Guys, it's pretty simple--if Ronald Reagan touched it, you don't get to

Bill Kelly writes a recurring column in the Washington Times called "Bill Kelly's Truth Squad".  Ostensibly, this column is a forum where "A conservative satirist takes on the worlds of politics and entertainment in humorous pursuit of truth, justice and all things America."  Looking at his recent work, I'm not really seeing the "humorous pursuit" part:

Anyway, his most recent work is titled, "Reagan's home could become a parking lot for Obama's library".  It's a terrifying description of a present-day Cold War where Obama seeks to relentlessly destroy all historical landmarks related to past presidents!  No, really--see for yourself:

CHICAGO, Illinois, January 25, 2013 - A new Cold War is brewing here in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood and it has nothing to do with the frigid temperature.

Just for fun, I'm going to keep track of all the items in this column that could be classified as "jokes".  Since I am assuming that Bill Kelly is aware that the Cold War was not started by cold temperatures, I will begrudgingly give him credit for +1 joke there.

The apartment building at 832 E. 57th Street was once the Chicago home of a boy who would become a President.

No, it’s not Barack Obama of Hawaii.

Nice job, reminding us that Obama was born in Hawaii.  This seems like a vague dig at Obama not being American, but I don't really get it.  +0 jokes.

It was at the apartment’s first floor window that a young Ronald Reagan looked out upon the world. 

But some powerful Chicagoans are planning to demolish Reagan’s historic home.

Did you tell them that Reagan looked through the window?  I'm shocked that didn't sway them.  Here's how I assume Bill ranks potential historical sites in order of importance:

1. Reagan looked at, through, or nearby a part of the building (double if he touched anything)
2. Biblical figure appears in shower mold and/or toast
3. Places that have something to do with actual historical events

+0 jokes.

Is it politically motivated? Is Mayor Rahm Emanuel behind the move? 

I gave it some thought, and I decided that I might injure my neck if I shake my head as much as this question deserves.  I will allow this dog to take care of it for me.  Also, +0 jokes.

It was a different world back in 1915. Reagan's family had moved here from Tampico, Illinois. His father had gotten a job at the famed Marshall Field’s – now only a memory. A coin-operated gas lamp was the only home’s only source of heat.  

What is a "coin-operated gas lamp"?  It doesn't appear to be a real thing, at least as far as I can tell.  +0 jokes.

But it didn’t stop a young “Dutch” Reagan from dreaming.

I have no clue what "Dutch" means there.  Is Reagan from a Dutch family?  Did young Reagan insist on splitting the tab equally on dates?  Something about jump-roping?  +0 jokes.

Young Reagan would watch the horse-drawn fire engines galloping wildly down the streets to save the day and he decided that he, too, would become a firefighter. It was here, too, that he survived a bout with pneumonia – he had the fight in him even then. 

You can almost imagine him skipping down these streets, playing with his brother Neil,  whose nickname was “Moon.” 

Great anecdotes, guy.  If you can imagine it so well, why do we need the building?  Just use your imagination-pictures of what Reagan was doing in 1915.  Also, I'm suspicious of anyone being nicknamed "Moon".  How does that even happen? 

Now, the University of Chicago Medical Center has announced plans to turn Reagan’s Chicago home into a parking lot.

In 2012, the Commission on Chicago Landmarks denied Reagan’s home landmark status. The University of Chicago set demolition for January and the bulldozers quickly moved in. The wrecking balls are ready.

A "plaque" could mark the historic spot instead, say university representatives.  

A "plaque"??? Just one?  There should be a plaque for every time he was inspired to fight for America when playing with his brother Moon, and a statue, and a hologram of Reagan playing on the street as a child that other children can interact with and be inspired.  Also, +0 jokes.


While the university is planning to kill Reagan’s home, University of Chicago is also aggressively lobbying to be the site of President Barack Obama’s presidential library. 

The presidential library won't be built for another <checks watch> four years, buddy.  Also, the word for what we do do demolish buildings isn't "kill".  That just sounds over-dramatic and like you want the situation to sound worse than it actually is.

Could the Reagan site become a parking lot for Obama’s library? Opponents of the demolition say yes.

There is good reason for them to be suspicious. 

First Lady Michelle Obama and the president’s close advisor Valerie Jarrett are former top executives of the University of Chicago Medical Center. President Obama was a lecturer at the law school for twelve years. And let’s not forget, Obama’s Hyde Park home is here too. 

Some people connected to Obama used to work at the university and he used to live nearby!  He probably has ultimate control over the local historical society and how they determine what is and is not a landmark.  +0 jokes.
 
This is still Chicago. Barack Obama’s Chicago. Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago.

It is safe to say that Democrats don’t want any reminders of a Republican president named Reagan and his glory days a stone’s throw from a future Obama Presidential Library.

It is safe to say that you have given this more thought than anyone involved with planning the library four years from now.  You are aware Democrats aren't mindlessly enraged to the point of destruction by seeing things that remind them of Reagan, yes?  You seem to be equating it to how bulls see red capes.

Better to raze the building now, than later. But do they have the right to erase Ronald Reagan from Chicago history? 

Erase him from Chicago history?  They are tearing down a house he one time briefly lived in.  They aren't trying to scrub him from textbooks or anything.  As it happens, Reagan is better known in Chicago for the time he was calling a Cubs game when the wire that was providing the play-by-play to him went dead, so he fabricated an at-bat involving a record number of foul balls to delay the broadcast until the wire was back up.  Is Obama behind the efforts to renovate Wrigley Field, too?  It certainly seems suspicious, right? 

Only time – and that wrecking ball - will tell. 

For what it's worth, time has kind of already told, in that the historical society decided the house won't be a landmark.  Grand total of jokes in the column: one, and even that was pretty borderline. 

Jim DeMint has some ideas about signing treaties

Jim DeMint delivered a speech the other day opposing the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  At least, I think that's what it's about, because that's what he says it's about, although he certainly has trouble staying on point if that's the case.  For those who may not be aware, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is basically an treaty that emulates the Americans with Disabilities Act on an international level.  John McCain has lended his support to the treaty, saying that it is an example of American leadership on rights for the disabled.  Bob Dole has also spoken extensively in support on it, and was present to give some testimony in support of a treaty that would have been a major victory in his lifelong campaign for disability rights.  In fairness, there are some valid reasons to be concerned about signing U.N. treaties, but I have a feeling Jim DeMint isn't going to be paying much attention to those (because secretly, I read the whole speech ahead of time.  Shh.).

As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have participated in the hearings and debates on this treaty, and I understand the aspirations of the groups who support it. But I have serious concerns about reaching those goals through a legally binding United Nations treaty.

Other U.N. organizations have failed to achieve their stated purposes and actively work against the interests of the United States.

I'm sure he has some examples in mind, but he doesn't even say what I should look up to see if he's right.  If you're going to be paranoid about a U.N. takeover at least tell me what part you're paranoid about.

Not even a week ago, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to upgrade the Palestinian Authority to “non-member observer state” over the objections of the United States and Israel. This is a breach of the Oslo accords and will hurt the Middle East peace process. Secretary Clinton called it “unfortunate and counterproductive.”

Whoa, shit!  Now the Palestinian representative can come watch silently next time Israel tries to make sure they get no representatives at U.N. meetings.  What does this have to do with the topic?  What was the topic again?  Oh, right, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  Onward!

The U.N. Human Rights Council includes notable human rights violators such as Cuba, China, and Russia.

I think you left somebody off that list.

These countries have made little progress improving the rights of their citizens, and nearly 40 percent of the council’s country-specific human-rights condemnations are against Israel.

That's fair, maybe--that said, the fact that 40 percent of the "country-specific" condemnations are against Israel isn't really evidence for anything.  "Country-specific" is a pretty strange limiting factor there, so that could just mean that Israel is frequently condemned for actions that they undertake alone, whereas other countries violate human rights in groups.  It's a somewhat interesting fact, but it means virtually nothing in isolation.

More worrisome, convention committees–such as the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women–have a track record of overstepping their authority and advocating positions contrary to American laws and values.

/faints

People disagree with me on anything, ever? 

/regains consciousness
Good heavens!  People sometimes advocate positions that the U.S. disagrees with?  What on Earth are they asking us to do, throw all the white males out of office?

In the past, these committees have supported giving voting rights to felons, 

A thing that several U.S. states already do, including two states where felons can vote from prison.  Next?

the decriminalization of prostitution, 

A thing that is already legal in Nevada.

gender quotas,

This is vague.  I'm assuming this refers to either a political representation quota or a hiring quota for minorities, given the context.  Neither is being mandated by any U.N. treaty that I could find, and also we are talking about the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, or at least I thought we were.  I guess we'll go with:

If DeMint gets to re-use his anti-UN talking points, I get to re-use my pictures.

and increased access to abortion.

He's saying that these are things that treaties have "supported" in the past.  Are we seriously this scared of people supporting things we don't?

Overly broad language included in this treaty would likely allow the U.N. to meddle in many of our domestic matters.  International bureaucrats working with the U.N. should not be able to influence how the United States creates and implements laws for the disabled, especially when members come from countries with lower human rights standards than our own.

This is basically the opposite of what this treaty is.  It's based on legislation (the Americans with Disabilities Act) that already exists in the U.S., and really is designed to get those countries with low human rights standards to improve them.  This is a case where the U.S. influenced the U.N., not vice versa.

The purpose of any treaty should be to advance specific security or economic interests that make us a stronger and safer nation. This treaty does neither.

This seems to be an argument that we should not sign a treaty we do not "win".  That said, it's one of DeMint's more logical points, if you believe that the U.S. should not be responsible for advancing human rights on an international level.

Last week on the floor, Leader Reid argued that we must ratify this treaty to “take the high ground” on these issues with the rest of the world. But the United States does not have to join a U.N. convention or any other organization to give ourselves legitimacy and moral authority in the world.

Because America.  Fuck yeah.

This convention will do nothing to improve the rights of Americans in the United States. We have little evidence to suggest that joining this convention and its committee will ensure that other countries improve their protection of disabled people. Of the 126 member countries, this convention’s committee has only issued recommendations to a handful.

Let's summarize the main points DeMint is making.  First of all, this treaty is dangerous because it might force the U.S. to adopt all kinds of binding legislation that would take away our sovereignty and prevent us from making our own laws regarding the disabled.  Secondly, there's little evidence that other countries would have to do anything to improve their protection of disabled people, because apparently those terrifying binding clauses only apply to us (I'm not posting the citation needed image again).  I guess we're worried that they might issue us some very sternly worded recommendations?

Portions of this convention also concern reproductive health, 

Oh!  That's code for something, I bet.  Noted leftist John McCain, do you have anything to say about whether we should reject this treaty because of sections related to abortion?

"With respect to abortion, this is a disabilities treaty and has nothing to do with abortion. Trying to turn this into an abortion debate is bad politics and just wrong."

the rights of families,

Here, DeMint is insinuating that this treaty will take control of disabled children away from families and give it to the government.  It will not.

and the use of the treaty in our courts.

We should never cede the authority of these matters to an international organization. President Washington’s warning in his farewell address bears repeating here. He said:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Not surprisingly, DeMint's best argument is made using someone else's words.  There's a case to be made that we shouldn't enter into treaties that we don't need, but we should recall that Washington was president in the 18th century, when the U.S. didn't have to debate whether we should be involved in human rights issues in foreign countries.  It's not a wholly illegitimate point today, but it's a bit outdated.  Outside of a general philosophy opposing treaties that makes a modicum of sense from a certain worldview, all of DeMint's arguments here are essentially without evidence.  He's saying that X might hypothetically cause Y because he thinks it might, and he doesn't like Y, so we can't even consider X.  It's like if I was considering getting a cat, but then I had a dream where a cat scratched me, so I instead led a campaign to outlaw all cats ever. 

Don't look so worried!  I'd never do that.  I'm sorry I even brought it up.