necessary 12 GOP votes for treaty ratification.
"The next set of negotiations with Russia on further nuclear reductions, missile defense, that’s where Kyl could have played an important role so in some ways the administration has a freer hand on that as opposed to the test ban treaty,” Isaacs speculated.
Kyl said he’d “prefer not to name” which GOP lawmakers might look to fill his role. Analysts have cited Senators Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) as members who have taken an active interest in nuclear weapons and missile defense matters. Since joining the Senate in 2011, Ayotte has gained a reputation for being outspoken on foreign policy. Kirk came over to the Senate in 2011 after a decade in the House. After suffering a stroke in early 2012, the junior Illinois senator is expected to resume his duties in January, according to his Capitol Hill office.
Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) might take on the sort of bipartisan role in championing strategic security agreements that Lugar held, Pifer said. He added that Corker’s portfolio in 2013 is still shaping up as Republicans continue to tinker with committee assignments. Corker was one of the GOP senators to vote for New START ratification.
Kerry’s likely replacement as head of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) is seen as supportive of nuclear weapon reductions but to have nowhere close to the expertise on the topic as Kerry, according to the Council for a Livable World head.