Time For An American President...

[PoliticalChic]

Pamela Geller, in her book “The Post-American Presidency,” has some interesting perceptins as to the Obama antipathy to American sovereignty.

1. This President is clearly in favor of giving up American sovereignty in favor of the primacy of international law, i.e., regulations on climate change, gun control, free speech (including the Internet), accession to the replacement of the dollar as the basic international currency.

a. “Since the founding of our nation, the United States has championed international law…Promoting strong international norms helps us advance many interests, including non-proliferation, free and fair trade, a clean environment, and protecting our troops in wartime. Respect for international legal norms also plays a vital role in fighting terrorism.”The American Society of International Law 2008 - Barack Obama Survey

b. “A major problem for the United States at the United Nations is what is known as ‘norming.” “Norming” is the idea that the U.S. should base its decisions on some kind of international consensus, rather than making its decisions as a constitutional democracy. It is a way in which the Europeans and their left-wing friends here and elsewhere try and constrain U.S. sovereignty. The fact is that we’re sitting with a majority of countries that have no traditions or understanding of liberty.” https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=04

c. For those who fail to see American exceptionalism, that America has always been a leader and a light to the world, of course, accepting international norms is acceptable, even desirable.

2. President Bush had boycotted the UN Human Rights Council due to its endless demonization of Israel, and its willful blindness to human-rights violations in Islamic countries, i.e., Sudan among others.

a. “The 47-nation body has condemned Israel in 80% of its country censures, in 20 of 25 resolutions. The other 5 texts criticized North Korea once, and Myanmar four times. The Council has ignored the UN’s other 189 countries, including the world's worst abusers. While Darfur was addressed several times, these resolutions were non-condemnatory, often praising Sudan for "cooperation." Human Rights Council - UN Watch

b. “Barack Obama will cement the new co-operative relationship between the US and the United Nations this month when he becomes the first American president to chair its 15-member Security Council… the latest by the Obama administration to emphasise a shift from the strategy of the previous Bush administration, FT.com / US & Canada - Obama to seal US-UN relationship

3. In March 2009, the Obama administration dropped the term “enemy combatant” for prisoners at Gitmo, and instead adopted international laws of war. Eric Holder announced: “As we work towards developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law."

a. Not American law, …international law. Norming. The Justice Department announced proudly that it’s new policy “draws on the international laws of war to inform the statutory authority conferred by Congress.” Welcome to the United States Department of Justice

b. How about subjecting Americans to international law? “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed "great regret" in August that the U.S. is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has fueled speculation that the Obama administration may reverse another Bush policy and sign up for what could lead to the trial of Americans for war crimes in The Hague.” Daniel Schwammenthal: Prosecuting American 'War Crimes' - WSJ.com
Note: President Bush refused to accept jurisdiction of the ICC.

c. The Obama Administration has not announced a comprehensive US policy toward the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, several actions and statements by the Administration indicate elements of such a policy,while other areas remain unclear. April 18, 2011 http://www.amicc.org/docs/ObamaPolicy.pdf

4. If recollection serves, didn't Kerry lose support when he suggested that the US should look to international consensus..."Kerry starts with a
concept of America’s role in the world that places much more weight on diplomacy,
consensus-building, and the role of international institutions than the current
administration."http://www.observerindia.com/cms/export/orfonline/modules/orfmonitor/attachments/em041004_1163572150422.pdf

Did American suddenly change, or is this another example of the MSM hiding a candidates true motivations?

And how will Americans view Obama 'internationalism' in 2012?

 

[sparky]

Pamela Geller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pamela Geller: The Looniest Blogger Ever | loonwatch.com
So why not tell the truth about Obama and his reported strange sexual predilections? My question is, it is well known that Obama allegedly was involved with a crack whore in his youth. Very seedy stuff. Why aren’t they pursuing that story? Find the ho, give her a show!


Why isn’t CNN pursuing the nude pornographic photos of Obama’s mom…I never ran the pics, as it was unseemly and wasn’t relevant. But this assault on Palin is too disgusting. It’s time to tell the ugly truth about the enemy in the White House and his whores in the media.

yet she does have a following>

and if you can stand it>
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWXdmFEJQoA&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - ‪Global Jihad Coming to Get Us!‬‏[/ame]

 

[Bfgrn]

The Passions (And Perils) Of Pamela Geller

Her blog “Atlas Shrugs” has referred to Democrats as “National Socialists,” has sided with Slobodan Milosevic, the late Serbian president charged with war crimes, and has claimed that Elena Kagan, the country’s newest Supreme Court justice and a Jew, admired “an architect” of Nazism. She has also likened President Barack Obama’s opposition to settlement growth on the West Bank to preparations for the Holocaust and has provided space to one writer’s view that Obama is Malcolm X’s love child.

Geller’s right-wing fans have hailed her as prophetic, especially for warning of the dangers posed by Muslims in this country, while progressives, moderates and at least some embarrassed conservatives see her as something entirely different: a radical activist who comes across as shrill, crude and offensive and who fails to distinguish between Islamic fanatics and the religion itself.

But few people are likely to guess that the woman who has stirred so much passion is also a Jewish day school mom raised by a Yiddishkeit family in the Five Towns enclave of Hewlett, L.I.

She grew up in a Conservative Jewish home — “more Yiddishkeit than by the book,” she said — and has visited Israel twice: once during college and, again, in 2006, when she blogged about Israel’s war with Hezbollah. But her views about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are just as right-wing as her views on American politics.

In Geller’s eyes, Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] are Jewish land; there are no settlers, only Jews living in the Jewish homeland; and the area’s Muslims should return the Temple Mount to Jewish hands.

Geller has also taken aim at Jewish leaders in the United States, comparing mainstream organizations to Jews before the Holocaust who ignored all the danger signs. She has also called J Street and the National Jewish Democratic Council “kapos,” a reference to the Jews in Europe who aided the Nazis.

Geller’s fans include Lori Lowenthal Marcus, founder of the right-wing, pro-Israel Z Street, who said “she’s definitely serving a need. She’s an indefatigable fighter and very brazen, which is necessary to raise the profile of the issues.”

Another view comes from Todd Gitlin, a progressive scholar who teaches journalism and sociology at Columbia University, who considers Geller part of “a long history” of firebrands devoted to “this sort of agitation. … These are people who have a fixation on some paranoid scenario,” he said, and they often become a focal point for wider passions.

While not discussing Geller specifically, Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, a neoconservative think tank, said the tenor of the conversation regarding Islam in recent months has distressed him. The “good part” is that Americans are now pushing back against Islamacists, or radical Muslims, but the “bad part” is that many are now doing so “in a crude way,” calling Mohammed a pedophile and referring to all Muslims as terrorists.

Many of today’s bloggers, Pipes said, “came of age on 9/11” and haven’t done the serious study of Islam that he and others have. As a result, he added, much of what they write is based on ignorance.

 

[Sallow]

Not to hit you over the head with this..and kibosh the thread.

But what the heck.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

 

[sparky]

Coulter with better t*ts.....

 

[Seawytch]

Atlas Jugs

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wow! Look at all the lame attacks on the messenger....how about a little attention to the OP?

 

[Sallow]

Wow! Look at all the lame attacks on the messenger....how about a little attention to the OP?

Skipped right ovah my post did ya?

 

[sparky]

Atlas Jugs

now THAT"S funny!

 

[Bfgrn]

Wow! Look at all the lame attacks on the messenger....how about a little attention to the OP?

Seen it before from far right wing radicals...

 

[007]

Wow! Look at all the lame attacks on the messenger....how about a little attention to the OP?

Aaaahh c'mon PC, that's not how these shit head liberals operate. Geller tells it like it is about the socialist, anti American POS in the White House, so dramacrats simply attack her. It's their favorite tactic every damn time, straight out of their liberal handbook. They can't defend the kenyan because we all know he's a steaming pile of dog shit, but he's their steaming pile of dog shit. Evidently they LIKE steaming piles of dog shit.

I don't get how posting pictures of how HOT Geller is, is attacking her though. I have to thank those doing that. I like her even more now.

 

[007]

Wow! Look at all the lame attacks on the messenger....how about a little attention to the OP?

Seen it before from far right wing radicals...

Comparing propaganda with facts... FAIL.

 

[007]

Conservative, brains and HOT.... hell I'm in love...

 

[Bfgrn]

Wow! Look at all the lame attacks on the messenger....how about a little attention to the OP?

Seen it before from far right wing radicals...

Comparing propaganda with facts... FAIL.

Comparing far right wing radicals...pay ateention

Geller (is) part of “a long history” of firebrands devoted to “this sort of agitation. … These are people who have a fixation on some paranoid scenario,” he said, and they often become a focal point for wider passions.

While not discussing Geller specifically, Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, a neoconservative think tank, said the tenor of the conversation regarding Islam in recent months has distressed him. The “good part” is that Americans are now pushing back against Islamacists, or radical Muslims, but the “bad part” is that many are now doing so “in a crude way,” calling Mohammed a pedophile and referring to all Muslims as terrorists.

Many of today’s bloggers, Pipes said, “came of age on 9/11” and haven’t done the serious study of Islam that he and others have. As a result, he added, much of what they write is based on ignorance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not to hit you over the head with this..and kibosh the thread.

But what the heck.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

1. Well, then, let's stipulate that The Big Bad Wolf fervently believes, and wishes, that the United States of America be subject to whatever laws the United Nations chooses, drafts, endorses.

2. Further, be clear that Wolfie has not the foggiest that Congress must agree to any such laws...as his quote from the Constitution was meant to rebut the OP....
...it does not.

"The draft of the Constitution submitted to the Convention of 1787 by its Committee of Detail empowered Congress “to declare the law and punishment of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and the punishment of counterfeiting the coin of the United States, and of offences against the law of nations.” In the debate on the
floor of the Convention, the discussion turned on the question as to whether the terms, “felonies” and the “law of nations,” were sufficiently precise to be generally understood. The view that these terms were often so vague and indefinite as to require definition eventually prevailed and Congress was authorized to define as well as punish piracies, felonies, and offenses against the law of nations.

M. FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 168, 182 (Rev. ed. 1937). at 316

3. For your further edification,

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).


So, at least until the assumption of Barak Obama...the United States had and enforced soveriegnty, and did not bow, accede to the 'law of nations'....

You may not withdraw your paws from your mouth now.

 

[Sallow]

Not to hit you over the head with this..and kibosh the thread.

But what the heck.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

1. Well, then, let's stipulate that The Big Bad Wolf fervently believes, and wishes, that the United States of America be subject to whatever laws the United Nations chooses, drafts, endorses.

2. Further, be clear that Wolfie has not the foggiest that Congress must agree to any such laws...as his quote from the Constitution was meant to rebut the OP....
...it does not.

"The draft of the Constitution submitted to the Convention of 1787 by its Committee of Detail empowered Congress “to declare the law and punishment of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and the punishment of counterfeiting the coin of the United States, and of offences against the law of nations.” In the debate on the
floor of the Convention, the discussion turned on the question as to whether the terms, “felonies” and the “law of nations,” were sufficiently precise to be generally understood. The view that these terms were often so vague and indefinite as to require definition eventually prevailed and Congress was authorized to define as well as punish piracies, felonies, and offenses against the law of nations.

M. FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 168, 182 (Rev. ed. 1937). at 316

3. For your further edification,

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).


So, at least until the assumption of Barak Obama...the United States had and enforced soveriegnty, and did not bow, accede to the 'law of nations'....

You may not withdraw your paws from your mouth now.

Um..not quite.

No where did I point out that international law supercedes domestic law. That's a wild extrapolation that's constantly made by you and your ilk..when anyone recognizes that:
A. The United States was never meant to be an Empire.
B. The United States should be good citizens of the world and play nice with it's neighbors.

Do keep up.

 

[theHawk]

Wow! Look at all the lame attacks on the messenger....how about a little attention to the OP?

None of the nitwit libs have an arguement.

She is absolutely right about Islam and Jihad.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wow! Look at all the lame attacks on the messenger....how about a little attention to the OP?

Sallow did. Can't you refute him?

 

[NYcarbineer]

PC demands refutations to her 'arguments' and then puts the people who can on ignore.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Skipped right ovah my post did ya?

Now you know the right isn’t interested in facts.

Geller’s right-wing fans have hailed her as prophetic, especially for warning of the dangers posed by Muslims in this country, while progressives, moderates and at least some embarrassed conservatives see her as something entirely different: a radical activist who comes across as shrill, crude and offensive and who fails to distinguish between Islamic fanatics and the religion itself.

When the source has no credibility, neither does the material presented.

This President is clearly in favor of giving up American sovereignty in favor of the primacy of international law…

There is no evidence provided Obama wants to supplant domestic law with international. The Executive has no authority to unilaterally enact laws, and any actions by the Executive in that regard would be subject to judicial review and struck down. This is as idiotic as rightist concerns about Sharia law ‘coming to America.’

This nonsense belongs in the Conspiracy Theories forum.