Reject "New START"

Reject New START in the Lame Duck Session

Salvaging the New START, the arms reduction treaty with Russia, is of such import to the Obama administration that they are pulling out all the stops in order to get it ratified.

Key Republicans are publicly voicing rather weak concerns that the New START has some as yet unresolved issues with little time to debate and discuss those issues. High ranking Democrats are chorusing passage of New START as necessary for “national security,” while President Obama says passage will “reduce tensions.” So, Madame Secretary Hillary Clinton was sent to Capitol Hill to speak with those not on board to influence them toward a quick ratification.

Even the Russians are getting in on the act, threatening that if the United States doesn’t ratify the treaty, the whole thing just might have to be renegotiated. One Russian official said, “There are a lot of people here who say our natural partner should be China. The danger is that the failure of START could lead to a major strategic reversal.”

Senator Jon Kyl is still the focus of the White House’s efforts on the GOP side of the aisle. Kyl had stated that modernization costs for this country’s nuclear facilities and arsenal would cost far more than the White House predicted and allotted. He saw a serious need for an additional $10 billion and the White House responded with a series of new proposals on several aspects, including one for an additional $4 billion. If Kyl capitulates on the matter, he will bring many other Republicans with him. He doesn’t object in principle to the New START so his quote about appreciating “the recent effort by the administration to address some of the issues that we have raised,” shows his precarious stand.

A half-century ago, this whole series of disarmament treaties with the Soviet Union and its successor, Russia, began with President John F. Kennedy's proposal in a speech on September 25, 1961, at the United Nations "for general and complete disarmament under effective and international control." The United States Department of State followed up Kennedy's speech with its Publication 7277, September 1961, "Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World." A key provision of this disarmament program is:

"In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state [nation] would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled according to the agreed principles of international conduct."

If you are not in favor of continuing a half-century of congressional support for sovereignty-destroying disarmament agreements, particularly this one that perpetuates the shift of power over to the United Nations and NATO, contact your Senators TODAY in opposition to ratification. Let them know you are not in favor of appeasing the Russians, or having this country’s strategic defense system watered down, or submit any international grievances or aggression to the United Nations and its international tribunal system.

If our Senators are truly in favor of American sovereignty, rejecting the New START would be an honorable step toward preserving that sovereignty, and proving just whose side they are really on. And, remember this would be a treaty ratification vote in the Senate only, requiring a two-thirds vote, 67 senators, for ratification.