Time For An American President...

[Desol]

#2 No basis in reality. Follow the news of stonings, inhuman acts around the world, and the UN singles out Israel. The UN has become a satire of itself.
#4 It's a question of preponderance...the main stream is left wing.
#5 Also doesn't follow. Here in the, a federal republic, there are states that state outright that they will not follow the directions and laws of the federal government. Does not indicate that the states actually have sovereignty that they were promised. See ObamaCare.
#6 Glad you bring up R2P. It combines several aspects we have been discussing.

1. You may find a well intentioned idea, and claim that my view is a worst case senario. And it may be not a bad idea….unless the unforeseen consequences are actually a well-laid trap.

2. The Doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect,” (RtoP) was accepted by the 2005World Summit, and the 2006 Security Council of the UN. The basic ideas are:

a. A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities).
b. The international community has a responsibility to assist peacefully.
c. The international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.

3. Picture Bosnia, or Rwanda or Libya….what could be bad?

4. Well, what if the real intentions behind the RtoP was to allow certain forces a ‘moral’ right to ‘interfere’ in the National Sovereignty of a nation they didn’t care for. Say…oh, I don’t know….the United States? Or Israel?

5. “Advocates of RtoP claim that only occasions where the international community will intervene on a State without its consent is when the state is either allowing mass atrocities to occur, or is committing them, in which case the State is no longer upholding its responsibilities as a sovereign.”

6. Now, let’s say that the UN decides to declare Palestine to be a state…What a coincidence! That was the news recently!

a. And, what if “Gaza terrorists have pummeled Israel with over 120 rockets in the past few days, and now the Arab League is calling for the UN to establish a no-fly zone to shield Gaza…”

b. Wouldn’t it be strange if Arab League Chief Amr Mussa had helped write the RtoP???? He did.

c. And look who else helped out: Dr. Hanan Ashrawi -- former Cabinet Minister of the Palestinian National Authority. Ibid.

7. “Philanthropist billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the global organization that promotes the military doctrine used by the Obama administration to justify the recent airstrikes targeting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. Also, the Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

Power has been a champion of the doctrine and is, herself, deeply tied to the doctrine's founder. According to reports, Power was instrumental in convincing Obama to act against Libya.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been described by its founders and proponents, including Soros, as promoting global governance while allowing the international community to penetrate a nation state's borders under certain conditions.” the direction that the Left is taking us. And this is why we should be having this kind of discussion!

Hopefully there will be a right-thinking pol who will bring America back from the precipice.

If you want to jump into discussion about R2P, then we can. I see no point in rebutting your other points, as there isn't much for me to say that isn't one of those philosophical differences.

1) I agree that there may be unforeseen circumstances, and Libya is a good case. However, the failure that is the Libyan operation at the moment stems more from a lack of architecture, rather than a failure of R2P. Naturally, my argument is hampered by the fact that R2P is not perfect. Again though, R2P as theory and R2P as reality serve to show that sovereignty is rooted in states.

2) You articulate the purpose of R2P in general. However, R2P breaks down into three subsections.
a) Responsibility to Prevent
- identify root cause of conflict
- address those in constructive ways in cooperation with national government
b) Responsibility to React
- after just cause threshold, right authority, and precautionary principles have been met, intervention should operate according to operational principles.
- I will add that the operational principles are fairly weak, from my blog:

The principles articulated are concerned with the operation of the machinery, and not so much with the scope in which that machinery can be used. In effect, the report defines when the use of machinery is acceptable, how to use that machinery, but fails to specify where the machinery may be used. It is a crude analogy but one that illustrates the point: the principles fail to identify operational scope.

- Additionally, that R2P lacks normative standards for the scope of intervention and a delineation of alternative methods of intervention, doesn't mean that R2P is a complete failure. As the case was with Bosnia and Rwanda, the international community learns from experience.
c) Responsibility to Rebuild
- This is the most problematic part of R2P as far as I am concerned. Such normative directions ignore the political and economic reality of rebuilding.

The Responsibility to Protect architecture defines sovereignty as a responsibility of sovereign power that is granted on the basis of protecting its citizens from war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

Regarding point 3, you're right in that R2P has operational failures. We saw it in the case of Bosnia, Rwanda, and Libya. In each case, the international community has had different reactions. Arguably, the reaction to Georgia in 2008 was a repudiation of your point #4. Russia invoked R2P to interfere in Georgian national sovereignty and was rebuked for it.

Suffice to say, I do not see it as some conspiracy to control states, nor do I see it as a tool for promoting global governance. I see R2P as a product of the beginnings of global governance, but it is clear (as the case of Georgia illustrates) that R2P, while flawed in some ways, is not some sort of monolithic colonial tool in which some consolidated global left is trying to take over the world. I believe your premise is faulty, but it is your prerogative to believe in what you want. However, this is one of those differences that discussion will only inflame, and it's not worth pursuing.

I believe that global governance is a good thing, as it will help us address collective action problems like climate, regulation of space, and the coming global challenges like population and food. Again, here we have a fundamental philosophical difference that I don't think is possible to resolve.

It was nice tousling though, I hope it was at least somewhat informative.

 

[editec]

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?

The "internationalists" have taken over this nation.

I'd say, with the benefit of hindsight and a whole lot of filling in the blanks theorizing, it's been all over for this country since Nov. 22, 1963.

 

[PoliticalChic]

#2 No basis in reality. Follow the news of stonings, inhuman acts around the world, and the UN singles out Israel. The UN has become a satire of itself.
#4 It's a question of preponderance...the main stream is left wing.
#5 Also doesn't follow. Here in the, a federal republic, there are states that state outright that they will not follow the directions and laws of the federal government. Does not indicate that the states actually have sovereignty that they were promised. See ObamaCare.
#6 Glad you bring up R2P. It combines several aspects we have been discussing.

1. You may find a well intentioned idea, and claim that my view is a worst case senario. And it may be not a bad idea….unless the unforeseen consequences are actually a well-laid trap.

2. The Doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect,” (RtoP) was accepted by the 2005World Summit, and the 2006 Security Council of the UN. The basic ideas are:

a. A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities).
b. The international community has a responsibility to assist peacefully.
c. The international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.

3. Picture Bosnia, or Rwanda or Libya….what could be bad?

4. Well, what if the real intentions behind the RtoP was to allow certain forces a ‘moral’ right to ‘interfere’ in the National Sovereignty of a nation they didn’t care for. Say…oh, I don’t know….the United States? Or Israel?

5. “Advocates of RtoP claim that only occasions where the international community will intervene on a State without its consent is when the state is either allowing mass atrocities to occur, or is committing them, in which case the State is no longer upholding its responsibilities as a sovereign.”

6. Now, let’s say that the UN decides to declare Palestine to be a state…What a coincidence! That was the news recently!

a. And, what if “Gaza terrorists have pummeled Israel with over 120 rockets in the past few days, and now the Arab League is calling for the UN to establish a no-fly zone to shield Gaza…”

b. Wouldn’t it be strange if Arab League Chief Amr Mussa had helped write the RtoP???? He did.

c. And look who else helped out: Dr. Hanan Ashrawi -- former Cabinet Minister of the Palestinian National Authority. Ibid.

7. “Philanthropist billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the global organization that promotes the military doctrine used by the Obama administration to justify the recent airstrikes targeting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. Also, the Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

Power has been a champion of the doctrine and is, herself, deeply tied to the doctrine's founder. According to reports, Power was instrumental in convincing Obama to act against Libya.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been described by its founders and proponents, including Soros, as promoting global governance while allowing the international community to penetrate a nation state's borders under certain conditions.” the direction that the Left is taking us. And this is why we should be having this kind of discussion!

Hopefully there will be a right-thinking pol who will bring America back from the precipice.

If you want to jump into discussion about R2P, then we can. I see no point in rebutting your other points, as there isn't much for me to say that isn't one of those philosophical differences.

1) I agree that there may be unforeseen circumstances, and Libya is a good case. However, the failure that is the Libyan operation at the moment stems more from a lack of architecture, rather than a failure of R2P. Naturally, my argument is hampered by the fact that R2P is not perfect. Again though, R2P as theory and R2P as reality serve to show that sovereignty is rooted in states.

2) You articulate the purpose of R2P in general. However, R2P breaks down into three subsections.
a) Responsibility to Prevent
- identify root cause of conflict
- address those in constructive ways in cooperation with national government
b) Responsibility to React
- after just cause threshold, right authority, and precautionary principles have been met, intervention should operate according to operational principles.
- I will add that the operational principles are fairly weak, from my blog:

The principles articulated are concerned with the operation of the machinery, and not so much with the scope in which that machinery can be used. In effect, the report defines when the use of machinery is acceptable, how to use that machinery, but fails to specify where the machinery may be used. It is a crude analogy but one that illustrates the point: the principles fail to identify operational scope.

- Additionally, that R2P lacks normative standards for the scope of intervention and a delineation of alternative methods of intervention, doesn't mean that R2P is a complete failure. As the case was with Bosnia and Rwanda, the international community learns from experience.
c) Responsibility to Rebuild
- This is the most problematic part of R2P as far as I am concerned. Such normative directions ignore the political and economic reality of rebuilding.

The Responsibility to Protect architecture defines sovereignty as a responsibility of sovereign power that is granted on the basis of protecting its citizens from war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

Regarding point 3, you're right in that R2P has operational failures. We saw it in the case of Bosnia, Rwanda, and Libya. In each case, the international community has had different reactions. Arguably, the reaction to Georgia in 2008 was a repudiation of your point #4. Russia invoked R2P to interfere in Georgian national sovereignty and was rebuked for it.

Suffice to say, I do not see it as some conspiracy to control states, nor do I see it as a tool for promoting global governance. I see R2P as a product of the beginnings of global governance, but it is clear (as the case of Georgia illustrates) that R2P, while flawed in some ways, is not some sort of monolithic colonial tool in which some consolidated global left is trying to take over the world. I believe your premise is faulty, but it is your prerogative to believe in what you want. However, this is one of those differences that discussion will only inflame, and it's not worth pursuing.

I believe that global governance is a good thing, as it will help us address collective action problems like climate, regulation of space, and the coming global challenges like population and food. Again, here we have a fundamental philosophical difference that I don't think is possible to resolve.

It was nice tousling though, I hope it was at least somewhat informative.

I'm sure it need not be said, but I am firmly opposed to global governance.

We'll battle again....this was fun.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here we go AGAIN w/ Soros ZZZzzz. So, you must be against the Citizens United ruling then right? If your concerned about unlimited contributions you should be. I'm guessing that the ruling further empowered Soros. What say you?

Why don't "you people" ask for a Soros sub-forum

Poor, poor, Dotty, ....

...without realizing it, you've identified the huge swaths of your life that have made you what you are:

"ZZZzzz."

 

[Dot Com]

Here we go AGAIN w/ Soros ZZZzzz. So, you must be against the Citizens United ruling then right? If your concerned about unlimited contributions you should be. I'm guessing that the ruling further empowered Soros. What say you?

Why don't "you people" ask for a Soros sub-forum

Poor, poor, Dotty, ....

...without realizing it, you've identified the huge swaths of your life that have made you what you are:

"ZZZzzz."

Have you asked admin for a 'Soros sub- forum'? Maybe you should. Of course there aren't any monied- interests on the right WAIT!!! Whats that mega- corp that Cheney was involved w/ that moved their home office to Dubai? Hmmm? Maybe it'll come to me

 

[Bfgrn]

The "internationalists" have taken over this nation.

I'd say, with the benefit of hindsight and a whole lot of filling in the blanks theorizing, it's been all over for this country since Nov. 22, 1963.

I couldn't agree more editec. I have been saying for years that when future historians look back at the rise and fall of the United States, 12:30 CST November 22, 1963 will be the zenith.

Here is some fascinating reading...

Galbraith and Vietnam

For Galbraith, a trusted adviser with unique back-channel access to the President, a potential US war in Vietnam represented more than a disastrous misadventure in foreign policy--it risked derailing the New Frontier's domestic plans for Keynesian-led full employment, and for massive new spending on education, the environment and what would become the War on Poverty. Worse, he feared, it might ultimately tear not only the Democratic Party but the nation apart--and usher in a new conservative era in American politics.

The Galbraith I knew: His biographer recalls how the late economist warned JFK about Vietnam -- and faulted conservative policies for worsening inequality in America.

Exit Strategy: In 1963, JFK ordered a complete withdrawal from Vietnam

Kennedy, Vietnam and Iraq

Papers reveal JFK efforts on Vietnam

Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME

John F. Kennedy, John Kenneth Galbraith, and Jawaharlal Nehru, in a photo from
Galbraith’s book, ‘‘Ambassador’s Journal: A Personal Account of the Kennedy Years.’’

When Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that he was relieved that the President had died quickly, fearing the destruction of his wit and intellect as the greater evil.

 

[rdean]

Tell me...ya' think that will ever get too old even for you?

Questioning whether the President is an American? You're right. It's old now.

1. No, read this carefully: the question, and it seems too obvious to be a serious question, is whether this President believes in our sovereignty, or supports global governance.

So, wadda' ya' think?

So, to put in simple terms for simple folk, isn't it time for a President who will support our independence from- to coin a phrase- 'foreign entanglements'?

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.

3. Article VII is the cornerstone of American sovereignty. It describes ratification, an once ratified, announces that the people covered have entered into the “more perfect union” described in the Preamble.
Article VI announces that the Constitution, any treaties and laws become the “supreme law of the land.” For a treaty to be valid it must be consistent with the Constitution, the Constitution being a higher authority than the treaties. As Alexander Hamilton stated, “ A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.”
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.

Seems those are questions you should have been asking George Bush.

 

[Sallow]

Answered in post #44.

In what regard?

You don't have the standing really to decide what or what isn't American. No one has. I mean..you can personally do that..but expect to be challenged.

1. In what regard? Simply put, "...isn't it time for a President who will support our independence from- to coin a phrase- 'foreign entanglements'?"
That from #44.
We deserve a President who will recognize American exceptionalism, and fight dilution of same by bowing and acquiescing to leaders and societies that have not yet reached our level.

2. "decide what or what isn't American. No one has. I mean..you can personally do that..but expect to be challenged."
What!!

Open your eyes, Wolfie (the better to see with)...I live to be challenged!
My principle reason for posting on USMB is that there are ideas accepted by many that need to be examined, challenged and, if possible defeated.

You are a case in point...as you have stated that you wish to live under the Constitution, I think there is an itsy-bitsy outside chance that you can be saved!
(I could be wrong.)

1. What Foreign Entanglements are you referring too? I mean really. We have over 700 military bases world wide..are you advocating they should be closed? Or are you more interested in blocking multi-national conglomerates headed by American companies, which, in fact, are monopolies. Be specific.

2. Well there's challenge..and there's challenge. I sorta enjoy discussing the finer details of American foreign policy..within rational bounds. However this sort of radical far reaching and unilateral mindset..is so George W. Bush..and we all know how that little story turns out.

3. No need to save me, hon, I basically stand on the side of the Constitution..you are the other hand.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"There is no evidence provided Obama wants to supplant domestic law with international."

I believe that it's time for you to admit that the United Nation’s attitude toward free speech is hardly consistent with 'domestic' Constitutional law.


a. “The U.N.'s top human-rights body approved a proposal by Muslims nations Thursday urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism…. The resolution urges states to provide "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general." "Defamation of religions is the cause that leads to incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence toward their followers," Pakistan's ambassador Zamir Akram said. Nation & World | UN body OKs call to curb religious criticism | Seattle Times Newspaper
The resolution was backed by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the UN’s largest voting bloc.

b. “In his eagerness to please international opinion, President Obama has taken a small but significant step toward censoring free speech…. State Department joined Islamic nations in adopting language all-too-friendly to censoring speech that some religions and races find offensive… could plausibly be read as encouraging or even obliging the U.S. to make it a crime to engage in hate speech, or, perhaps, in mere "negative racial and religious stereotyping."

This despite decades of First Amendment case law protecting such speech. … the resolution could be construed to require prosecuting some offensive speech and how it could be used in the long run to change the meaning of our Constitution and laws, based on doctrines developed by legal academics including Obama appointee Harold Koh, the State Department's top lawyer.

Also troublesome on the free-speech front are various remarks by Mark Lloyd, the Federal Communications Commission's associate general counsel and chief diversity officer. Lloyd asserted in a 2006 book, "The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance." He co-authored a 2007 report calling for regulatory changes to close "the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio." In 2008, he praised the "incredible ... democratic revolution" of Hugo Chavez and implied approval of the thuggish Venezuelan strongman's pattern of shutting down news media opposed to him…. That provision "expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence,…”Jared Taylor, “Troubling Signals On Free Speech,” National Journal, October 31, 2009

 

[Dot Com]

PoliChic has Anne Coulter in her siggie? Jus noticed that I like her because she supports Log Cabin Republicans:
» GOProud Announces Ann Coulter to Headline Homocon 2010 in New York City

 

[del]

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

okay, the OP's lame, too.

 

[Sallow]

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

okay, the OP's lame, too.

I would say your lame too..but that would be lame. And would the lame lie down with lambs?

 

[Cal]

Given PC is an unabashed troll, I see no reason to ever read the one-sided 'evidence' she offers as proof of her always and ever premises - conservatives good, liberals bad.
The non-ignorant recognize only extremists see the world as all black or all white and (sadly) do so ad nauseum. PC is one of many who try to dominate the debate with wholly partisan proclamatons and personally attack anyone who questions her 'authority'.

Exactly.. and you'll notice PC almost never has a thought of her own. Always has to link to some crazy-ass blog or extreme website.. like.. Pamela Geller, for example..

[youtube]5R8-dyecZ4k[/youtube]​

 

[Dot Com]

Given PC is an unabashed troll, I see no reason to ever read the one-sided 'evidence' she offers as proof of her always and ever premises - conservatives good, liberals bad.
The non-ignorant recognize only extremists see the world as all black or all white and (sadly) do so ad nauseum. PC is one of many who try to dominate the debate with wholly partisan proclamatons and personally attack anyone who questions her 'authority'.

Exactly.. and you'll notice PC almost never has a thought of her own. Always has to link to some crazy-ass blog or extreme website.. like.. Pamela Geller, for example..

You'd think that she'd know that many here know how to use Google.

 

[signelect]

Obama has been the opposite of what America stands for from day one and nothing has changed. I thought that Carter was bad but by comparasion Carter was great. this guy has got to go while we still have a chance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

For my friends on the Left, obviously suffering from A.D.D., the question that I had hoped that you would consider is, are you sanguine with the loss of the primacy of the Constitution of the United States of America?

...or are you satisfied that the Obama-types know what's best for Americans...
...and that bowing to global governance is the best course?

Or are you prepared to wake up to the dangerous course that has been chosen for Americans by Progressives?

 

[Sallow]

For my friends on the Left, obviously suffering from A.D.D., the question that I had hoped that you would consider is, are you sanguine with the loss of the primacy of the Constitution of the United States of America?

...or are you satisfied that the Obama-types know what's best for Americans...
...and that bowing to global governance is the best course?

Or are you prepared to wake up to the dangerous course that has been chosen for Americans by Progressives?

Again..a ridiculous premise.

The Constitution recognizes international laws. And no one is talking about world governance in regards to domestic policy.

However, given the abject failures of the previous administration, and the damage done.

Fences must be mended.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Given PC is an unabashed troll, I see no reason to ever read the one-sided 'evidence' she offers as proof of her always and ever premises - conservatives good, liberals bad.
The non-ignorant recognize only extremists see the world as all black or all white and (sadly) do so ad nauseum. PC is one of many who try to dominate the debate with wholly partisan proclamatons and personally attack anyone who questions her 'authority'.

Exactly.. and you'll notice PC almost never has a thought of her own. Always has to link to some crazy-ass blog or extreme website.. like.. Pamela Geller, for example..

You'd think that she'd know that many here know how to use Google.

Dotty....don't you realize that I want you to research?

Why do you suppose I give you links?

"....you'll notice PC almost never has a thought of her own. Always has to link..."
I'd like you to consider what you wrote, once you come down off what ever mind-altering substance is the choice du jour....
...are you actually proposing that I don't select the quotes/links with the purpose of propounding a point???

What a goofy...no, 'dotty' analysis.

 

[Bfgrn]

For my friends on the Left, obviously suffering from A.D.D., the question that I had hoped that you would consider is, are you sanguine with the loss of the primacy of the Constitution of the United States of America?

...or are you satisfied that the Obama-types know what's best for Americans...
...and that bowing to global governance is the best course?

Or are you prepared to wake up to the dangerous course that has been chosen for Americans by Progressives?

If anyone has A.D.D. it's you PC. You don't know history. You must be a teenager.

Bush and the neocons developed a radical foreign policy that was a huge departure from what every president had done before. Preemptive wars of ideology, unilateralism over multilateralism, talk of pulling out of the UN, invasions of sovereign countries, and force over negotiation.

The history of conservatism in my lifetime was one of staunch non-intervention and even isolation led by the likes of Robert Taft. A principled man who condemned the postwar Nuremberg Trials as victor's justice. Taft condemned the trials as a violation of the most basic principles of American justice and internationally accepted standards of justice.

NOW...Because Obama has returned sanity to our foreign policy, you want back the Bush/neocon radicalism.



The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor.
Ronald Reagan

No mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology.
Ronald Reagan

Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in...war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.
General Douglas MacArthur

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Our nation is somewhat sad, but we’re angry. There’s a certain level of blood lust, but we won’t let it drive our reaction. We’re steady, clear-eyed and patient, but pretty soon we’ll have to start displaying scalps.
George W. Bush

 

[PoliticalChic]

For my friends on the Left, obviously suffering from A.D.D., the question that I had hoped that you would consider is, are you sanguine with the loss of the primacy of the Constitution of the United States of America?

...or are you satisfied that the Obama-types know what's best for Americans...
...and that bowing to global governance is the best course?

Or are you prepared to wake up to the dangerous course that has been chosen for Americans by Progressives?

Again..a ridiculous premise.

The Constitution recognizes international laws. And no one is talking about world governance in regards to domestic policy.

However, given the abject failures of the previous administration, and the damage done.

Fences must be mended.

Remember yesterday, when I said there might be a chance for you?

Scratch that.

Pretty clear, when you state "The Constitution recognizes international laws." with the concomitant suggestion that such could be co-equal or even superior...is a priori evidence that the government schools have done their dire deeds and warped your understanding of the Constitution, and of creed of America.

"The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. The Constitution is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States."
United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Outside of the anomaly of Kennedy in the Roper decision, the use of foreign law in constitutional decions has been considered to be no more than a flourish, like a bit of poetry.

Even Obama-Leftists, like Justice Kagan agree:
"Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan says foreign law could be useful “for getting good ideas” when interpreting the Constitution but that justices should not feel bound by it … international law can be used as a guide, but it should not be considered binding when deciding Supreme Court cases because the Constitution is a unique document."

There is only one supreme law of the land, the Constitution. To alter or dilute it with the abridgements of international law, UN resolutions, is exactly the kind of thinking that totalists have been attempting, since Wilson suggested throwing away the Constituiton.

You are their success.