START Treaty to Bring All National Military Forces Under the Control of the United Nations

December has turned out to be a very good month for the Bilderbergers. The Food Safety bill is about to be signed into law, a bipartisan committee is voting for austerity measures against the people under the pretext of deficit reduction, Obama signed into law the tax package to destroy Social Security, the world's mayors signed a pact (prior to the UN climate change summit in Cancun, Mexico) to tax carbon emissions, California approved the creation of a cap-and-trade system (hoping other states will follow), the FCC adopted 'net neutrality' rules as a justification to seize more power (and to put an end to free and open internet) and, four days before Christmas, the new START Treaty (a nuclear pact with Russia) cleared its last Senate hurdle before ratification.

A very real threat to the national security of the United States is developing and very few people even seem concerned about it. It is called the START Treaty, and Barack Obama is desperately trying to ramrod it through the lame duck session of Congress. Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed to the terms of the treaty back in April, and two-thirds of the U.S. Senate must vote for it in order for the treaty to become law. So what is so bad about the treaty? Well, for starters, it almost totally defangs the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal that has protected us for the past six decades, it puts serious restrictions on the ability of the United States to develop any kind of missile defense, and it puts the U.S. military at a very significant strategic disadvantage... If World War III were to break out over the next decade, the United States would very likely find itself facing a Chinese/Russian alliance. The combined conventional military forces of China and Russia are far superior to those of the United States. The only major advantage that we had was our edge in strategic weaponry, and this treaty would greatly weaken that advantage. - End of the American Dream, 9 Reasons Why The START Treaty Must Be Stopped, December 20, 2010

START Treaty Clears Last Senate Hurdle Before Ratification

The Senate on Tuesday voted to limit debate on ratification of a major arms control accord with Russia, setting the stage for a final vote on the so-called START treaty. The Senate voted 67-28 to advance the legislation, easily exceeding the 60 votes required. The Senate is expected to ratify the treaty some time on Wednesday in what would be the latest in a string of legislative victories for President Obama after his party was soundly beaten in the midterm elections last month. Earlier, Republicans senators expressed outrage as Obama secured enough votes for ratification. At least 10 Republicans publicly announced their support for the accord, including Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, putting it on a virtual glidepath to ratification by Wednesday night.

December 21, 2010

Associated Press – President Barack Obama locked up enough Senate Republican votes Tuesday to ratify a new arms control treaty with Russia that would cap nuclear warheads for both former Cold War foes and restart on-site weapons inspections.

Eleven Republicans joined Democrats in a 67-28 proxy vote to wind up the debate and hold a final tally on Wednesday. They broke ranks with the Senate's top two Republicans and were poised to give Obama a bipartisan win on his top foreign policy priority...

Conservative foes of the accord — among them possible GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty — argue the treaty would restrict U.S. options on a missile defense system to protect America and its allies and lacks sufficient procedures to verify Russia's adherence.

"The administration did not negotiate a good treaty. They went into the negotiations it seems to me with the attitude with the Russians just like the guy who goes into the car dealership and says, 'I'm not leaving here until I buy a car,'" Kyl said.

That opposition withered in the face of forceful statements from the military establishment, including Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen who said Monday that the treaty "enhances our ability to do that which we in the military have been charged to do: protect and defend the citizens of the United States."

Obama, who postponed his holiday vacation, lobbied hard for the Senate to complete the treaty before January when Republicans increase their numbers by five and the accord's outlook would be bleak...

START Treaty Gains New Momentum in Senate

Obama working hard on START to secure year-end win

December 21, 2010

Reuters – President Barack Obama's New START nuclear treaty with Russia received the endorsement of a top Senate Republican on Tuesday as the pact headed toward anticipated Senate approval this week.

"I will vote to ratify the New START treaty between the United States and Russia because it leaves our country with enough nuclear warheads to blow any attacker to kingdom come and because the president has committed to an $85 billion, 10-year plan to make sure that those weapons work," Lamar Alexander, the Senate's third-ranking Republican, said in a Senate speech.

Backing of the treaty by Alexander gave it fresh momentum and could help clear the way for a vote on passage, possibly as early as Tuesday. The top two Senate Republicans have both said they would vote against it.

Alexander represents the state of Tennessee, home of one of the nuclear facilities that will receive billions of dollars in modernization funding under an agreement worked out between lawmakers and the White House.

Senate Democrats plan to move on Tuesday to limit further debate on the treaty in an effort to bring the issue to a final vote. If they are successful in restricting debate, a final vote could come later on Tuesday or Wednesday.

Democrats need nine Republican votes to obtain the two-thirds majority required to approve the treaty in the 100-member Senate. Support for the accord has been growing among Republicans, with at least seven publicly committed to a yes vote and several others leaning that way.

The treaty, which would cut strategic atomic weapons deployed by either country to 1,550 within seven years, was signed by Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in April...

Senate Vote on Nuclear Treaty May Be Defining Moment for Obama

President Obama could build on a New START victory as he turns to other foreign policy challenges. Failure might be regarded abroad as confirmation that the administration is too weak to put its stamp on world affairs.

December 21, 2010

LA Times - The upcoming Senate vote on a U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty may turn out to be a defining moment for the Obama administration's foreign policy.

If he wins the support of at least two-thirds of the Senate for the New START agreement in a vote that may come as early as Tuesday, President Obama could build on the victory as he turns to a long list of foreign policy challenges — including Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and his broader plans to limit nuclear weapons.

Failure would be regarded in some world capitals as confirmation that the administration is too weak and preoccupied with domestic problems to put its stamp on world affairs.

With the Republican Senate leadership lined up against approving the treaty in the last days of a lame-duck session, the issue will be decided by a handful of GOP senators. Supporters are expected to vote to cut off debate on Tuesday, a step that would open the way for a final vote later in the day or on Wednesday.

The administration has made controlling nuclear weapons a major foreign policy goal and held out its "reset" of relations with Russia over the last two years as its most tangible international accomplishment. It views the New START treaty, which would reduce the ceiling on long-distance nuclear warheads by up to 30%, as the centerpiece of that relationship.

Russia has enormous influence in many key areas. It has close economic ties to Iran, including in civil nuclear power, and as a member of the U.N. Security Council, its cooperation is essential to pressure the Islamic Republic to accept limits on its nuclear program. Twenty years after Moscow ended its own war in Afghanistan, it has recently expressed a willingness to cooperate with the U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries there. And Russia is one of five countries engaged in sporadic talks with North Korea about its nuclear program.

Other countries will also be watching. The vote will probably help them decide whether it's in their interest to cooperate with Obama.

"At this point, he needs a foreign-policy win," said Paul Saunders, a former State Department official at the Nixon Center in Washington.

The vote comes at a time when world powers have been reassessing the administration's power in light of its midterm election setbacks, the unraveling this month of its strategy for Arab-Israeli peacemaking, and other reversals.

In Israel, some conservative political leaders have said they see Obama's poll numbers and political strength ebbing, and have urged their government to push back harder against administration pressure.

One Senate Republican aide said many world powers attach great importance to a government's ability to work out a major treaty with another world power.

"This matters a lot to them, and they've yet to see it," said the aide, who declined to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to reporters.

On Monday the Senate considered several possible amendments to the treaty, including one to increase the number of annual inspections of each country's nuclear sites, and a second to increase the number of allowable nuclear weapon launchers.

The last START treaty took three years to ratify in the 1990s, but most U.S.-Russia arms treaties have won overwhelming bipartisan support. As recently as this summer, supporters believed New START would coast easily to ratification.

The treaty has wide support among former leaders of the U.S. foreign policy establishment from both parties, and is generally viewed as an incremental step in scaling back the vast nuclear arsenals of the two Cold War rivals.

But the treaty aroused conservatives' fears of Russia, and became entangled in the broader political struggle over Obama's record.

In recent days, as the administration pushed hard for votes on contentious issues such as immigration and the treatment of gays in the military, the debate has become more embittered.

Saunders said he feared the final hours of deliberations had polarized the two parties on Russia issues in a way that "will be extremely unconstructive going forward." Even if Obama ekes out a victory, it will be a narrow one that may not inspire much confidence in Moscow or other foreign capitals, he said.

A rejection may make cooperation more difficult with the Russians on future nuclear arms reduction issues, but also on related issues such as the coordinated missile defense system the two countries have been discussing, Saunders said.

Russia already has expressed its annoyance that Senate action is taking so long. Officials say they will not bring it up for a ratification vote in Moscow until Washington acts. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last week that if the U.S. failed to approve the treaty, Russia might have to build up its own nuclear forces.

On Monday, Russian officials warned the Senate not to change the language because Moscow would not be willing to renegotiate it.

Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, told the Interfax news agency that the treaty, "worked out on the strict basis of parity, in our view fully answers to the national interest of Russia and the United States."

He said the treaty "cannot be opened up and become the subject of new negotiations."

Some Republican senators have been arguing that the treaty benefits Russia more than the United States, and have cited their concerns that it could limit the ability to expand U.S. missile defense systems.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky argued that every Republican issue should be addressed, and that:

"Our top concern should be the safety and security of our nation, not some politician's desire to declare a political victory and host a press conference before the end of the year."

Both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton worked the phones to win Republican votes. Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sent a letter to the Senate, emphasizing his view that the treaty would protect U.S. interests.

Administration officials fear that the treaty will face a far tougher process if it is delayed until next year, when the Senate will include five more Republicans.

Aides to Senate supporters of the treaty said that of the nine Republican members they need, they have four committed supporters: Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and George V. Voinovich of Ohio. Scott Brown of Massachusetts announced Monday that he would also vote to ratify.

Considered as likely or possible votes in favor are Bob Corker of Tennessee, Johnny Isakson of Georgia and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Sens. Bob Bennett of Utah, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Thad Cochran of Mississippi are considered maybes.

Advocates say that they don't know how Sen. John McCain of Arizona will vote but that the White House has been working hard to win him over because it thinks McCain could bring along other Republican votes.