- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
September 6, 2009
America’s Sovereignty Threatened as Never Before – What Can Americans Do?
America is threatened by enemies from without (foreign enemies) and enemies from within (well-meaning and not well-meaning Americans) whom we might describe as Lenin dubbed them: "useful idiots".
Translated, "useful idiots" began as a reference to Soviet sympathizers in western countries.
"The implication was that though the person in question naïvely thought themselves an ally of the Soviets or other Communists, they were actually held in contempt by them, and being cynically used.
The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, hostile government, or business, whether or not the group is Communist in nature."
Bottom line, a "useful idiot" is one who works to destroy American security and sovereignty, whether wittingly or not. We see these people all around us, but more often than not they appear in public life, sadly, among the Democrat party's ranks; and even though there are such people in the Republican party as well, "useful idiots" are the most rife within the Obama administration.
Should we point fingers? Well, just about anyone whom Mr. Obama has named to his administration threatens America's security or sovereignty in one way or another. Leap-frogging over a now-yesterday's-news figure (self-admitted black nationalist, 9/11 Truther and Communist Van Jones), we come face-to-face with another character, Harold Koh, Mr. Obama's choice as legal advisor to the State Department.
Koh, who was approved by the Senate to this position in a roll call vote, 62-35, is infamous for his apparent desire to integrate international law into the American judicial system:
"This is not a desk job. This guy will be the face of American international law around the world,' said Steven Gross, legal expert and fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
"The top legal adviser at State travels extensively and is involved in international legal negotiations, treaties and in major United Nations conferences.
"The president should have the right to choose the most conservative or liberal legal advisers to give them advice, but this is much more than that. The concern is that he cares as much about -- if not more about -- international law and integrating that into the American judicial system than he does about protecting American prerogatives and American sovereignty," Gross said."
Further, Koh is on record for decrying America, as he did in the Berkeley Journal of International Law in 2004 when he wrote:
"What role can transnational legal process play in affecting the behavior of several nations whose disobedience with international law has attracted global attention after September 11th -- most prominently, North Korea, Iraq and our own country, the United States of America? For shorthand purposes, I will call these countries 'the axis of disobedience.'"
John Fonte, senior fellow and director of the Center for American Common Culture at the Hudson Institute stated to FoxNews that Koh's views have:
"a very big practical effect on American foreign policy and on American democracy.
"This is international imperialism. Under Koh's plan, the Constitution would become secondary and international law would take precedence regardless of what Americans said about the matter."
What this means for average citizen is that, taking Koh's advice, the legislative votes of our elected representatives may be abrogated by the rule of international treaties. According to Wikipedia:
"Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senate, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. [Emphases ours.]
And although the President will often go the normal formal treaty route in order to gain Congressional support on legislation or funding:
"Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1." [Emphases ours.]
Does anyone other than ourselves feel uncomfortable with this notion? That Mr. Obama's State Department is being advised by a legal mind that favors the integration of international law into the American judicial system and thus into the treaties and agreements we sign; and that Mr. Obama, by executive order, can sign these agreements into law without confirmation by the House and Senate, our elected representatives?
There are those who say that the use of international law is the left's method of passing into American law that which the public at large would never choose. This may be true, as there are some treaties that are inherently anti-American, some would say "progressive", as their provisions defy our Constitution. Since defiance of the Constitution seems to be a habit of the left these days, it appears they have forgotten Alexander Hamilton's words:
"What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? [Emphases ours.] An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws. A sacred respect for constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government."
Time will tell whether Harold Koh - as well as Mr. Obama himself - are among those Americans with bad memories. In the meantime, Americans must choose their political heroes carefully; a careless choice can land us all - even against our vehement determination - in the unsavory soup of international law.
View this to read about the newly-formed Sovereignty Caucus whose purpose will be to fight such encroachments on our sovereignty. Your Congressional representative would like to know if you'd like him or her to join up.
And the question remains: why does the president choose, as his team members, people who are so inimical to our society?
- The Editors
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
