moreadsense

Please Hit

There are MANY expenses associated with running this site, computers, wifi cards, travel to debates and conferences, purchase of research, etc.

Despite what the progressives say, I receive no funding from the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, or the Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy.

The only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers.

Folks PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going.

Hit the Tip Jar (it's on the left-hand column).

Friday, February 6, 2009

Just Wait Till Obama Turns Our Justice System Over to the World Court

Get ready to learn the words to "We Are The World" because if President Obama has his way there will be a new world order where the UN and World Courts have have a big say in what happens in the US. Both Susan Rice an Hillary Clinton have a strong alliance with Brookings Institution president Strobe Talbott, a big believer in world government and a trusted contact of the Russian Intelligence service while he was in the Clinton Administration.

Don't forget that as a Senator the President supported the pro-UN Global Poverty Act and co-sponsorship of the Jubilee Act a measure that would use $920 billion of tax payer dollars. Think of it as another bailout. And then there is the international Criminal Court may lead to war crimes trials for America's Hero soldiers. This is a pet project of the President and the new UN Ambassador Susan Rice. Just try to imagine what justice will be in America when the International Court gets its hands on us:


EDITORIAL: Beware of international 'justice'

President Barack Obama has made no secret of his love affair with international organizations and we-are-the-world handholding. Yet he has not been equally vocal in the defense of America - especially in instances when multinational bodies might transgress the nation's sovereignty and work against our self-interest. These issues are now once again in the spotlight as the new administration provides a wholehearted endorsement of the world's first permanent tribunal, the International Criminal Court in The Hague. While the court might be able to do much good in bringing to justice some of the world's most notorious human-rights abusers, American support for the tribunal's activities must be counterbalanced with a prudent regard for our unique needs as the world's preeminent power and defender of orthodox western values. Some of the world's most egregarious human-rights violaters have called for indictments against a U.S. president, military leaders, corporate executives, and others under outlandish interpretations of "law."

Mr. Obama and his representatives have now gone further than any other previous administration in empowering the ICC. On Thursday, top Obama administration officials offered support for implementing the war crimes indictment issued in July against Sudanese President Omar Bashir for his role in the genocide and war crimes - crimes that have resulted in the deaths of over 300,000 people and the displacement of 2.5 million. A panel of judges is deliberating whether to issue Mr. Bashir's arrest warrant.

In tandem, Ambassador Susan Rice's first speech to the United Nations Security Council signaled that the new administration would throw its weight behind the ICC. The ICC "looks to become an important and credible instrument for trying to hold accountable the senior leadership responsible for atrocities committed in the Congo, Uganda and Darfur," she said, winning accolades from other foreign envoys. U.S. support for the ICC comes as it began its first trial on Monday of former Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga, accused of recruiting children in 2002 and 2003 to fight wars in eastern Congo. The court also has two other Congo militia leaders in its custody and has filed a host of war crimes charges against suspects in Sudan, Uganda and the Central African Republic.

Democratic and Republican leaders have differed on the value of the international tribunal. Bill Clinton initially signed the 1998 treaty that created the court. However, George W. Bush took a much harder line: In 2002, he revoked America's signature and later, along with Ambassador John Bolton, was vociferous in keeping America out of the court's reach. Currently, 108 nations have accepted the ICC - but not countries such as the U.S., Russia, China, Pakistan, India and Israel that fear (not without plausibility) that indictments might be politically motivated and used to violate their sovereignty.

Mr. Obama said he will fully consider, in consultation with American military leaders, how the court might be used by our enemies and rivals to reduce its military effectiveness with flimsy or malicious prosecutions. Yet we urge Mr. Obama to deliberate long and hard - for several more years, if necessary - before tying America into another international knot. The Bush administration wisely promoted bilateral immunity agreements (BIAs) with individual nations in order to protect U.S. soldiers from the ICC. Mr. Bush even withheld aid to nations that refused to sign such an immunity agreement. The former Republican president - less doe-eyed than Mr. Obama and more realistic about the potential for harm that international bodies can inflict - decided American tribunals are sufficient to ensure our wars are fought according to American laws and international conventions.

Mr. Obama wants to show the world that the United States is serious about protecting human rights. But our commander-in-chief must be even more zealous in showing Americans that he will first and foremost - and at all times - safeguard us from our rivals and opponents whose primary motives might very well be to hamstring and diminish our current global preeminence in making the world safer.





2 comments:

Ted said...

DEAR READER, before Obama has a chance further to "STIMULATE" GOVERNMENT growth, so as further to DEPRESS ECONOMIC freedom and liberty (by his effort to drive our RECESSION into DEPRESSION as pretext for FURTHER government control), it is essential NOW that both the United States Supreme Court AND Military Joint Chiefs of Staff EXERCISE WHAT IS THEIR ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DEFEND THE NATION FROM THE INTERNAL THREAT OF USURPATION. OBAMA'S STEADFAST REFUSAL TO OVERCOME “RES IPSA LOQUITUR” on the issue of either his Kenyan birth and/or Kenyan/British father's citizenship -- by his steadfast refusal to supply his long form birth certificate under seal (compounded by his internet posting of a fake "after-the-fact" short form 'certificate') -- renders him INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE US CONSTITUTION. Being a 14th Amendment "citizen" is not enough. A "President" MUST BE an Article 2 "natural born citizen" AS DEFINED BY THE FRAMERS' INTENT.

Ted said...

Since Obama’s earnest drive to convince the nation to weaken its economic strength through redistribution as well as weaken its national defense, has confirmed the very threats to our Republic’s survival that the Constitution was designed to avert, it no longer is sustainable for the United States Supreme Court and Military Joint Chiefs to refrain from exercising WHAT IS THEIR ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DEFEND THE NATION FROM UNLAWFUL USURPATION. The questions of Obama’s Kenyan birth and his father’s Kenyan/British citizenship (admitted on his own website) have been conflated by his sustained unwillingnes to supply his long form birth certificate now under seal, and compounded by his internet posting of a discredited “after-the-fact” short form ‘certificate’. In the absence of these issues being acknowledged and addessed, IT IS MANIFEST THAT OBAMA REMAINS INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Being a 14th Amendment “citizen” is not sufficient. A “President” MUST BE an Article 2 “natural born citizen” AS DEFINED BY THE FRAMERS’ INTENT.