Time For An American President...

[Toro]

I think its high time for a Canadian President.

Seriously. It couldn't be any worse than what you Americans keep electing the past while.

 

[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?

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

1. No sooner do I mention A.D.D,, then who pops up?
Why, the the poster child for said deficiency! Respondng on cue!

The topic to which you were responding was whether or not the United States should support global governance.
It was right there in the quote you included..."...and that bowing to global governance is the best course..."
More of that A.D.D. I guess.

2. Your post seems to use some imagined edging in this direction by President Bush in order to say 'President Obama's not so bad as a previous President did it too.....'

If that is your premise, it would seem you are opposed to America giving up it's sovereignty...
...if so, you are on the right track! Bravo!

3. Now, see if you notice the degree of magnitude difference here:

The Global Poverty Act of 2008, S.2433, had it become law, would “result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill… makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations…. The bill defines the term “Millennium Development Goals” as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration,… In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning “small arms and light weapons” and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. …the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs [who runs the U.N.’s “Millennium Project,”] has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels….sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama,…” Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote

Is that a good enough example of internationalist Obama attempting to put the UN in charge of US foreign policy, and subverting American sovereignty?


So, Boring, you down with that?

 

[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..

[youtube]5R8-dyecZ4k[/youtube]​

The whistle on that train of thought is barely audible….

Cally, you're out of your league here.

In order to maintain your fragile self esteem, pick a topic which you feel some expertise, oh, say...favorite color legos.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Why does Pam Geller support the US sacrificing sovereignty for the sake of remaining in an alliance with Israel which serves no US vital interest and only serves to cost us economically?

 

[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.

Why does Pam Geller support the US sacrificing sovereignty for the sake of remaining in an alliance with Israel which serves no US vital interest and only serves to cost us economically?

Sovereignty!!!

At the very least you should either understand the term you are posting about...or ask for its definition!!!

Here:

sov·er·eign·ty (svr-n-t, svrn-)
n. pl. sov·er·eign·ties
1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
3. Complete independence and self-government.
4. A territory existing as an independent state.sovereignty - definition of sovereignty by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Now- do you see why your post is absurd??
"US sacrificing sovereignty for the sake of remaining in an alliance..."Howso???

(And, BTW, did you know that it was Israel that first developed drones?)


Now, here is an example of this administration giving up United States soveriegnty: Harold Koh.

Further indicia of President Obama’s desire to turn the Land of the Free over to the globalists is his personal choice of internationalist lawyer Harold Koh as the Legal Adviser of the Department of State. Koh has written ‘Transnational Legal Problems,’ and ‘Transnational Litigation in United States Courts,’ and ‘International Law as Part of Our Law.’ Get the picture? Internationalist, or patriot with America’s best interests at heart? An example of one of the problems with the US, "our exceptional free speech tradition can cause problems abroad, as, for example, may occur when hate speech is disseminated over the Internet.” Home > Publications >

a. Another claim about Mr.Koh is that in a Yale speech, “Mr. Koh had made a “favorable reference” to Shariah, or Islamic law, and had said it could be used to “govern a controversy” in an American court.” After Attacks, Supporters Rally Around Choice for Top Administration Legal Job - NYTimes.com

b. “Koh has written in support of the practice of using tenets of international law and foreign legal precedent to inform the deliberative process of judicial decision making in the United States, and has described what he has called "transnational jurisprudence" as essential to maintaining a well-ordered international legal system…. Critics of this approach, including Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, argue that citing foreign decisions as legal precedents threatens American sovereignty and "lends itself to manipulation." Harold Hongju Koh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

c. As Volokh puts it, Koh sure seems to be advocating the use of transnationalism to "reduce the scope of American constitutional rights." Koh may just be slightly more coy than the other very respected "internationalist legal scholar" whom Volokh quotes who openly celebrates the prospect that transnationalism "may point to the Constitution's more complete subordination" to international norms.Home > Publications >


"...the Constitution's more complete subordination" to international norms."
Get it?

No?
Try this: sovereignty

mid-14c., "pre-eminence," from Anglo-Fr. sovereynete , from O.Fr. souverainete , from soverain (see sovereign). Meaning "authority, rule" is recorded from late 14c.; sense of "existence as an independent state" is from 1715.
Sovereignty | Define Sovereignty at Dictionary.com

Not subordination....
"..the Constitution's more complete subordination" to international norms."

This President does not believe in American soveriegnty!


So...is America to be ruled by the Constitution and the American people...or by the UN and international norms?

Can't make it much simpler.