Posts Tagged ‘United Nations’

Trump to Cut Funding to the UN By 50%. It’s About Time.

March 14, 2017

UN Headquarters New York 2.JPG

“When do you see the United Nations solving problems? They don’t. They cause problems. So, if it lives up to the potential, it’s a great thing. And if it doesn’t, it’s a waste of time and money.” – President Donald J. Trump

Thehill.com reports that

President Trump’s administration has told the State Department to cut more than 50 percent of U.S. funding to United Nations programs, Foreign Policy reported. The push for the drastic reductions comes as the White House is scheduled to release its 2018 topline budget proposal Thursday, which is expected to include a 37 percent cut to the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development budgets.

It’s not clear if Trump’s budget plan, from the Office of Management and Budget, would reflect the full extent of Trump’s proposed cuts to the U.N. 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has suggested phasing in the major reductions over the coming three years. One official close the administration told Foreign Policy that Tillerson has flexibility about how best to implement the reduction. 

The U.S. spends roughly $10 billion annually on the U.N., and the cuts could have the greatest impact on peacekeeping, the U.N. development program and UNICEF, which are funded by State’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs. 

The fate of other popular programs, like the World Food Programme and U.N. refugee operations, are less clear. The World Food Programme’s funding comes from the Department of Agriculture. 

The magazine said it confirmed the potential cuts with three sources; one said the administration is considering cutting humanitarian aid programs by 36 percent.

Richard Gowan, a U.N. expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said the alterations would spark “chaos” if true.

“[It would] leave a gaping hole that other big donors would struggle to fill,” he told FP, pointing to how the U.S. provided $1.5 billion of the U.N. refugee agency’s $4 billion budget last year.

“Multiply that across other humanitarian agencies like the World Food Programme and you are basically talking about the breakdown of the international humanitarian system as we know it.”

Foreign Policy added U.S. diplomats warned key U.N. members to “expect a big financial restraint” on American spending at the U.N. during a March 9 meeting in New York City.

“There are rumors of big cuts to the State Department budget, but again, on our side, no figures,” one diplomat purportedly told donors from Europe, Japan and South Korea.

Administration officials said last month that Trump’s budget would contain $54 billion in domestic non-discretionary spending cuts to pay for an equal increase in defense spending.

Trump has repeatedly vowed to strengthen the military before the release of the 2018 budget, which is the first such proposal of his presidency.

While Barack Hussein Obama held the Office of the President of the United States of America, he was bound and determined to make America into just another nation, assigning American Exceptionalism to the trash heap of  history. His pure ignorance to America’s place in the world was overwhelming. Obama’s bowing and scraping, like a leader of a country who occupied a subservient position to nations filled with barbarians, who would slit every American’s throat, if given the chance, was an stunning example of this naivete and downright ignorance.

After terrorists murdered four Americans at the US Embassy Compound in Benghazi, Libya, Obama stepped in front of the General Assembly of United Nations, like a little school boy, repeating the lie which he and his staff concocted, that it was some little unwatched Youtube Video that caused the Muslims’ actions over there.

There is a reason that the Headquarters of the United Nations is in New York City in New York State in the United States of America.

We are not their servants. In fact, the United Nations would not exist if not for America.

Obama’s acquiescence to the United Nations emboldened that body to believe that THEY were our, forgive the term, “Masters”.

The United States of America is a Sovereign Nation, created by the blood, sweat, and tears of men and women, who rise above those who do not believe in American Exceptionalism and our Sovereignty as a Free Nation, in stature, honor, integrity, and courage to the point where those who are the enemies of our country, Foreign and DOMESTIC, are not even fit enough to tie their boots.

We are an “independent state”, completely independent and self-governing. We bow to no other country on God’s green Earth. We are beholden to no other nation. America stands on its own, with our own set of laws, the most important of which is The Constitution of the United States, which guarantees us, as a Free People, the right to determine our own destiny, both individually, and, as a free people.

We are Americans.

We man up and we handle our own problems.

Only by standing up to the thug nations represented at the UN, will America be respected, and left alone, as the sovereign nation that we are.

Cutting the yearly payment of American Taxpayers’ Money to the United Nations by 50% is a good start.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Secretary of State “Schmuck” Tries to Defend the Indefensible UN Vote. Bibi Netanyahu (and Americans) Respond.

December 29, 2016

15676429_10205832399928527_4369071957567163303_o

We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching! – President-elect Donald J. Trump, 12/28/16

The New York Times reports that

Secretary of State John Kerry accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Wednesday of thwarting peace in the Middle East, speaking with a clarity and harshness almost never heard from American diplomats when discussing one of their closest and strongest allies.

With only 23 days left in his four-year turn as secretary of state, during which he made the search for peace in the Middle East one of his driving missions, Mr. Kerry said the Israeli government was undermining any hope of a two-state solution to its decades-long conflict with the Palestinians.

The American vote last week in the United Nations allowing the condemnation of Israel for settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, he added, was driven by a desire to save Israel from “the most extreme elements” in its own government.

“The status quo is leading toward one state and perpetual occupation,” Mr. Kerry said, his voice animated.

His speech was a powerful admonition after years of tension and frustration, with the Obama administration giving public voice to its long-held concern that Israel was headed off a cliff toward international isolation and was condemning itself to a future of low-level, perpetual warfare with the Palestinians.

Reaction was immediate and harsh, not only from Mr. Netanyahu, but also from Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York. President-elect Donald J. Trump did not even wait for Mr. Kerry to speak before condemning the secretary of state.

The United States and Israel are in the middle of a breach rarely seen since President Harry S. Truman recognized the fragile Israeli state in May 1948. In a direct response to Mr. Netanyahu’s barb over the weekend that “friends don’t take friends to the Security Council” — a reference to the Obama administration’s decision to abstain from the resolution condemning the building of new settlements in disputed territory — Mr. Kerry said the United States acted out of a deeper understanding of the meaning of its alliance.

“Some seem to believe that the U.S. friendship means the U.S. must accept any policy, regardless of our own interests, our own positions, our own words, our own principles — even after urging again and again that the policy must change,” he said. “Friends need to tell each other the hard truths, and friendships require mutual respect.”

Toward the end of his 70-minute remarks in the State Department’s auditorium, Mr. Kerry acknowledged that Mr. Trump may well abandon the major principles that the United States has used for decades of Middle East negotiations, including the two-state solution that both Republicans and Democrats support. Mr. Trump isnominating a new American ambassador, David M. Friedman, who has broken with even the pretense of supporting a two-state negotiated settlement and has helped fund some of the settlements Mr. Kerry denounced.

On vacation in Palm Beach, Fla., Mr. Trump posted two Twitter messages rejecting the speech before it was delivered. “We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect,” he wrote on Wednesday morning. After assailing the nuclear deal in Iran and last week’s vote at the Security Council, he said, “Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!”

He was soon praised — also on Twitter — by Mr. Netanyahu, who later released a video statement that was unsparingly direct and dismissive of Mr. Kerry.

“The entire Middle East is going up in flames, entire countries are toppling, terrorism is raging and for an entire hour the secretary of state attacks the only democracy in the Middle East,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “Maybe Kerry did not notice that Israel is the only place in the Middle East where Christmas can be celebrated in peace and security. Sadly, none of this interests the secretary of state.”

Now, anyone who has been paying attention knows about Obama’s love for all things Muslim and the disdain that he holds for Israel and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.

But, besides doing Obama’s bidding, what is Secretary of State Schmuck…err…Kerry’s motivation for stabbing Israel in the back?

As noted on the website of Lt. Col. Allen B. West

…in 2009, the daughter of Secretary of State John Kerry, Dr. Vanessa Bradford Kerry, John Kerry’s younger daughter by his first wife, married an Iranian-American physician named Dr. Brian (Behrooz) Vala Nahed.

…Brian (Behrooz) Nahed is son of Nooshin and Reza Vala Nahid of Los Angeles. Brian’s Persian birth name is “Behrooz Vala Nahid” but it is now shortened and Americanized in the media to “Brian Nahed.” At the time his engagement to Bradford Kerry, there was rarely any mention of Nahed’s Persian/Iranian ancestry, and even the official wedding announcement in the October 2009 issue of New York Times carefully avoids any reference to Dr. Nahed (Nahid)’s birthplace (which is uncommon in wedding announcements) and starts his biography from his college years.

…Zarif is the current minister of foreign affairs in the Rouhani administration and has held various significant diplomatic and cabinet posts since the 1990s. He was Kerry’s chief counterpart in the nuclear deal negotiations.

Secretary Kerry and Zarif first met over a decade ago at a dinner party hosted by George Soros at his Manhattan penthouse. What a surprise. I have to say, connecting the dots gets more and more frightening.

But it gets even worse. Guess who was the best man at the 2009 wedding between Kerry’s daughter Vanessa and Behrouz Vala Nahed? Javad Zarif’s son.

Does this bother anyone at all?

Apparently Kerry only revealed his daughter’s marriage to an Iranian-American once he had taken over as Secretary of State. But the subject never came up in his Senate confirmation hearing, either because Kerry never disclosed it, or because his former colleagues were “too polite” to bring it up.

Now, I’m no Pollyanna.

(Although my bride does accuse me of always seeing the best in everyone. but, I digress…)

I know that America has influenced other nations’ elections for years, covertly, usually through the influence of backdoor diplomatic channels and the CIA.

However, Petulant President Pantywaist, who was, and, still is, desperately sucking up to the Rogue, Muslim Terrorist Nation of Iran and the rest of the Muslim Nations in the Middle East, who would rather kill us infidels than look at us, blatantly worked overtly to kick out of office, Bibi Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of one of our closest allies.

Obama’s petulance knows no bounds.

Every time they have met, Netanyahu has schooled Obama, making him look like the petulant little lightweight that he is.

In order for Obama’s plan for a nuclear Iran to succeed, Netanyahu’s strong and forthright leadership of Israel must somehow be neutralized.

Evidently, Obama believed at the time of the election, and still does, that if he could get rid of Netanyahu, then the “Arab Spring”, which began under his presidency, would reach its apocalyptic zenith, with a nuclear Iran and an Israel cleaved in half, like Solomon almost did that baby, in order to make room for the fictional “country of Palestine”.

Who exactly are “The Palestinians”?

According to discoverthenetworks.org,

Since the Six Day War of 1967, the Arab world’s most powerful leaders — in Egypt, Libya, Arabia, Syria, and Iraq prior to Saddam Hussein’s demise — have waged a war of words against Israel. Having failed to defeat Israel by means of naked military aggression, these leaders and their advisors decided, sometime between the end of the war and the Khartoum Conference of August-September 1967, to bring about the destruction of Israel by means of a relentless terror war.

To justify to the world their ruthless murder of Israeli civilians and their undying hatred of the West, these leaders needed to invent a narrative depicting Israel as a racist, war-mongering, oppressive, apartheid state that was illegally occupying Arab land and carrying out the genocide of an indigenous people that had a stronger claim to the land of Israel than did Israel itself.

Thus the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), under the tutelage of the Soviet KGB, invented “The Palestinian People” who allegedly had been forced to wage a war of national liberation against imperialism.

To justify this notion, Yasser Arafat, shortly after taking over as leader of the PLO, sent his adjutant, Abu Jihad (later the leader of the PLO’s military operations), to North Vietnam to study the strategy and tactics of guerrilla warfare in the hopes that the PLO could emulate Ho Chi Minh’s success with left-wing sympathizers in the United States and Europe. Ho’s chief strategist, General Giap, offered advice that changed the PLO’s identity and future:

“Stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn your terror war into a struggle for human rights. Then you will have the American people eating out of your hand.”

Giap’s counsel was simple but profound: the PLO needed to work in a way that concealed its real goals, permitted strategic deception, and gave the appearance of moderation. And the key to all this was creating an image that would help Arafat manipulate the American and Western news media.

Arafat developed the images of the “illegal occupation” and “Palestinian national self-determination,” both of which lent his terrorism the mantle of a legitimate peoples’ resistance. After the Six Day War, Muhammad Yazid, who had been minister of information in two Algerian wartime governments (1958-1962), imparted to Arafat some wisdom that echoed the lessons he had learned in North Vietnam:

“Wipe out the argument that Israel is a small state whose existence is threatened by the Arab states, or the reduction of the Palestinian problem to a question of refugees; instead, present the Palestinian struggle as a struggle for liberation like the others. Wipe out the impression . . . that in the struggle between the Palestinians and the Zionists, the Zionist is the underdog. Now it is the Arab who is oppressed and victimized in his existence because he is not only facing the Zionists but also world imperialism.”

So, why would an American Administration and their fellow Liberals, including American Jews,  join with our nation’s sworn enemies in their Jihad against our staunchest ally, Israel?

As far as the Dhimmi-in-Chief is concerned, Obama views this creation of a Caliphate as his Foreign Policy Legacy.

There is a reason that I will always refer to him as “our first anti-American President”.

God Protect America and His Chosen People.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Election 2016: UN to Send Record Number of “Election Monitors” to “Ensure Fairness”

October 5, 2016

For those of you who still do not believe that America’s Sovereignty has been threatened under the reign of King Barack the First, check this out…

Yahoonews.com reports that

Amid charges from Donald Trump that the U.S. presidential election could be “rigged” and concerns of rights activists that black voters may face undue obstacles, the head of an international observer team pledged a full review ranging from voting machines to racial bias as it began work on Tuesday.

The team from the 57-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) that will monitor the Nov. 8 presidential and Congressional elections is set to be the biggest the organization has sent to the United States, tasked with checking the vote meets international standards.

Republican candidate Trump’s apparent suggestion that the vote might not be free and fair has drawn an angry response from his opponents, who say it is baseless.

Democrat Hillary Clinton has led Trump in national opinion polls in recent months. On Tuesday, an average of polls aggregated by RealClearPolitics website showed her with 48.1 percent of support compared to Trump’s 44.3 percent.

Civil rights advocates have also said voters are more likely to face racial bias at this election than they have in 50 years, because of voting laws that several states passed after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the landmark anti-discrimination 1965 Voting Rights Act three years ago.

“We do have concerns about voter registration, voter identification and also electronic voting,” the head of the OSCE mission, British lawyer and diplomat Audrey Glover said in a telephone interview, adding that the mission is impartial. 

We always let the facts speak for themselves, so let’s see what happens,” she said. Allegations such as Trump’s, however, were for the U.S. authorities to follow up on while the OSCE observed, she added. “We’re not policemen.”

The Shelby County v Holder Supreme Court ruling in 2013 struck down a part of the Voting Rights Act that was used to determine which areas with a history of discrimination had to obtain special permission before changing their voting laws.

That has raised concerns among rights groups that laws on issues like voter identification have since been changed to make it more difficult for poor and minority voters to take part.

The OSCE, which comprises much of Europe, Central Asia and North America, has also suggested that all electronic voting machines be required by law to leave a verifiable paper trail, though many states do not provide one.

Glover said her team would seek to clarify where it legally can and cannot go, adding that states’ and counties’ stance on international observers was often not clear. Texas also threatened OSCE observers with prosecution four years ago, which the organization called “unacceptable” at the time.

Glover, however, struck a conciliatory tone.

“If the law says international observers are not allowed, then obviously we won’t try and go. We’re not going to try and make any sort of a scene,” she told Reuters.

But the biggest hindrance might be self-inflicted. The OSCE had hoped to deploy 100 so-called long-term observers in the coming week, but OSCE states – including Germany, France, Spain, Romania, Finland, Bosnia – have only provided 26. 

Up to 400 short-term observers will begin work close to Election Day.

“We’ll do what we can with what we’ve got,” Glover said. “We will try and make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear and we will try and cover the whole of the United States, or to the extent that is feasible.

Petulant President Pantywaist has always placed subservience to the United Nations above the Soveriegnty f America as dwmostrated when he ramped the United Nations’ involvement up during the 2012 Presidential Election.

And, now, once again, Obama is bowing before the United Nations, as if they have some authority over our Sovereign Nation, without whom, they would neither exist nor have a place to meet.

There are several times, during my musings, that I have described our blessed country as a Sovereign Nation. What does that mean?

On June 5, 2009, Professor Jeremy Rabin of George Mason University, author of “The Case for Sovereignty”, delivered a lecture sponsored by Hillsdale College in Washington, DC. What he said certainly applies to this situation…

The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties. And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on: “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.” And he gave a very logical reason: It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. And as I said, there has been a consensus on this in the past that few ever questioned.

…At the end of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton writes: “A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle.” His point was that if you do not have a national government, you can’t expect to remain a nation. If we are really open to the idea of allowing more and more of our policy to be made for us at international gatherings, the U.S. government not only has less capacity, it has less moral authority. And if it has less moral authority, it has more difficulty saying to immigrants and the children of immigrants that we’re all Americans. What is left, really, to being an American if we are all simply part of some abstract humanity? People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty—benefits like defense and protection of rights—without constitutional discipline, or without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are really putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, everyone will feel better and we’ll all be safe. You could even say they are hanging a lot on incantations or on some kind of witchcraft. And as I mentioned earlier, the first theorist to write about sovereignty understood witchcraft as a fundamental threat to lawful authority and so finally to liberty and property and all the other rights of individuals.

Let me inform any idiotic individuals who might support Obama’s pattern, as seen during his ongoing crusade to take away our guns and his recent Iran Deal, where he continuously goes to the United Nations as the Supreme Authority over our Sovereign Nation, first, instead of our own Congress, the way I feel about “answering” to the United Nations.

The United States of America is a Sovereign Nation, created by the blood, sweat, and tears of men and women, who rise above those of you, including President Obama, who do not believe in American Exceptionalism and our Sovereignty as a Free Nation, in stature, honor, integrity, and courage to the point where you are not even fit enough to tie their boots.

We are an “independent state”, completely independent and self-governing. We bow to no other country on God’s green Earth. We are beholden to no other nation. America stands on its own, with our own set of laws, the most important of which is The Constitution of the United States, which guarantees us, as a Free People, the right to cast our vote from whomever we please…including Donald J. Trump.

And, much to the chagrin of Obama and his American-hating sycophants, as American Citizens, we have the right to monitor our own elections.

America is still the Greatest Nation on the Face of the Earth, despite all of President Barack Hussein’s efforts to make us “just another country”.

Because, usually, those who claim to be the smartest person in any room that they walk into, greatly overestimate themselves.

Until He Comes,

KJ

UN Calls for “Reparations”, Sends Tweet Telling Americans to “Stop Trump” at Voting Booth.

September 30, 2016

trump-foreign-policySince Barack Hussein Obama became the President of the United States of America, he has been bound and determined to make America into just another nation, assigning American Exceptionalism to the trash heap of  history. His pure ignorance to America’s place in the world is overwhelming. Only by standing up to the thug nations represented at the UN, will America be respected, and left alone, as the sovereign nation that we are.

Obama’s bowing and scraping, like a leader of a country who occupied a subservient position to nations filled with barbarians, who would slit every American’s throat, if given the chance, is an stunning example of this naivete and downright ignorance.

Ever since Barack Hussein Obama took office in January of 2009, the sovereignty of the Shining City Upon a Hill has been in peril.

Barack Hussein Obama, beginning with his World Apology Tour, has proclaimed to the world that America is just another nation, as subservient to the whims of the United Nations, as any third world nation.

After terrorists murdered four Americans at the US Embassy Compound in Benghazi, Libya, Obama stepped in front of the General Assembly of United Nations, like a little school boy, repeating the lie which he and his staff concocted, that it was some little unwatched Youtube Video that caused the Muslims’ actions over there.

There is a reason that the Headquarters of the United Nations is in New York City in New York State in the United States of America.

We are not their servants. In fact, the United Nations would not exist if not for America.

Obama’s acquiescence to the United Nations has emboldened that body to believe that THEY are our, forgive the term, “Masters”.

A few days ago , it was reported  per Breitbart.com, that

A United Nations-affiliated group in Geneva is calling for the U.S. to give African Americans reparations for the country’s history of slavery, according to a recent report by the group.

The group’s statement was part of a study by the United Nations’ Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, a group that reports to the international organization’s High Commissioner on Human Rights, The Washington Post reported.

The group of experts, made up of leading human rights lawyers from around the world, presented its findings about the link between the U.S.’s history of slavery and present injustices, such as the recent police shootings of African Americans to the United Nations Human Rights Council on Monday.

“In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent,” the report stated. “Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching.”

The panel said that the police shootings of African Americans during the past year have caused a “human rights crisis” that is in urgent need of addressing and compared the recent shootings to the acts of lynchings by white supremacists in the late 1800s.

The group said the reparations could come in a variety of forms, such as “a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, … psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.”

Ricardo A. Sunga, one of the panel members who was asked about the presidential race in the United States, talked about “hate speech … xenophobia (and) Afrophobia” prevalent in the race, but did not call out any candidates by name. 

The reparations, however, are unlikely to occur since the group’s recommendations are non-binding and unlikely to influence policy in the United States.

Cheeky, huh?

And, now, this morning, according to Politico.com,

The United Nations News Centre — the official U.N. news service — tweeted, then quickly pulled, a post that called for “8 million Americans abroad” to “stop Trump.”

The tweet, published at 9:14 p.m. ET on Thursday, urged American expats to share a voter registration tool on the website of the activist organization Avaaz that states, “U.S. Citizens abroad could defeat Trump … if they voted.”

The Web page, titled “The October surprise that will end Trump,” allows users to sign up for help registering to vote in the Nov. 8 presidential election and encourages them enlist their friends as well.

“At a time when Trump is trying to divide us, we could help defeat him if we all share this page with EVERYONE. Let’s reach every US voter abroad,” it reads.

The tweet was deleted within 20 minutes, without explanation.

Ari Gaitanis, chief of the U.N. News Services Section, which oversees the twitter account, said it was a mistake.

“That tweet did not originate from the UN News Centre and this was the reason for it being taken down,” he told POLITICO. “We’re looking into its provenance.”

Uh huh. Someone is CYA-in’, if you know what I mean. And, I believe that you do.

The United Nations is scared of America becoming a strong nation again.

Under the poorly-managed administration and completely inept “leadership” of President Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations has been able to treat America like a cowered canine.

While no President can control the actions of other countries come in their own affairs, the position of President of the United States has not historically been referred to as the Leader of the Free World for no reason.

That position has historically been the Vanguard in the fight against despotism and tyranny.

Unfortunately, for lovers of freedom the world over, instead of being the leader that the world and America itself needed, Barack Hussein Obama has instead been an example of the Peter Principle.

He has risen to his level of incompetence.

Barack Hussein Obama’s disdain for all of the core values of our country, such as American Exceptionalism, American Rugged Individualism, American Achievement, the American Family Unit, and the Faith of Our Fathers, has been shown through his words and actions, over and over again, through this long National Nightmare, through which we have been suffering, hoping fervently that the light at the end of the tunnel, is not an oncoming train…or a Nuclear Explosion.

The Good News is…

As a Constitutional Republic, those of us, the overwhelming majority of Americans who still believe in the concept of right and wrong, maintain the Rights which our Founding Fathers bestowed upon us, to speak our mind…regardless of what the current Presidential Administration, the Main Stream Media,the rest of the mindless Obama-worshiping sycophants who worship at the dual altars of popular culture and political correctness, and America’s enemies within the United Nations, want us to do.

We shall not be assimilated into the Hive-Mind.

We shall not continue Obama’s Globalist Quest to turn America into “just another country”, who answers to the United Nations and the tyrannical despots contained within it.

That still, small voice which resides within each one of us, has led Americans to do great things, in service to their country and the concept of American Freedom, as personified by Lady Liberty, standing so majestically in New York Harbor.

God gave us this nation, ensconced in the concept of “Liberty and Justice for all”.

By His Grace, we will keep it.

As President Ronald Wilson Reagan, himself, said,

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

America is standing on a precipice, looking down into a abyss.

This November, do not push her in by wasting your vote or voting for Hillary Clinton.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama Pushes His “America is Just Another Country Globalist Agenda” in Front of the UN for the Last Time…Thank God.

September 21, 2016

The President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) addressed the United Nations for the last time as the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC yesterday.

And, per usual, instead of doing his job, and being America’s biggest advocate, he painted a portrait of helplessness and mediocrity.

Yahoo News reports that

In a closing dispatch to the world he’s tried to shape, President Barack Obama conceded Tuesday that the United States and other major powers have only limited ability to solve the world’s most profound problems, including Syria’s civil war. He lamented the “cycles of conflict and suffering” that seem to kick in every time humanity finally seems to be getting it right.

“Perhaps that’s our fate,” Obama said in his last speech to the U.N. General Assembly.

Four months before leaving office, Obama called for a “course correction” to ensure that the unstoppable forces of globalization don’t lead nations to entrench behind their borders and ignore the most vulnerable. He chided foreign leaders for stoking ethnic and religious divisions while faulting Russia for a brutish approach to its role on the world stage.

Still, Obama insisted it was critical not to gloss over “enormous progress” on economics and global cooperation that he said formed a template for tackling the problems of the future.

In a less-than-subtle jab at Donald Trump, the Republican running to replace him, Obama said, “A nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself.”

Obama’s parting words to the global body contained a grim assessment of the challenges he’s leaving behind: a devastating refugee crisis, terrorism, financial inequality and a tendency to make immigrants and Muslims scapegoats. Across the Middle East, he said, “basic security, basic order has broken down.”

“This is the paradox that defines our world today,” Obama said. “A quarter-century after the end of the Cold War, the world is by many measures less violent and more prosperous than ever before. And yet our societies are filled with uncertainty and unease and strife.”

This year’s U.N. gathering has played out against the harrowing backdrop of the deepening civil war in Syria and the renewed failure of U.S. and Russian diplomatic efforts to stem the violence for any meaningful period of time. With no better alternatives, the U.S., Russia and others clung unconvincingly Tuesday to the notion that a week-old cease-fire was not moribund, even as Syria declared it over and the U.N. suspended all convoys of aid.

Obama acknowledged that the extremist and sectarian violence wreaking havoc in the Middle East and elsewhere “will not be quickly reversed.” Still, he stuck faithfully to his insistence that diplomatic efforts and not military solutions are the key to resolving Syria’s war and other conflicts.

“If we are honest, we know that no external power is going to be able to force different religious communities or ethnic communities to co-exist for long,” Obama said. “Until basic questions are answered about how communities co-exist, the embers of extremism will continue to burn. Countless human beings will suffer.”

The president was unabashed in his critique of Russia as he laid out his diagnosis of the world’s ills. His tough talk illustrated how little progress has been made in reconciling the two powers’ diverging interests that have allowed the Syria crisis to continue to fester.

“In a world that left the age of empire behind, we see Russia attempting to recover lost glory through force,” Obama said.

A year ago, Obama stood at the same podium and declared anew that Syrian President Bashar Assad must leave power, while Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a dueling speech warning it would be a mistake to abandon Assad. Since then, Moscow’s leverage in the conflict has strengthened significantly, buoyed by a Russian military intervention that bolstered Assad’s standing without pulling it into the military “quagmire” that Obama had predicted.

White House officials said Obama had been mindful of the fact that his U.N. speech was one of his final opportunities to define his leadership on the world stage. At the heart of his approach, Obama said, is a belief that conflicts are best solved when nations cooperate and a willingness to engage with erstwhile adversaries like Cuba and Myanmar.

It’s a theme that Democrat Hillary Clinton has put at the forefront of her presidential campaign — her slogan is “Stronger Together” — as she casts herself as the natural heir to Obama’s legacy. The president peppered his speech with subtle references to Trump, his calls for building a wall on the Mexican border and his denigration of Muslims and immigrants.

Standing before the 193-member U.N. body, Obama sought in broad strokes to lay out a blueprint for addressing other unresolved conflicts. He called for the world to impose “consequences” on North Korea for its latest nuclear test and, in less direct terms, for China to abide by a recent U.N. tribunal ruling against its territorial designs in the South China Sea.

A day before meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he drew a parallel between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the need to respect racial minorities in the U.S.

“Surely, Israelis and Palestinians will be better off if Palestinians reject incitement and recognize the legitimacy of Israel, but Israel recognizes that it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land,” Obama said.

Obama is bound and determined to make America into just another nation, assigning American Exceptionalism to the trash heap of  history.

His pure ignorance to America’s place in the world is overwhelming. Only by standing up to the thug nations represented at the UN, will America be respected, and left alone, as the sovereign nation that we are.

Obama’s bowing and scraping, like a leader of a country who occupied a subservient position to nations filled with barbarians, who would slit every American’s throat, if given the chance, is an stunning example of this naivete and downright ignorance.

Ever since Barack Hussein Obama took office in January of 2009, the sovereignty of the Shining City Upon a Hill has been in peril.

Barack Hussein Obama, beginning with his World Apology Tour, has proclaimed to the world that America is just another nation, as subservient to the whims of the United Nations, as any third world nation.

After terrorists murdered four Americans at the US Embassy Compound in Benghazi, Libya, Obama stepped in front of the General Assembly of United Nations, like a little school boy, repeating the lie which he and his staff concocted, that it was some little unwatched Youtube Video that caused the Muslims’ actions over there.

There is a reason that the Headquarters of the United Nations is in New York City in New York State in the United States of America.

We are not their servants. In fact, the United Nations would not exist if not for America.

Are liberals like Barack Obama and the Civil Rights Activists who went to the United Nations so anti-American that they are intentionally trying to give away this nation’s sovereignty?

There are several times, during my musings, that I have described our blessed country as a Sovereign Nation. What does that mean?

On June 5, 2009, Professor Jeremy Rabin of George Mason University, author of “The Case for Sovereignty”, delivered a lecture sponsored by Hillsdale College in Washington, DC. What he said certainly applies to this situation…

The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties. And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on: “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.” And he gave a very logical reason: It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. And as I said, there has been a consensus on this in the past that few ever questioned.

…At the end of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton writes: “A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle.” His point was that if you do not have a national government, you can’t expect to remain a nation. If we are really open to the idea of allowing more and more of our policy to be made for us at international gatherings, the U.S. government not only has less capacity, it has less moral authority. And if it has less moral authority, it has more difficulty saying to immigrants and the children of immigrants that we’re all Americans. What is left, really, to being an American if we are all simply part of some abstract humanity? People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty—benefits like defense and protection of rights—without constitutional discipline, or without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are really putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, everyone will feel better and we’ll all be safe. You could even say they are hanging a lot on incantations or on some kind of witchcraft. And as I mentioned earlier, the first theorist to write about sovereignty understood witchcraft as a fundamental threat to lawful authority and so finally to liberty and property and all the other rights of individuals.

Let me inform any idiotic individuals who might support Obama’s pattern, as seen during his ongoing crusade to take away our guns, his ineffectual “Iran Deal”, and every other instance where he continuously went to the United Nations as the Supreme Authority over our Sovereign Nation, first, instead of our own Congress, the way I feel about “answering” to the United Nations.

The United States of America is a Sovereign Nation, created by the blood, sweat, and tears of men and women, who rise above those of you, including President Obama, who do not believe in American Exceptionalism and our Sovereignty as a Free Nation, in stature, honor, integrity, and courage to the point where you are not even fit enough to tie their boots.

We are an “independent state”, completely independent and self-governing. We bow to no other country on God’s green Earth. We are beholden to no other nation. America stands on its own, with our own set of laws, the most important of which is The Constitution of the United States, which guarantees us, as a Free People, the right to cast our vote from whomever we please…including Donald J. Trump.

We are Americans.

We man up and we handle our own problems.

Obama and all of his Liberal Allies need to understand that these countries that comprise the United Nations, whom they are trying to hand over our sovereignty to, have their own best interests at heart. Not ours.

And, America MUST keep the United Nations out of OUR business.

AMERICA FIRST.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Liberals Upset Over Trump Hiring Election Observers. Meanwhile, the UN is Sending 500.

August 24, 2016

High-Ground-600-LA

The Trump campaign website posted a message on Friday, August 12th, that read,

Volunteer to be a Trump Election Observer. Help Me Stop Crooked Hillary From Rigging This Election! Please fill out this form to receive more information about becoming a volunteer Trump Election Observer.

The “Smartest People in the Room” immediately threw a hissy fit, which continues to this day.

Jon Grinspan, a curator of political history at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History, has written an op-ed for The New York Times, which posted this morning. In it he writes…

…Measures like the Voting Rights Act ushered in a more equitable, peaceful era in American elections. In the 21st century, though, we seem willing to cast off the restraints that society designed to clean up politics over the last century — a trend into which private, partisan election observers fit perfectly.

To be fair, it doesn’t automatically follow that such observers will return Election Day to its violent, chaotic past — they could even enliven our polling places, which since have become colorless affairs, far from the public gatherings of the mid-19th century. Maybe we should all be observing our elections.

America has reached a critical moment of re-evaluation of our democracy — new ideas are welcome. But we are working within a very old and well-documented political system, and have plenty of experience with democratic innovations. So we might occasionally pause to look back at what worked, and what didn’t. We tried election observers. There’s a reason we left them in the past.

There is nothing more embarrassing that someone who considers themselves to be one of “The Smartest People in the Room” who is woefully uniformed.

CNSNews.com reports that

When Americans went to the polls four years ago, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) deployed 44 observers, a quarter of whom came from countries deemed by a leading democracy watchdog to be “not free” or “partly free.”

This year, the OSCE plans to send more than ten times that number – and some civil rights groups in the U.S. say even that won’t be enough.

Following a “needs assessment” visit earlier this year, the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) decided to send 100 long-term and 400 short-term observers to monitor the November 8 election. The former will follow the electoral process across the nation while the latter will monitor Election Day itself.

The nationalities of those who will be deployed have yet to be announced. Queries sent to ODIHR headquarters in Warsaw, Poland, brought no response by press time.

In 2012, the much smaller team included members from OSCE members Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, all at the time ranked “not free” by Freedom House.

Others came from six countries graded “not free” – Albania, Armenia, Bosnia, Georgia, Macedonia and Ukraine.

(Washington-based Freedom House each year evaluates political rights and civil liberties in the nations of the world, and then ranks them as “free,” “not free” or “partly free.” Since 2012 it has upgraded Kyrgyzstan from “not free” to “partly free.”)

The significantly larger observer group to be sent this time reflects the fact that the OSCE believes this year’s election requires a “full-scale” election observation mission, while in 2012 it felt that a “limited” election observation mission was sufficient.

OSCE explains that a full-scale mission is sent in cases where “there is limited confidence among election stakeholders in the election administration, the long-term process and election-day proceedings and … the presence of observers could enhance public trust in the process.”

By contrast, a limited mission is sent when it’s determined “that serious and widespread problems on election day at the polling-station level are unlikely, but that observation of the entire long-term process throughout the country might still produce useful recommendations.”

For a coalition of U.S. civil rights groups, the difference between 2012 and 2016 has to do with the Trump campaign; and with the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision to strike down a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA). The ruling paved the way for states with a history of racial discrimination to change their election laws without “preclearance” from the Justice Department.

While supporters of voting laws passed in some states since the Supreme Court decision argue that they are needed to counter electoral fraud, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights describes the developments as “a tidal wave of voter discrimination efforts.”

On Tuesday the Leadership Conference released a letter sent to OSCE/ODIHR director Michael Georg Link, urging him to “greatly expand” the monitoring of the U.S. election and to “target resources to states where voter discrimination and intimidation is most likely.”

Those states, it said, include Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin.

The coalition pointed to the VRA changes, and to Republican nominee Donald Trump’s campaign for the White House.

“A confluence of factors has made the right to vote more vulnerable to racial discrimination than at any time in recent history,” it told Link, a German politician who has headed the ODIHR since 2014. “The need for additional election observers is paramount.”

“The unprecedented weakening of the Voting Rights Act has led to a tidal wave of voter discrimination efforts nationwide and has required the United States to drastically scale back its own election monitoring program,” the letter continued, referring to federal observers used in past elections.

“In addition, a leading presidential candidate who has made the demonization of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities a hallmark of his campaign has recently urged supporters to challenge voters at polling sites nationwide.”

Leadership Conference president and CEO Wade Henderson said in a statement the right to vote in the U.S. “is more vulnerable now than at any time in the past 50 years.”

“Additional monitors can never replace what we lost when the VRA was gutted but we have to use every possible means to ensure the integrity of this election isn’t compromised by racial discrimination and intimidation,” he said.

“We now have to fight in the courts and at ballot box for every voter and even our nation’s best and most well-organized efforts will not meet the demand we’re confronted with.”

“Congress needs to restore the VRA immediately,” Henderson added.

When the OSCE/ODIHR carried out its “needs assessment” visit earlier this year it held meetings with representatives of federal and state institutions, political parties, media, and civil society groups.

It said these interlocutors had mostly expressed confidence in the election administration.

OSCE/ODIHR did, however, cite issues including the “implementation of new state laws regarding voter registration and identification, changes to alternative voting methods, the reliability of NVT [new voting technologies], the effectiveness of campaign finance rules, and the conduct of the electoral campaign, particularly in the media.”

The OSCE has observed U.S. elections since 2002.

However, Petulant President Pantywaist ramped the United Nations’ Involvement up a bit during the 2012 Presidential Election.

And, now, once again, Obama is bowing before the United Nations, as if they have some authority over our Sovereign Nation, without whom, they would no exist nor have a place to meet.

There are several times, during my musings, that I have described our blessed country as a Sovereign Nation. What does that mean?

On June 5, 2009, Professor Jeremy Rabin of George Mason University, author of “The Case for Sovereignty”, delivered a lecture sponsored by Hillsdale College in Washington, DC. What he said certainly applies to this situation…

The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties. And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on: “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.” And he gave a very logical reason: It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. And as I said, there has been a consensus on this in the past that few ever questioned.

…At the end of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton writes: “A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle.” His point was that if you do not have a national government, you can’t expect to remain a nation. If we are really open to the idea of allowing more and more of our policy to be made for us at international gatherings, the U.S. government not only has less capacity, it has less moral authority. And if it has less moral authority, it has more difficulty saying to immigrants and the children of immigrants that we’re all Americans. What is left, really, to being an American if we are all simply part of some abstract humanity? People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty—benefits like defense and protection of rights—without constitutional discipline, or without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are really putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, everyone will feel better and we’ll all be safe. You could even say they are hanging a lot on incantations or on some kind of witchcraft. And as I mentioned earlier, the first theorist to write about sovereignty understood witchcraft as a fundamental threat to lawful authority and so finally to liberty and property and all the other rights of individuals.

Let me inform any idiotic individuals who might support Obama’s pattern, as seen during his ongoing crusade to take away our guns and his recent Iran Deal, where he continuously goes to the United Nations as the Supreme Authority over our Sovereign Nation, first, instead of our own Congress, the way I feel about “answering” to the United Nations.

The United States of America is a Sovereign Nation, created by the blood, sweat, and tears of men and women, who rise above those of you, including President Obama, who do not believe in American Exceptionalism and our Sovereignty as a Free Nation, in stature, honor, integrity, and courage to the point where you are not even fit enough to tie their boots.

We are an “independent state”, completely independent and self-governing. We bow to no other country on God’s green Earth. We are beholden to no other nation. America stands on its own, with our own set of laws, the most important of which is The Constitution of the United States, which guarantees us, as a Free People, the right to cast our vote from whomever we please…including Donald J. Trump.

And, much to the esteemed professor’s chagrin, as American Citizens, we have the right to monitor our own elections.

America is still the Greatest Nation on the Face of the Earth, despite all of President Barack Hussein’s efforts to make us “just another country”.

Because, usually, those who claim to be the smartest person in any room that they walk into, greatly overestimate themselves.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama Signs “Deal” With Iran Before Congress Has the Chance to Approve It

October 18, 2015

Missing-Piece-600-LIPresident Barack Hussein Obama spat in the face of Congress and the American People, yesterday.

Foxnews.com reports that

President Obama on Sunday signed the Iran nuclear deal, officially putting the international agreement into effect.

The president’s signature opens the way for Iran to make major changes to an underground nuclear facility, a heavy water reactor and a site for enriching uranium.

However, the rogue nation will need months to meet those goals and get relief from the crippling economic sanction that will be lifted as part of deal, despite the pact going into effect Sunday.  

The seven-nation deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was reached on July 14, after roughly two years of negotiations.

The so-called “Adoption Day” on Sunday also requires the United States and other participating countries to make the necessary arrangements and preparations for implementation” of the deal, the president said.

“Today marks an important milestone toward preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and ensuring its nuclear program is exclusively peaceful going forward,” Obama said. “I welcome this important step forward. And we, together with our partners, must now focus on the critical work of fully implementing this comprehensive resolution that addresses our concerns over Iran’s nuclear program.” 

Senior administration officials said Saturday they understand it’s in Iran’s best interest to work quickly, but they are only concerned that the work is done correctly.

They insisted that no relief from the penalties will occur until the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency has verified Iran’s compliance with the terms of the agreement. They said Iran’s work will almost certainly take more than the two months Iran has projected.

The administration officials spoke on a conference call with reporters, but under the condition that they not be identified by name.

As part of the nuclear agreement, Obama on Sunday also issued provisional waivers and a memorandum instructing U.S. agencies to lay the groundwork for relieving sanctions on Iran.

In Iran, Ali Akbar Velayati, a top adviser to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told state TV: “On implementation, all should be watchful that Westerners, particularly Americans, to keep their promises.”

Velayati said Iran expects that the United States and other Western countries that negotiated the deal will show their “good will” through lifting sanctions.

Iran’s atomic energy chief, Ali Akbar Salehi, told state TV that Tehran was ready to begin taking steps to comply, and awaited an order from President Hassan Rouhani. “We are hopeful to begin in the current or next week,” he said.

The IAEA said Sunday that Iran has agreed to allow greater monitoring of its commitment to the deal, going beyond basic oversight provided by the safeguards agreement that IAEA member nations have with the agency. For instance, it allows short-notice inspections of sites the IAEA may suspect of undeclared nuclear activities.

Even as the terms of the deal begin taking effect, recent developments have shown the wide gulf between the U.S. and Iran on other issues.

Fighters from Iran have been working in concert with Russia in Syria, and a Revolutionary Court convicted a Washington Post reporter who has been held more than a year on charges including espionage. The court has not provided details on the verdict or sentence. Further, two other Americans are being detained, and the U.S. has asked for the Iranian government’s assistance in finding a former FBI agent who disappeared in 2007 while working for the CIA on an unapproved intelligence mission.

Also, Iran successfully test-fired a guided long-range ballistic surface-to-surface missile.

But the U.S. officials asserted that those actions would be worse if they were backed up by a nation with a nuclear weapon. The officials emphasized that the seven-nation pact is focused solely on resolving the nuclear issue.

The steps being taken by the U.S. come 90 days after the U.N. Security Council endorsed the deal.

So, Obama went around our System of Checks and Balances, and spit in the face of public opinion , running to the UN, in order to cement his Presidential Legacy, by reaching a “deal” with a country that hates our ever-lovin’ guts.

Per politico.com,

Ted Cruz’s worst fear about the nuclear deal with Iran? That “millions of Americans will be murdered by radical theocratic zealots.”

Speaking to reporters in the Capitol on Tuesday afternoon, the Texas senator and conservative presidential aspirant laid out several doomsday scenarios of what would happen if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, which Cruz and many GOP critics charge is more likely under the agreement negotiated by Tehran’s leaders and the international community.

President Barack Obama and his administration argue that under the deal Iran’s ability to quickly make a bomb will be hamstrung, and that doing nothing would actually accelerate Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

But Cruz said if Iran were to acquire a bomb, he fears the detonation of a nuclear weapon over Tel Aviv, Israel’s second-largest city, that would “murder vast numbers of Palestinians” and Israeli Jews.

“The odds are unacceptably high that they would view the murder of those Palestinians is perfectly acceptable collateral damage to annihilating millions of Jews,” Cruz said.

The second scenario that Cruz said is a “really real risk” is Iran loading a nuclear bomb onto a ship, guiding it to the Atlantic Ocean and detonating it in the atmosphere to “shut down the entire electrical grid on the Eastern Seaboard.”

“It could take down our stock market, our financial systems, but even more importantly, could take down food delivery, water delivery, heat, air conditioning, transportation. The projections are that one nuclear warhead in the atmosphere over the Eastern Seaboard could result in tens of millions Americans dying,” Cruz said, responding to a question of what is the biggest risk under Obama’s nuclear deal. “The greatest risk to this Iranian deal, it is that millions of Americans will be murdered by radical theocratic zealots.” 

Cruz also weighed in on Secretary of State John Kerry’s reaction to remarks by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei that he will “trample” the United States. Kerry said the comments were “disturbing” but wasn’t sure how to interpret them.

“John Kerry said something to the effect of: I don’t know what to make of Khamenei’s comment,” Cruz said. “There’s not a great deal of ambiguity in death to America. He’s not hiding his desired outcome and only a fool would desire to see radical theocratic zealots who are pledging to murder Americans to have nuclear weapons and the capability to murder millions of Americans in one flash of light.”

The Senate will vote on the Iran nuclear agreement in September.

So, just who did Obama feel was more important than the Legislative Branch of OUR Government?

The United Nations Security Council is composed of 15 Members:

There are five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States,
and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly (with end of term date): Angola (2016), Chad (2015), Chile (2015), Jordan (2015), Lithuania (2015), Malaysia (2016), New Zealand (2016), Nigeria (2015), Spain (2016), and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (2016)

There are several times, during my musings, that I have described our blessed country as a Sovereign Nation. What does that mean?

On June 5, 2009, Professor Jeremy Rabin of George Mason University, author of “The Case for Sovereignty”, delivered a lecture sponsored by Hillsdale College in Washington, DC. What he said certainly applies to this situation…

The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties. And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on: “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.” And he gave a very logical reason: It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. And as I said, there has been a consensus on this in the past that few ever questioned.

…At the end of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton writes: “A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle.” His point was that if you do not have a national government, you can’t expect to remain a nation. If we are really open to the idea of allowing more and more of our policy to be made for us at international gatherings, the U.S. government not only has less capacity, it has less moral authority. And if it has less moral authority, it has more difficulty saying to immigrants and the children of immigrants that we’re all Americans. What is left, really, to being an American if we are all simply part of some abstract humanity? People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty—benefits like defense and protection of rights—without constitutional discipline, or without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are really putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, everyone will feel better and we’ll all be safe. You could even say they are hanging a lot on incantations or on some kind of witchcraft. And as I mentioned earlier, the first theorist to write about sovereignty understood witchcraft as a fundamental threat to lawful authority and so finally to liberty and property and all the other rights of individuals.

Let me inform any idiotic individuals who might support Obama’s going to the United Nations first, instead of the Congress of the United States of America, with this simplistic work of naiveté, which Obama and Kerry are trying to pass of as a “treaty”, the way I feel about “answering” to the United Nations.

The United States of America is a Sovereign Nation, created by the blood, sweat, and tears of men and women, who rise above you in stature, honor, integrity, and courage to the point where you are not even fit enough to tie their boots.

To summarize, we are an “independent state”, completely independent and self-governing. We bow to no other country on God’s green Earth. We are beholden to no other nation. America stands on its own, with our own set of laws , The Constitution of the United States.

America is still the Greatest Nation on the Face of the Earth, despite all of President Barack Hussein’s efforts to make us “just another country”.

Congress needs to tell Obama to roll up that document of his capitulation, disguised as a treaty, and place it between him and the camel he rode in on.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama’s Moral Equivalency: Israel’s Right to Defense = Palestinian Terrorism

October 17, 2015

AFBrancoObamaCarterAward1092014The New York Times reports that

UNITED NATIONS — Israel’s new ambassador to the United Nations plunged into his first public diplomatic engagement here on Friday, ruling out any international protection force for a disputed holy site in Jerusalem, as the Palestinians demand.

In an appearance outside the Security Council chambers, the new ambassador, Danny Danon, a former deputy defense minister in Israel known for hawkish views, also condemned the Palestinian leadership for what he called its instigation of violence against Jews.

Mr. Danon portrayed the series of stabbings and other attacks on Israelis in recent weeks, coupled with an arson attack at the holy site known as Joseph’s Tomb in the West Bank city of Nablus on Friday, as the direct result of what he described as hate-filled incitement of Palestinian children.

“I wish my first time speaking to you was on happier terms,” Mr. Danon, 44, told reporters as the Security Council convened a meeting on the latest Palestinian-Israeli violence.

An underlying cause of the mayhem has been tensions surrounding the holy site in Jerusalem known as the Temple Mount to Jews and the Noble Sanctuary to Muslims.

Palestinians have said they fear Israelis are planning to take over the site, which under a longstanding arrangement is administered by a religious council under Jordanian custodianship. Israel has repeatedly called such fears false, unfounded and inflammatory.

Mr. Danon dismissed a request by the Palestinian delegation for an international protection force to provide security at the site.

“We don’t think any intervention will help,” Mr. Danon told reporters. “Keeping the status quo is right thing to bring stability and to keep stability in the region.”

France said it intends to advance a draft statement calling for “restraint” and “maintaining the status quo.” The Security Council has not discussed any text. A statement is not legally binding and has little effect.

The Palestinian ambassador, Riyad H. Mansour, told the Council that the need for international protection at the site had become “more urgent than ever before.”

The United Nations legal office has prepared a confidential memorandum listing examples of how a protection force could be deployed. But to make it public and bring it up for discussion would require consensus among all 15 Security Council members. That has proved elusive.

Seven Israelis and more than 30 Palestinians have been killed in recent weeks, the United Nations assistant secretary-general, Tayé-Brook Zerihoun, told the Council.

He said the loss of hope in prospects for a Palestinian state had contributed to what he called the “anger and frustration” that fuels the violence. He welcomed Israel’s commitment to maintaining the status quo.

What has been the reaction of the Obama Administration to this outbreak of Palestinian violence within the borders of one of traditionally closest allies?

Amateurish moral equivalency and a lack of spine, all too common in this Administration, has put us on the outs with our friend, Israel.

The Jerusalem Post reports that

US Secretary of State John Kerry will meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Germany next week to discuss the recent spate of violence between Israel and Palestinians in which 39 people have been killed, the Israeli ambassador to Washington said on Friday.

Kerry, who has said he planned to go to the Middle East soon to try to calm the violence, was traveling to Europe on Friday. Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, confirmed the planned meeting in Germany during an interview with CNN.

“That discussion will be, ‘OK, how do we get back to where we were in order to calm things down’,” Dermer said.

A spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel said earlier on Friday that Netanyahu will travel to Germany on Wednesday for talks with Merkel on the security situation in Israel and the wider Middle East.

According to Israel’s Channel 10, the premier will seek an explicit statement from Washington supporting Israel’s position that it is preserving the status quo on Temple Mount and throughout Jerusalem’s Old City.

Thus far, the Obama administration has been reluctant to issue such a declaration.

Jerusalem reacted furiously on Thursday to State Department spokesman John Kirby’s statement that Israel is not maintaining the status quo on the Temple Mount and accusing it of using “disproportionate force” to stop the wave of stabbing attacks.

“The comments by the US State Department spokesman are so crazy, deceitful and baseless, that I expect President [Barack] Obama and Kerry to distance themselves from them, and to clarify the US position,” Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan said.

Kirby ignited a maelstrom of anger when, during the State Department’s daily press briefing on Wednesday, he was asked numerous questions about the situation in Israel.

Asked about the placement of roadblocks at the entrance to some east Jerusalem neighborhoods that day, Kirby said that Israel has a “right and responsibility to protect its citizens.”

Then he continued, “We’ve certainly seen some reports of what many would consider excessive use of force. Obviously we don’t like to see that,” adding shortly afterward, “We’re concerned about that.”

Erdan told Israel Radio that it was the “height of hypocrisy” for Kirby, who just last week needed to explain the US’s accidental bombing of a hospital in Afghanistan leading to the deaths of 22 people, to “preach” to Israel.

Erdan, in a Twitter message, wrote that “every reasonable person knows very well how the police in the United States would act if terrorists armed with axes and knives would come to kill citizens in New York and Washington.”

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said in an Israel Radio interview that Jerusalem heard in the last few days from the US and the UN that it was using disproportionate force. “If someone wields a knife and they kill him, is that excessive force? What are we talking about?” he asked.

And Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked referred to the remarks as well, telling Israel Radio that “if people with knives were roaming the streets of New York and started stabbing people, they would not be asked to present their IDs, and the NYPD would draw their weapons.”

The US administration “can say whatever it wants, and we will do what is needed,” Shaked said.

While Kirby did not walk back these comments, he did take to Twitter to clarify remarks he made at the press briefing that the status quo on the Temple Mount was not being maintained.

“Clarification from today’s briefing: I did not intend to suggest that status quo at Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif has been broken,” he posted in a message early on Thursday morning.

An hour later he added, “We welcome both Israel’s & Jordan’s commitment to continued maintenance of status quo at Temple Mount/Haram Al-Sharif.”

Asked during the press briefing whether the administration believes the status quo on the Temple Mount has been broken, he replied: “Well, certainly, the status quo has not been observed, which has led to a lot of the violence.”

That the status quo was not being observed, he asserted, is “indisputable. That’s not a belief; that’s a fact.”

Netanyahu has said repeatedly over the past few weeks that Israel has not changed the status quo on the Temple Mount, nor has it any intention of doing so, characterizing Arab charges to the contrary as “lies” and “deceit.”

Kirby’s comments came shortly after he tried to clarify comments Kerry made on Tuesday night that also irked Jerusalem, implying that Israel’s settlement construction caused the current outbreak of terrorism.

“What’s happening is that, unless we get going, a two-state solution could conceivably be stolen from everybody,” Kerry said during a speech at Harvard University. “And there’s been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years, and now you have this violence, because there’s a frustration that is growing.”

Kirby attempted to clarify the secretary’s comments.

“The secretary wasn’t saying, well now you have the settlement activity as the cause for the effect we’re seeing,” Kirby told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.

“Is it a source of frustration for Palestinians? You bet it is, and the secretary observed that. But this isn’t about affixing blame on either side here for the violence. What we want to see is the violence cease.”

He said that the US position against Israel’s settlement construction is “crystal clear” and remains unchanged.

Even though Israel is now a basically secular nation, the Temple Mount remains of utmost importance to both the Jewish and Christian Faiths. While Jewish pressures for prayer on the Mount or the building of a Third Temple, represent a minority point of view,  practicing Jews around the world have considered the eventual building of a third temple an obligation, or at least something that would be accomplished when the Messiah comes.

Even though Israel is “secular”, on the Day of Atonement the majority of the people still fast the whole day and go to a synagogue. Other religious holidays are observed to an increasing degree. Interest in the Bible and its claims is increasing. Because of this, national Jewish consciousness and media attention concerning the Temple Mount is rising.

These events have caused fear in the minds of the Muslims and has led in recent years to poor treatment of both Jewish and Christian visitors to the Temple Mount and to arbitrary restrictions of access as well as several incidents of harassment by Arab guards. This situation has been exacerbated by Muslim Terrorist attempts to shoot up or blow up the Dome of the Rock and El-Aqsa.

Obama and his State Department’s amateurish “So what?” reaction to the Palestinian Terror Campaign has Americans and the rest of the world, who are paying attention and support Israel’s right to self-defense, flummoxed.

To equate the actions of a sovereign nation, in defense of their citizenry, with the barbaric destruction of Palestinian Terrorists is disingenuous at best and dangerously naïve, at worst.

As I have documented previously, with Obama’s ill-conceived “Iranian Agreement” and his disastrous Foreign Policy of “Smart Power” which led to the bonfire know as “Arab Spring”, Obama has set the Mid-East ablaze.

The question now is, can the next President fix this mess, or, are we seeing, slowly and execrably, Biblical Prophecy being played out before our very eyes?

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

The Iran Deal: Obama Throws a 60 Minute Presidential Temper Tantrum

August 6, 2015

Iran-Cheat-600-LA“I was a little Jakarta street kid,” he said in a wide-ranging interview in his office (excerpts are on my blog, http://www.nytimes.com/ontheground). He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics — and more likely to be aware of their nationalism — if he once studied the Koran with them.Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” – Nicholas Kristof, “Obama: Man of the World”, the New York Times, 3/6/2007

Barack Hussein Obama is still a ” little Jakarta street kid”. And, yesterday, he threw a Presidential Temper Tantrum.

Foxnews.com reports that

President Obama vigorously defended Wednesday his nuclear agreement with Iran as one “the world unanimously supports,” reaching back to blame America’s invasion of Iraq — and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein — for emboldening Iran, while labeling Republican opposition as “knee-jerk partisanship,” and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s criticism as “wrong.” 

Speaking at American University in Washington, Obama described the congressional debate over the Iran deal as the “most consequential” since the Iraq invasion. The president called the agreement a “very good deal” that — despite critics’ claims to the contrary — forbids Iran from building a nuclear weapon. 

In anticipation of a barrage of advertising against the deal, Obama likened those arguments to the case for war in Iraq more than a decade ago. 

“Many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal,” Obama said. 

The stark comparison dovetails with the president’s central claim that the alternative to an Iran deal may be war — “maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon,” he said Wednesday. And his appeal to lawmakers comes as he tries to stem defections from his own party. 

He spoke after Democratic Rep. Steve Israel, of New York, told Newsday he will oppose the Iran plan. Spokeswoman Caitlin Girouard confirmed his opposition to Fox News. 

The defection was a blow to the president as he tries to shore up party support ahead of a vote in Congress expected next month. Israel is policy and communications chairman for House Democrats and the chamber’s highest-ranking Jewish Democrat. 

In his speech, Obama addressed head-on the Israeli government’s opposition to the deal, saying he doesn’t doubt Netanyahu’s sincerity but thinks he “is wrong.” 

Dan Gillerman, former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, afterward asked on Fox News: “What if [Obama] is wrong?” 

If he is, Gillerman said, it’ll be another speech that “doesn’t go so well” for Obama. But for Israel, he said, it’s “existential.” 

“Israel is the only country in the world who Iran threatens, time and time again … to wipe off the face of the earth,” he said. 

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner said Obama is relying on “partisan attacks, false claims, and fear.” 

The backdrop for Obama’s speech was meant to link the nuclear accord to a long tradition of American diplomacy, often conducted with unfriendly nations. He spoke at the same university where President John F. Kennedy made a famous call for Cold War diplomacy and nuclear disarmament. His address also coincides with the anniversary of the nuclear test ban treaty, the landmark 1963 agreement Kennedy and leaders from the Soviet Union and Britain finalized shortly after the president’s well-known speech. 

Ahead of the speech, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., pointed to “growing bipartisan concern” over the deal. 

“It’s widespread and it’s well-founded,” he said, citing recent defections. Republicans unveiled legislation on the House side Tuesday to oppose the deal. 

Obama’s address is part of an intense summer lobbying campaign by both supporters and opponents of the nuclear deal. Congressional lawmakers will vote next month on a resolution either approving or disapproving of the pact. 

Some key Democratic lawmakers announced their support this week, including Sens. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Barbara Boxer of California and Bill Nelson of Florida. 

However, the administration lost the backing of three prominent Jewish Democrats — Nita Lowey and Florida Rep. Ted Deutch, in addition to Rep. Israel. 

“In my judgment, sufficient safeguards are not in place to address the risks associated with the agreement,” Lowey said in a statement. “… This agreement will leave the international community with limited options in 15 years to prevent nuclear breakout in Iran, which will be an internationally-recognized nuclear threshold state, capable of producing highly enriched uranium.” 

House Republicans already have announced they have the 218 votes lined up to oppose the deal. But, if the Senate also opposes the agreement, both chambers would need to muster a two-thirds majority to override an expected presidential veto. That’s where Democratic votes will be critical for both sides of the debate. 

Addressing concerns that the nuclear deal effectively legitimizes Iran’s nuclear program and puts it on a path to a bomb, Obama countered that a vote against the deal in Congress “would not only pave Iran’s pathway to a bomb, it would accelerate it.” 

On the sidelines of the speech, International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Yukiya Amano was meeting in Washington Wednesday with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 

Obama has presented the choice before lawmakers as one of war and peace. During a private meeting Tuesday with American Jewish leaders, Obama said that if Congress blocks the deal, the only option he or the next president would have for stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is military action. 

Critics of the deal, including Netanyahu, say Obama is delegitimizing their concerns and instead painting them as eager for war. In a webcast Tuesday aimed at American Jews, Netanyahu called thatargument “utterly false” and said Israel wants peace, not war.

To Obama, Kennedy’s willingness to negotiate with the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War is a useful comparison for defending his engagement with Iran, a country long at odds with the U.S. and its allies, particularly Israel.

Even as they link Obama’s diplomacy to Kennedy’s, White House officials argue that the president’s Iran accord has a key advantage over the nuclear test ban treaty. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that while Kennedy had to roll back components of the U.S. nuclear program to strike a deal, Obama made no concessions to Iran that weaken U.S. national security.

While the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) and his Secretary of State John (I served in Vietnam) Kerry continue to try to push their “wonderful, magnificent deal” with the Rogue Radical Islamic Nation of Iran, down America’s throat, there are four American citizens, including a Forgotten American Man of Faith, being held in the squalor of Iranian Jails.

United States President Barack Hussein Obama has proven himself to be more concerned about America’s Enemies than our Allies…and, more concerned about reaching out to Muslim Radicals than demanding the release of Christian American Pastor Saeed Abedina, who has been held captive by Iran since the summer of 2012, and his fellow prisoners.

So, why is the President of these United States, Barack Hussein Obama, trusting Iran, an enemy of freedom, to stand by its “Agreement” to refrain from nuking the United States of America and Israel?

Iran remains our mortal enemy, who wants every single American Infidel beheaded, and, who, to this day, refers to this sacred land as “The Great Satan”.

It is well known, that a young Obama, after his mother wed a quite well-off fellow from Indonesia, attended a Madrassa, or Muslim School, in Jakarta.

I believe that the time he spent among “the religion of peace” in his youth, and the 20 years he spent under the “Reformed Muslim” (Liberation Theology) teachings of “ex”-American Muslim, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, molded and cemented his attitude toward Muslims.

Obama innately trusts Muslims…even radical ones.

Obama, Kerry, and the rest of his Liberal Dhimmi Cabal has shown where their loyalties unequivocally lie, with their braggadocio over this Chamberlain-esque “deal” that is destined to not only blow up in their faces, but also “where alabaster cities gleam, undimmed by human tears” and in the heart of the Holy Land, itself.

Obama’s concern is not with our allies nor the safety of the citizens of the United States.

Obama, as he always has been, is concerned with himself and leaving a marvelous legacy as president.

Giving Iran the means to “kill the infidels” will definitely cement Obama’s Legacy…if there is anyone left to remember it.

Iran has always been, since the ouster of the Shah, a rogue nation. They are a threat to every nation who stands in the way of their crazed Political Ideology, disguised as a “religion”.

Either due to naiveté or simple over-estimation of their own intelligence, on the part of Obama and his Administration, as regards their “superior intellect”, to quote Fred Thompson, as Admiral Josh Painter, in the great movie “The Hunt for Red October”…

This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.

Obama has screwed both God’s Chosen People and the nation which he is sworn to protect…for the sake of his own ego’s contentment.

Until He Comes,

Obama Takes The Iran Deal to the United Nations For Their Approval…Before Congress.

July 20, 2015

Missing-Piece-600-LIYesterday, President Barack Hussein Obama took America’s Business before the United Nations.

The Associated Press  reports that

The U.N. Security Council on Monday unanimously endorsed the landmark deal to rein in Iran’s nuclear program and authorized measures leading to the end of U.N. sanctions, but also approved a provision that would automatically reinstate the harsh measures if Tehran reneges on its promises.

European Union foreign ministers meeting in Brussels immediately followed suit, endorsing the agreement between Iran and six major powers and taking the first step to lift EU sanctions.

President Barack Obama told reporters he hopes the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress, where there is strong opposition to the deal, will pay attention to the “broad international consensus,” stressing that the deal is “by far our strongest approach to ensuring that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon.”

But House Speaker John Boehner accused Obama of “ignoring the concerns of the American people” by allowing “such a consequential vote” to go ahead in the U.N. just 24 hours after submitting the agreement to Congress, which has 60 days to consider it. “This is a bad start for a bad deal,” he said.

While sharp differences remain between the United States and Iran, ambassadors from both countries called the agreement an important achievement for diplomacy.

Under the agreement, Iran’s nuclear program will be curbed for a decade in exchange for potentially hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of relief from international sanctions. Many key penalties on the Iranian economy, such as those related to the energy and financial sectors, could be lifted by the end of the year.

Iran insists its nuclear program is purely peaceful, aimed at producing nuclear energy and medical isotopes, but the United States and its Western allies believe Tehran’s real goal is to build atomic weapons. Iran’s U.N. Ambassador Gholamali Khoshroo reiterated that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has declared nuclear weapons “Haram,” which means forbidden by the Muslim faith in Arabic.

Khoshroo said Iran promises to be “resolute in fulfilling its obligations” and expects all other parties to the agreement to meet their commitments. This is the only way diplomacy can “prevail over conflict and war in a world that is replete with violence, suffering and oppression,” he said.

The Iranian ambassador said the agreement “provides a solid foundation for further and more effective diplomatic interaction.” And he expressed hope that the agreement heralds “a new chapter” in the country’s relations with the Security Council and the six powers that negotiated the deal – the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power said the deal gives Iran “an opportunity to prove to the world that it intends to pursue a nuclear program solely for peaceful purposes.”

“If Iran seizes that opportunity … then it will find the international community and the United States willing to provide a path out of isolation and toward greater engagement,” she said.

But Power said the nuclear deal doesn’t change the United States’ “profound concern about human rights violations committed by the Iranian government or about the instability Iran fuels beyond its nuclear program, from its support for terrorist proxies to repeated threats against Israel to its other destabilizing activities in the region.”

So, just who did Obama feel was more important than the Legislative Branch of OUR Government?

The United Nations Security Council is composed of 15 Members:

There are five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States,
and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly (with end of term date): Angola (2016), Chad (2015), Chile (2015), Jordan (2015), Lithuania (2015), Malaysia (2016), New Zealand (2016), Nigeria (2015), Spain (2016), and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (2016)

There are several times, during my musings, that I have described our blessed country as a Sovereign Nation. What does that mean?

On June 5, 2009, Professor Jeremy Rabin of George Mason University, author of “The Case for Sovereignty”, delivered a lecture sponsored by Hillsdale College in Washington, DC. What he said certainly applies to this situation…

The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties. And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on: “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.” And he gave a very logical reason: It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. And as I said, there has been a consensus on this in the past that few ever questioned.

…At the end of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton writes: “A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle.” His point was that if you do not have a national government, you can’t expect to remain a nation. If we are really open to the idea of allowing more and more of our policy to be made for us at international gatherings, the U.S. government not only has less capacity, it has less moral authority. And if it has less moral authority, it has more difficulty saying to immigrants and the children of immigrants that we’re all Americans. What is left, really, to being an American if we are all simply part of some abstract humanity? People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty—benefits like defense and protection of rights—without constitutional discipline, or without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are really putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, everyone will feel better and we’ll all be safe. You could even say they are hanging a lot on incantations or on some kind of witchcraft. And as I mentioned earlier, the first theorist to write about sovereignty understood witchcraft as a fundamental threat to lawful authority and so finally to liberty and property and all the other rights of individuals.

Let me inform any idiotic individuals who might support Obama’s going to the United Nations first, instead of the Congress of the United States of America, with this simplistic work of naiveté, which Obama and Kerry are trying to pass of as a “treaty”, the way I feel about “answering” to the United Nations.

The United States of America is a Sovereign Nation, created by the blood, sweat, and tears of men and women, who rise above you in stature, honor, integrity, and courage to the point where you are not even fit enough to tie their boots.

To summarize, we are an “independent state”, completely independent and self-governing. We bow to no other country on God’s green Earth. We are beholden to no other nation. America stands on its own, with our own set of laws , The Constitution of the United States.

America is still the Greatest Nation on the Face of the Earth, despite all of President Barack Hussein’s efforts to make us “just another country”.

Congress needs to tell Obama to roll up that document of his capitulation, disguised as a treaty, and place it between him and the camel he rode in on.

Until He Comes,

KJ