Obama Election, The End of Sovereignty

[PoliticalChic]

Is that meant to be a rebuttal, or just another ill fated attempt at wit?

Must everything for you be on the level of 'see jack run'?


You don't know the meaning of 'sovereignty' and I'm dying to enlighten.
That's what it means.

I know what the word sovereignty means. Apparently you don't or you would not have disagreed with my earlier post.

OK....go ahead...explain it.

And how about throwing in a little of the history of sovereignty while your at it.




This should be good.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The American Patriots Have Lost to the Globalists.


1. It follows logically that those of us who believe that America is exceptional, in its history, its accomplishments, and its singularity, would revel in same, and desire to perpetuate it...

....but those who despise America, believe that America was founded by racists and slaveholders, that it is an imperialist nation, that 35 million Americans go hungry, that it invades countries for corporate profits, and that it is largely racist and xenophobic, wish to transform it.
These, the Leftists, wish for global governance….the end of our sovereignty.




2. Flying under the radar in this election is the fact that it ensconced progressives…and that doesn’t just mean Democrats, in charge. Listen to them speak:

a.Strobe Talbot, president of the Brookings Institution, has written that he welcomed ‘super-national political authority,’ saying "In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."

b.Harold Koh, chief legal adviser of the State Department, and the legal authority of the government on foreign legal policy, states that the Supreme Court "must play a key role in coordinating U.S. domestic constitutional rules with rules of foreign and international law," The only way for the Supreme Court to do that "coordinating" is to subordinate the real American Constitution to ever-evolving rules of foreign and international law.

c.Richard Haass, Republican, president of the Council on Foreign Relations “… states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function…. sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization.”

d. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the use of foreign law by American judges,...American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, “is a passing phase.” Ginsburg Shares Views on Influence of Foreign Law on Her Court, and Vice Versa - NYTimes.com





3. When we consider the abrupt changes in Europe, we should be concerned about the lack of consensus in our own country regarding. The following from a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. on the importance of constitutional sovereignty....

a. Had we ratified the Kyoto Protocol we would have delegated the authority over huge areas of public policy to international authorities, i.e. the lost of constitutional treaty making powers. But the Obama administration is aiming to negotiate a new treaty along those lines.

b. There is the thinking that 'human rights law' transcends the laws of particular countries, even those pertaining to national defense. But who should set the standards- especially against terrorists?

c. People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty- such as defense and protection of rights, without constitutional discipline, without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, we will be safe. Sounds as good as incantations and witchcraft.

d. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?

e. In May, 2009 Spanish judges are boldly declaring their authority to prosecute high-ranking government officials in the United States, but our government has not protested this nonsense, akin to piracy, and has, in fact, accepted an internationalist atmosphere which makes this sort of thing seem plausible.





6. Tragically, this is the position Obama voters have created.

Unable to judge the future, these voters, these Brutuses, have left the rest of us in the position of one day saying...

..'Forgive them, they knew not what they did.'

I do not disagree, I just think you are about sixty to a hundred years late in noting the situation.

Today I'm the oldest I've ever been.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pol. Chick where did you get your education? How can someone really think the way you do?

I read a great deal.


You should try it....
...go ahead, get that library card folks have told you about.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who have Republicans relegated control of our great nation?

Rupert Murdoch
Rush Limbaugh
Grover Norquist

Look at you!!!

You changed the subject without your default 'cutandpastecutandpaste skwawk! skwawk!!"

What was that old-dogs-new-tricks thing?



Sure you don't want to know what 'sovereignty' means?
After all:
"A day spent without learning something is a day wasted." – Anonymous


And you can't afford to waste many more.....

Its a closer surrender of sovereignty than your pathetic examples

I must have really upset you!!

You're not even writing in English anymore!

 

[BlindBoo]

It is not a belief that many of the original founder were racist and slave-holders. It is a fact. Nor does that fact detract from our greatness as a nation. Nor does acknowledging that fact make one automatically wish for global governance and the end of our sovereignty.

The Supreme Court does not have the power to throw out the US Consitution.

In 4 more years there will be another orderly transfer of power to the next administration.

There are so very many errors in your post that one hardly knows where to begin.


I truly like to write....and educate....but this one would require a book length treatise.

You are a fear monger who spreads no facts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

NOW I have to teach you math, too????



Did you miss this?
"The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt."

His term ended with an increase of $1,628,700


That is an increase of 40.7175%



Should I wait for the apology?

I used the numbers you posted.

According to 'debt to the penny' the actual number is 37%. So we're both wrong.

Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

No, you didn't use the numbers I posted....

Did you miss this?
"The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt."


But....this is the closest you ever came to an apology!!!!

You....integrity????
A sure sign of the apocalypse!!!

Did you not post the numbers from 1993 to 2000?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The American Patriots Have Lost to the Globalists.


1. It follows logically that those of us who believe that America is exceptional, in its history, its accomplishments, and its singularity, would revel in same, and desire to perpetuate it...

....but those who despise America, believe that America was founded by racists and slaveholders, that it is an imperialist nation, that 35 million Americans go hungry, that it invades countries for corporate profits, and that it is largely racist and xenophobic, wish to transform it.
These, the Leftists, wish for global governance….the end of our sovereignty.




2. Flying under the radar in this election is the fact that it ensconced progressives…and that doesn’t just mean Democrats, in charge. Listen to them speak:

a.Strobe Talbot, president of the Brookings Institution, has written that he welcomed ‘super-national political authority,’ saying "In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."

b.Harold Koh, chief legal adviser of the State Department, and the legal authority of the government on foreign legal policy, states that the Supreme Court "must play a key role in coordinating U.S. domestic constitutional rules with rules of foreign and international law," The only way for the Supreme Court to do that "coordinating" is to subordinate the real American Constitution to ever-evolving rules of foreign and international law.

c.Richard Haass, Republican, president of the Council on Foreign Relations “… states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function…. sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization.”

d. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the use of foreign law by American judges,...American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, “is a passing phase.” Ginsburg Shares Views on Influence of Foreign Law on Her Court, and Vice Versa - NYTimes.com





3. When we consider the abrupt changes in Europe, we should be concerned about the lack of consensus in our own country regarding. The following from a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. on the importance of constitutional sovereignty....

a. Had we ratified the Kyoto Protocol we would have delegated the authority over huge areas of public policy to international authorities, i.e. the lost of constitutional treaty making powers. But the Obama administration is aiming to negotiate a new treaty along those lines.

b. There is the thinking that 'human rights law' transcends the laws of particular countries, even those pertaining to national defense. But who should set the standards- especially against terrorists?

c. People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty- such as defense and protection of rights, without constitutional discipline, without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, we will be safe. Sounds as good as incantations and witchcraft.

d. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?

e. In May, 2009 Spanish judges are boldly declaring their authority to prosecute high-ranking government officials in the United States, but our government has not protested this nonsense, akin to piracy, and has, in fact, accepted an internationalist atmosphere which makes this sort of thing seem plausible.





6. Tragically, this is the position Obama voters have created.

Unable to judge the future, these voters, these Brutuses, have left the rest of us in the position of one day saying...

..'Forgive them, they knew not what they did.'

I do not disagree, I just think you are about sixty to a hundred years late in noting the situation.

Today I'm the oldest I've ever been.

...and the least grown up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Must everything for you be on the level of 'see jack run'?


You don't know the meaning of 'sovereignty' and I'm dying to enlighten.
That's what it means.

I know what the word sovereignty means. Apparently you don't or you would not have disagreed with my earlier post.

OK....go ahead...explain it.

And how about throwing in a little of the history of sovereignty while your at it.




This should be good.

I don't want to risk you dying while you're waiting to enlighten us. So go ahead.

Tell us why foreign entanglements, as they were described by Washington, do not adversely impact our sovereignty.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is not a belief that many of the original founder were racist and slave-holders. It is a fact. Nor does that fact detract from our greatness as a nation. Nor does acknowledging that fact make one automatically wish for global governance and the end of our sovereignty.

The Supreme Court does not have the power to throw out the US Consitution.

In 4 more years there will be another orderly transfer of power to the next administration.

There are so very many errors in your post that one hardly knows where to begin.


I truly like to write....and educate....but this one would require a book length treatise.

You are a fear monger who spreads no facts.

She has a bit of the Professor Irwin Corey about her, although the difference being I'm quite certain he knew what he was doing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Pol. Chick where did you get your education? How can someone really think the way you do?

Rush Limbaugh used to close his Friday shows by telling the listeners,

don't bother to watch the news over the weekend. Monday I'll tell you what the news was, and what it means.

I think many a conservative among the commoners took that instruction to heart. And not limited to Limbaugh.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The debt increased 86% under Bush, just for perspective.

77% as I recall....

....but let's not change the subject.


The point...as I have proven yet again, Clinton had no surplus.

Clinton had surpluses because the figures you are using to deny it include intra-government debt, which is essentially money the government owes itself.

When intra-government debt gets paid off, the money one part of the government is paying goes to another part of the government, so there is no net loss to the public.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)
The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

4.35 trillion going to 5.62 trillion is a 1.27 trillion increase.

That is not a 41% increase. 1.27 is 29% of 4.35.

NOW I have to teach you math, too????



Did you miss this?
"The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt."

His term ended with an increase of $1,628,700


That is an increase of 40.7175%



Should I wait for the apology?

1. Will you confirm that you consider the tables from whitehouse.gov as a reliable source?

2. Do you know what the fiscal year is for the federal government?

...the questions are not necessarily related so don't get alarmed...

 

[Wry Catcher]

The American Patriots Have Lost to the Globalists.

Please define your use of "American Patriots" and "Globalists"

1. It follows logically that those of us who believe that America is exceptional, in its history, its accomplishments, and its singularity, would revel in same, and desire to perpetuate it...

....but those who despise America, believe that America was founded by racists and slaveholders, that it is an imperialist nation, that 35 million Americans go hungry, that it invades countries for corporate profits, and that it is largely racist and xenophobic, wish to transform it.

STRAW DOG ALERT

These, the Leftists, wish for global governance….the end of our sovereignty.

EVIDENCE. ARE WE ALLOWING AFGHANISTAN AND ZAMBIA AND EVERY NATION IN BETWEEN A SEAT IN CONGRESS?

2. Flying under the radar in this election is the fact that it ensconced progressives…and that doesn’t just mean Democrats, in charge. Listen to them speak:

a.Strobe Talbot, president of the Brookings Institution, has written that he welcomed ‘super-national political authority,’ saying "In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."

WHO, AND WHO CARES WHAT ONE NUT POSITS?

b.Harold Koh, chief legal adviser of the State Department, and the legal authority of the government on foreign legal policy, states that the Supreme Court "must play a key role in coordinating U.S. domestic constitutional rules with rules of foreign and international law," The only way for the Supreme Court to do that "coordinating" is to subordinate the real American Constitution to ever-evolving rules of foreign and international law.

I SEE, YOU EXPAND HIS COMMENTS FOR YOUR PARTISAN PUROSES NO ONE PERSON IS THE LEGAL AUTHORITY OF OUR GOVERNMENT ON FOREIGN POLICY (EVEN WILLOW TREE MIGHT KNOW THAT).

c.Richard Haass, Republican, president of the Council on Foreign Relations “… states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function…. sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization.”

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher WHICH HAS NO RELATIONSHIP TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

d. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the use of foreign law by American judges,...American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, “is a passing phase.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND, FOR EXAMPLE, MARITIME LAW OR THE PRINCIPLE OF STARE DECISIS OR THE COMMON LAW OR EVEN THE PRINCIPLES OUTLINED IN THE MAGNA CARTA?

3. When we consider the abrupt changes in Europe, we should be concerned about the lack of consensus in our own country regarding. The following from a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. on the importance of constitutional sovereignty....

a. Had we ratified the Kyoto Protocol we would have delegated the authority over huge areas of public policy to international authorities, i.e. the lost of constitutional treaty making powers. But the Obama administration is aiming to negotiate a new treaty along those lines.

FAIR ENOUGH. HOWEVER, BY PARTICIPIATING WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE IN DEBATE AND MOVE POLICIES SOME FEEL TO EXTREME TO BETTER SERVE THE NEEDS OF INDUSTRY WHILE PROTECTING THE HEALTH OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

b. There is the thinking that 'human rights law' transcends the laws of particular countries, even those pertaining to national defense. But who should set the standards- especially against terrorists?

TERRORISM IS WAY TO BROAD AND ISSUE FOR A RESPONSE. CIVILIZED NATIONS AND CIVILIZED PEOPLE ABHOR TERRORIST ACTS INCLUDING TORTURE AND RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS.

c. People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty- such as defense and protection of rights, without constitutional discipline, without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, we will be safe. Sounds as good as incantations and witchcraft.

HUH? YOUR PARTY SUPPORTED CHRISTINE O'DONNELL. I SUPPORT "SPEAK SOFTLY (THT IS DIPLOMACY) AND CARRY A BIG STICK" AS DO MOST DEMOCRATS.

d. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?

THERE WERE BROADER ISSUE IN MEDELLIN THEN THE EXECUTION OF A FOREIGN NATIONAL - AS IS THE CASE IN MOST USSC DECISIONS.

e. In May, 2009 Spanish judges are boldly declaring their authority to prosecute high-ranking government officials in the United States, but our government has not protested this nonsense, akin to piracy, and has, in fact, accepted an internationalist atmosphere which makes this sort of thing seem plausible.

RESPONDING WAS UNNECESSARY; IF THE HIGH RANKING (I.E. RUMSFELD, CHENEY AND BUSH) CHOOSE TO GO TO SPAIN THEY MAY (AND LIKELY SHOULD) SECURE PRIVATE LEGAL COUNCIL.

6. Tragically, this is the position Obama voters have created.

Unable to judge the future, these voters, these Brutuses, have left the rest of us in the position of one day saying...

..'Forgive them, they knew not what they did.'

I see, you believe you are a seer, have precognitive abilities and are psychotic, oops, psychic ability. That explains much.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is not a belief that many of the original founder were racist and slave-holders. It is a fact. Nor does that fact detract from our greatness as a nation. Nor does acknowledging that fact make one automatically wish for global governance and the end of our sovereignty.

The Supreme Court does not have the power to throw out the US Consitution.

In 4 more years there will be another orderly transfer of power to the next administration.

There are so very many errors in your post that one hardly knows where to begin.


I truly like to write....and educate....but this one would require a book length treatise.

You are a fear monger who spreads no facts.

Another brilliant pity post!!

How DO you manage to come up with these???

 

[PoliticalChic]

I used the numbers you posted.

According to 'debt to the penny' the actual number is 37%. So we're both wrong.

Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

No, you didn't use the numbers I posted....

Did you miss this?
"The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt."


But....this is the closest you ever came to an apology!!!!

You....integrity????
A sure sign of the apocalypse!!!

Did you not post the numbers from 1993 to 2000?

OK....let's see if the THIRD time is a charm....this from the original post:

Did you miss this?
"The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt."

 

[PoliticalChic]

I do not disagree, I just think you are about sixty to a hundred years late in noting the situation.

Today I'm the oldest I've ever been.

...and the least grown up.

Some people grow out of childish shenanigans.

Some people master them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I know what the word sovereignty means. Apparently you don't or you would not have disagreed with my earlier post.

OK....go ahead...explain it.

And how about throwing in a little of the history of sovereignty while your at it.




This should be good.

I don't want to risk you dying while you're waiting to enlighten us. So go ahead.

Tell us why foreign entanglements, as they were described by Washington, do not adversely impact our sovereignty.

About time you admitted the need for superior intelligence.



1. Jean Bodin, French jurist (16th century), one of the first to address sovereignty, understood the King of France as an independent political authority, meaning that he did not owe allegiance to either the Holy Roman Emperor, or to the Pope. Government, he postulated, must be strong enough to protect people’s rights, yet restrained enough not to do more than that.


2. The term sovereignty was rarely used before the 17th century, the time that people first came to think of representative assemblies as legislatures, reflecting the modern emphasis on law as an act of governing, i.e. government by consent.

a. This was also the time when professional armies came into being, serving distinct governments, and a seriousness about defense.

b. And during this period, discussions began about international law, the relations of sovereign nations. In fact, the Declaration of Independence refers to such a law, in its first sentence: “…necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station…” thus assuming that nations, like individuals, have rights.
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. sponsored by Hillsdale College.


3.Sovereignty is defined by most scholars as Westphalian, embodied in the idea of the nation state, and going back to the Treaty of Westphalia, 1648.

a. The treaties resulted from the big diplomatic congress,[4][5] thereby initiating a new system of political order in central Europe, later called Westphalian sovereignty, based upon the concept of a sovereign state governed by a sovereign and establishing a prejudice in international affairs against interference in another nation's domestic business. Peace of Westphalia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. But that’s not how Americans think of sovereignty. Rather, we think of sovereignty as “We The People of the United States of America…,” the Constitution. It was written in Philadelphia, so I call it “Philadelphian Sovereignty.” This is sovereignty through our Constitution. And this is based on the twin pillars of ‘Liberty,” and “Consent.”
“Sovereignty or Submission,” John Fonte

a. This means majority rule, but limited through the restrictions of the Constitution: separation of powers, federalism, and limited government.



You're welcome.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are so very many errors in your post that one hardly knows where to begin.


I truly like to write....and educate....but this one would require a book length treatise.

You are a fear monger who spreads no facts.

She has a bit of the Professor Irwin Corey about her, although the difference being I'm quite certain he knew what he was doing.

Yup....that must be why you asked me to explain sovereignty....

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, you didn't use the numbers I posted....

Did you miss this?
"The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt."


But....this is the closest you ever came to an apology!!!!

You....integrity????
A sure sign of the apocalypse!!!

Did you not post the numbers from 1993 to 2000?

OK....let's see if the THIRD time is a charm....this from the original post:

Did you miss this?
"The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt."

Fiscal year 1992 starts in October of 1991. Ends in September of 1992.

Clinton wasn't president until January 20ish, 1993.

Why would you leave out almost 4 months worth of accumulated debt???????????

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, you didn't use the numbers I posted....

Did you miss this?
"The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt."


But....this is the closest you ever came to an apology!!!!

You....integrity????
A sure sign of the apocalypse!!!

Did you not post the numbers from 1993 to 2000?

OK....let's see if the THIRD time is a charm....this from the original post:

Did you miss this?
"The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt."

Table 1.1 shows that Clinton had several years of surpluses.