Atlas Shrugs

VIDEO: Imams Justify Homicide Attacks as Halal - Jihad is an obligation in Islam

Islam: Imams justify the Kamikaze attacks as halal – Jihad is an obligation in Islam hat tip Rut

ululululululululululu

Obama's Abdication of American Sovereignty in the name of Climate Justice (!) Postponed in Copenhagen

President Give-it-Away, Give-it-Away, Give-it-Away now is not going to Copenhagen after all. He won't be giving away the store -- at least not this week. The plan was to cede sovereignty over to the UN destroyers.

But it seems the American people will have none of his sedition, and China and India, two key dancers in the global footprint dance, refuse to go. Heh.

Obama Likely to Skip Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen FOX

President Obama will probably not attend the U.N. conference on climate change in December because it is not a "head of state" event, but may use his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize as a platform to address climate change issues.

The current thinking in the administration is that since the conference is not a "head of state" event, Obama will not attend. Obama will be accepting the Nobel Prize in Oslo on the second day of the Copenhagen conference and may use that platform to address climate change issues.

On big reason the Copenhagen conference is not a "head of state" event is because of the slow progress of climate change legislation in the U.S. Senate. Absent Senate passage of a climate change bill mandating a cap-and-trade system, Obama will have nothing to bring to Copenhagen as part of a U.S.-led effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a factor likely to undermine global efforts to curb those emissions.

Negotiations with India and China on setting and enforcing carbon pollution limits have become bogged down, complicating global efforts to produce a successor treaty to the Kyoto Pact the U.S. never ratified.

Yikes. More asshattery from the asshat in chief.

World Leader(s) Distancing Himself From President Obama

Who will replace the US as leader of the free world? Who steps up to the plate? My money is on Israel.
The world is waking up to how good it was under Bush ..............and they ain't seen nothing yet.

Why Is a World Leader Distancing Himself From President Obama?

Atlantic Divide

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is reportedly growing increasingly frustrated with the Obama administration. A Reuters analysis piece says Sarkozy is shifting his focus from the U.S. to other international allies.

Didier Billion of the Institute of International & Strategic Relations says: "Sarkozy has clearly been thrown off course in his relations with America." Another foreign affairs expert, Bruno Tertrais from the Foundation for Strategic Research, adds: "There is an annoyance about what the French see as naivety in the Obama administration."

One major sticking point has been President Obama's softer stance on Iran, while President Sarkozy prefers a more hawkish approach. Sarkozy said last month: "I support America's outstretched hand. But what has the international community gained from these offers of dialogue? Nothing but more enriched uranium and centrifuges."

I am sure Angela Merkel is hurling as well.

ACTION ALERT: Obama to Cede US Sovereignty in December

On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted climate change skeptic, gave a presentation at Bethel University in St. Paul, MN. In this 4 minute excerpt from his speech, he issues a dire warning to all Americans regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty, scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Lord Monckton served as a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher. He has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to a debate, which Gore has refused. Monckton sued to stop Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" from being shown in British schools due to its inaccuracies. The judge found in favor of Monckton, ordering 9 serious errors in the film to be corrected. Lord Monckton travels internationally in an attempt to educate the public about the myth of global warming. 

Eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second - OBAMA POISED TO CEDE US SOVEREIGNTY, CLAIMS BRITISH LORD  (repub X)

The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.

A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.

Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.

[laughter]

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution, and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.

But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.

So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:

Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!

------------------------------------- End of Speech -----------Some questions for Lord Monckton-----

Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevent to the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty:

Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his agenda and he’ll do it.

Response: I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.

Question: Is it really irrevocable if that treaty is signed? Suppose it’s signed by someone who does not have the authority, as I – I have some, a high degree of skepticism that we do have a valid president there because I know at least one judge who shares your opinion, sir, yes.

I don’t believe it until I see it. … Would [Obama's potential illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign as president?

Response: I would be very careful not to rely on things like that. Although there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would be very difficult to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii and therefore we might not be able to get anywhere with that. Besides, once he’s signed that treaty, whether or not he signed it validly, once he’s signed it and ratified it – your Senate ratifies it – you’re bound by it. But I will say one thing; they know, in the White House, that they won’t be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to ratify a treaty of this kind. However, what they’ve worked out is this – and they actually let it slip during the election campaign, which is how I know about it. They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple majority of both houses. That they can do. But the virtue of that – and here you have a point – is that is, thank God, reversible. So I want you to pray tonight, and pray hard for your Senate that they utterly refuse to ratify the [new] Treaty of Copenhagen, because if they refuse to ratify it and [Obama] has to push it through as domestic legislation, you can repeal it.

Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.

Verifying the treaty clauses Mockton made reference to:

Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:

38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

World Government (heading added)
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)
b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.

With Enforcement Authority (heading added)
© The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].

I urge all Atlas readers immediately to contact your congressman NOW AND DEMAND that they do the job they were elected to do, keep America safe and protect her from her enemies, even if that enemy is in the White House.

CRUSHING BLOW TO AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY: TRANSNATIONALIST HAROLD KOH CONFIRMED *SIGH*

Despite repeated warnings to "Say No to Koh", Harold Koh was confirmed. This is a dark day. American sovereignty, R.I.P.  Say no to Koh? With a vote of 62-35, we didn't even say maybe. This is an indication that so few knew what was at stake, and once again the media abdicated its role of public servant, not Obama's slave.

The future of American jurisprudence hung in the very balance. Koh opposes national self-interest. He is dogged and determined to advance his views. He believes traditional sovereignty is obsolete. He has written critically of the very notion American exceptionalism.

Harold Koh Confirmed After Long GOP Delay
06-25-09

Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh was confirmed as the State Department Legal Advisor in a roll call vote, 62-35.

We needed 51 votes.

Koh was tapped for the job nearly four months ago, but has faced criticism from some conservatives for an alleged "transnational" approach to the law. But ranking Senate Foreign Relations Committee Republican Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) threw his support to Koh, in a statement Thursday: "After reading his answers to dozens of questions, attending his hearing in its entirety, meeting with him privately, and reviewing his writings, I believe that Dean Koh is unquestionably qualified to assume the post for which he is nominated."

1.  Harold Koh's Transnationalism (overview of series)

2.  What "transnationalism" is

3.  Customary international law

a. What customary international law is

b. The transnationalist game on customary international law

4.  Treaties

a.  The scope of the treaty power

b.  The domestic legal status of treaties

c.  CEDAW as a case study

(1) CEDAW and the CEDAW committee

(2) Koh's remarkable testimony about CEDAW

d.  The treaty game

5.  Constitutional law

            a.  Reinventing the Constitution (Part 1):  Koh's positions

            b.  Reinventing the Constitution (Part 2):  The flaws in Koh's positions

            c.   Reinventing the Constitution (Part 3):  What Koh's positions threaten

            d.  The constitutional game

6.  The role of the State Department legal adviser

Additional Posts

1.  Koh's confirmation hearing
     • Review of Koh Confirmation Hearing Transcript--Part 1 
     • Review of Koh Confirmation Hearing Transcript--Part 2
     • Review of Koh Confirmation Hearing Transcript--Part 3
     • Koh's Written Answers to Senator Lugar's Questions
     • Koh's Written Answers to Senator DeMint's Questions

2.  Koh and the Alien Tort Statute

• Harold Koh, Serial Violator of International Law   
• Harold Koh, Judge-Made Foreign Policy, and Redistribution of Wealth

3.  Koh and National Security

• Koh vs. Obama Administration
• Re: What's the Big Deal About Piracy?
• Koh vs. Obama Administration on Military Commissions 
• Koh vs. Obama Administration on Indefinite Detention?

  4.  Response to defenses of Koh

  • Dahlia Lithwick on Harold Koh and Sharia   
  • More on Dahlia Lithwick on Harold Koh   
  • Calls for Real Debate on Harold Koh 
  • Re: Calls for Real Debate on Harold Koh    
  • Newsweek on Harold Koh 
  • Another Feeble Defense of Koh

UPDATE: Here are the traitors in the Republican party who helped usurp American sovereignty and who voted for the pro-sharia dhimmi “transnationalist” and far-left radical Koh:

Mel Martinez, RINO - Florida

Richard Lugar, RINO - Indiana

Susan Collins, RINO - Maine

Olympia Snowe, RINO - Maine

George Voinovich, RINO – Ohio

ACTION ALERT: SAY NO TO KOH!

ACTION ALERT! SAVE AMERICA! PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION! TIME IS WASTING! This is a very dangerous appointment. The future of American jurisprudence hangs in the very balance. Put this on your daily things to do. Koh must go. Read this post carefully and send it to everyone you know.

WE MUST PROTECT AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY!

I took part in a conference call with Andy McCarthy and Ed Whelan -- and sponsored by Erick Erickson of RedState.com, Hugh Hewitt and others -- to discuss the nomination of Yale Law School Dean and transnationalist Harold Koh to be the legal adviser at the State Department. I have blogged on Koh here.

Obama nominee sees no "reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States"

JUDGES should interpret the Constitution according to other nations' legal "norms." Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts. The United States constitutes an "axis of disobedience" along with North Korea and Saddam-era Iraq.

Those are the views of the man on track to become one of the US government's top lawyers: Harold Koh.

President Obama has nominated Koh -- until last week the dean of Yale Law School -- to be the State Department's legal adviser. In that job, Koh would forge a wide range of international agreements on issues from trade to arms control, and help represent our country in such places as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.

It's a job where you want a strong defender of America's sovereignty. But that's not Koh. He's a fan of "transnational legal process," arguing that the distinctions between US and international law should vanish.

[..]

The primacy of international legal "norms" applies even to treaties we reject. For example, Koh believes that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child -- a problematic document that we haven't ratified -- should dictate the age at which individual US states can execute criminals. Got that? On issues ranging from affirmative action to the interrogation of terrorists, what the rest of the world says, goes.

Including, apparently, the world of radical imams. A New York lawyer, Steven Stein, says that, in addressing the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007, Koh claimed that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."

Koh is a post American transnationalist. American jurisprudence is based on national sovereignty. Self determination on national security, whereas Koh would abdicate this to a new world order. Opposing Koh is not an attack on his integrity or his fine legal mind. You can oppose someone on  policy. Oppose Koh on his beliefs. 

Abdicating US sovereignty to "international law" means handing over our self-determination to the driver of the UN bus - the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

PLEASE GO HERE FOR BACKGROUND ON KOH.

In a series of posts on National Review Online's Bench Memos blog that earned prominent attention, EPPC President Ed Whelan exposed the radical transnationalist views of controversial State Department legal adviser nominee Harold Koh. Immediately below is the outline of the series, which is available in full here.

His nomination is out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He will go before the Senate in June. You must contact your Senators. GO HERE. Be polite but firm. One good reason is far more effective than ten insults. There is a wealth of documentation and evidence here.

KOH HAS MET WITH LITTLE RESISTANCE, EVEN FROM REPUBLICANS. WAKE UP YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS. This is madness.

Koh opposes national self-interest. He is dogged and determination to advancing his views. He believes traditional sovereignty is obsolete. He has written critically of the very notion American exceptionalism.

1.  Harold Koh's Transnationalism (overview of series)

2.  What "transnationalism" is

3.  Customary international law

a. What customary international law is

b. The transnationalist game on customary international law

4.  Treaties

a.  The scope of the treaty power

b.  The domestic legal status of treaties

c.  CEDAW as a case study

(1) CEDAW and the CEDAW committee

(2) Koh's remarkable testimony about CEDAW

d.  The treaty game

5.  Constitutional law

            a.  Reinventing the Constitution (Part 1):  Koh's positions

            b.  Reinventing the Constitution (Part 2):  The flaws in Koh's positions

            c.   Reinventing the Constitution (Part 3):  What Koh's positions threaten

            d.  The constitutional game

6.  The role of the State Department legal adviser

Additional Posts

1.  Koh's confirmation hearing
     • Review of Koh Confirmation Hearing Transcript--Part 1 
     • Review of Koh Confirmation Hearing Transcript--Part 2
     • Review of Koh Confirmation Hearing Transcript--Part 3
     • Koh's Written Answers to Senator Lugar's Questions
     • Koh's Written Answers to Senator DeMint's Questions

2.  Koh and the Alien Tort Statute

• Harold Koh, Serial Violator of International Law   
• Harold Koh, Judge-Made Foreign Policy, and Redistribution of Wealth

3.  Koh and National Security

• Koh vs. Obama Administration
• Re: What's the Big Deal About Piracy?
• Koh vs. Obama Administration on Military Commissions 
• Koh vs. Obama Administration on Indefinite Detention?

  4.  Response to defenses of Koh

  • Dahlia Lithwick on Harold Koh and Sharia   
  • More on Dahlia Lithwick on Harold Koh   
  • Calls for Real Debate on Harold Koh 
  • Re: Calls for Real Debate on Harold Koh    
  • Newsweek on Harold Koh 
  • Another Feeble Defense of Koh

DO SOMETHING. DO SOMETHING. DO SOMETHING.

We need 51 votes against. Get to those moderate Democrats. Hammer the Republicans. This is a very definite attack on America from within.

OBAMA RELINQUISHES AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY AT G20

G-20 Shapes New World Order With Lesser Role for U.S., Markets

ALL of the U.S. regulatory bodies and ALL U.S. companies are put under international regulation.

New world order emerges from chaos

Obama Begins Turnover of USA Sovereignty to International Body! by Sher Zieve
Moving as quickly as he can to gut the USA and then divide its body parts amongst like-minded globalists, the USA’s Supreme Leader Barack Hussein Obama used the G-20 conference to begin his turnover of USA sovereignty to said internationalists and start the move toward a one-world government. 
 
Obama has signed off on international legislation the-Financial Stability Board-that would regulate ALL firms, including those within the USA and places them under the responsibility of an international governmental agency.
 
On FNC’s Greta Van Susteren’s program, author and columnist Dick Morris noted "literally from April 2nd of this year, that is today, it’s awhole new world of financial regulation in which, essentially, ALLof the U.S. regulatory bodies and ALL U.S. companies are put under international regulation, international supervision.
It really amounts to a global economic government."
 
Called the Financial Stability Board (FSB), the pending international body’s legislation—which will of course override the US Constitution—states:  “We agree to a framework of internationally agreed upon high standards. We will set up a financial stability board with a strengthened mandate to extend regulation and oversight to all systemically important financial institutions, instruments and markets”—including hedge funds, all—anything that they decide is important to the system—to endorse and implement tough new principles on paying (ph) compensation and to support sustainable compensation schemes and the corporate social responsibility of ALL firms.” The international community will now be able to determine the salaries and compensation of us all.
 
During this same conference, Obama officially announced the reduction in US nuclear weaponry, so that Iran will be more amenable to sitting down to talk with the US.  In other words, he’s again announced to the world that the USA is no longer a threat to anyone—let alone terrorists.  Never before in our soon to be short-lived history has the United States of America had this sort of a leader who has now announced—in no uncertain terms—that it is his plan and duty to dismantle and destroy the country he represents.  He, his administration members and his Congress (with extraordinary assistance from most notably Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd and their friends) have devastated the US economy, are in the process of eliminating the First and Second Amendments—and the entire US Constitution—have ended free enterprise, established his national youth indoctrination—if not police—force (via the GIVE—Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education—Act) and have begun the process of taking over virtually all private companies. 
 
In not yet, 100 days Obama and Company have almost destroyed this country.  Under this constant and increasing onslaught and devastation from within-by our "leaders" can - the USA stand much longer?  Seriously, can it?
Van Susteren and Morris: 
FSB:
Obama Declares war on First and Second Amendment:

Democrats Destroy Economy Blame Republicans: 
GIVE Act: 
More Give Act:

RELINQUISHING AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY

Has one ever heard of a diplomat working to fashion an “exit strategy” from a failed negotiation? One hasn’t. One should. John Bolton

John Bolton writes in Commentary on the "Coming War on Sovereignty".

Bolton proves his sagacity once again - Obama's announcement of notorious transnationalist Harold Koh as his nominee for State Department legal adviser had not yet happened, but Obama's contempt for American hegemony is no secret. Koh is just the tip of the iceberg; he believes U.S. law should be based on foreign precedent, and even Shariah law could find a home here. (More on Koh here.)

Read Bolton's seminal piece here:

Barack Obama’s nascent presidency has brought forth the customary flood of policy proposals from the great and good, all hoping to influence his administration. One noteworthy offering is a short report with a distinguished provenance entitled A Plan for Action,¹ which features a revealingly immodest subtitle: A New Era of International Cooperation for a Changed World: 2009, 2010, and Beyond.

In presentation and tone, A Plan for Action is determinedly uncontroversial; indeed, it looks and reads more like a corporate brochure than a foreign-policy paper. The text is the work of three academics—Bruce Jones of NYU, Carlos Pascual of the Brookings Institution, and Stephen John Stedman of Stanford. Its findings and recommendations, they claim, rose from a series of meetings with foreign-policy eminences here and abroad, including former Secretaries of State of both parties as well as defense officials from the Clinton and first Bush administrations. The participation of these notables is what gives A Plan for Action its bona fides, though one should doubt how much the document actually reflects their ideas. There is no question, however, that the ideas advanced in A Plan for Action have become mainstays in the liberal vision of the future of American foreign policy.

That is what makes A Plan for Action especially interesting, and especially worrisome. If it is what it appears to be—a blueprint for the Obama administration’s effort to construct a foreign policy different from George W. Bush’s—then the nation’s governing elite is in the process of taking a sharp, indeed radical, turn away from the principles and practices of representative self-government that have been at the core of the American experiment since the nation’s founding. The pivot point is a shifting understanding of American sovereignty.

[...]

To this end, the authors provide a brief for what they call “responsible sovereignty.” They define it as “the notion that sovereignty entails obligations and duties toward other states as well as to one’s own citizens,” and they believe that its application can form the basis for a “cooperative international order.” At first glance, the phrase “responsible sovereignty” may seem unremarkable, given the paucity of advocates for “irresponsible sovereignty.” But despite the Plan’s mainstream provenance, the conception is a dramatic overhaul of sovereignty itself.

“Global leaders,” the Plan insists, “increasingly recognize that alone they are unable to protect their interests and their citizens—national security has become interdependent with global security.” The United States must therefore commit to “a rule-based international system that rejects unilateralism and looks beyond military might,” or else “resign [our]selves to an ad-hoc international system.” Mere “traditional sovereignty” is insufficient in the new era we have entered, an era in which we must contend with “the realities of a now transnational world.” This “rule-based international system” will create the conditions for “global governance.”

The Plan suggests that the transition to this new system must begin immediately because of the terrible damage done by the Bush administration. 

[...]

Diplomacy is a tool, not a policy. It is a technique, not an end in itself. Urging, however earnestly, that we “engage” with our enemies tells us nothing about what happens after concluding the initial pleasantries at the negotiating table. Just opening the conversation is often significant, especially for those who are legitimized merely by being present. But without more, the meaning and potency of the photo op will quickly fade.

That is why effective diplomacy must be one aspect of a larger strategic spectrum that includes ugly and public confrontations. Without the threat of painful sanctions, harsh condemnations, and even the use of force, diplomacy risks becoming a sucker’s game, in which one side will sit forever in naïve hope of reaching a settlement while the other side acts at will.

Diplomacy is an end in itself in A Plan for Action. So, too, is multilateralism. The multilateralism the Plan celebrates and advocates is, of course, set in sharp contrast to the portrait it draws of a Bush administration flush with unilateralist cowboys intent on overturning existing international treaties and institutions just for the sport of it. Defining unilateralism is straightforward: the word refers to a state acting on its own in international affairs.² It is a critical conceptual mistake, however, to pose “multilateralism” simply as its opposite.

Read it all. Very bad.

Obama nominee Sees Sharia in America - why not?

UPDATE: Public Enemy #1 Soros thanked Harold Koh in one of his books

Jawdropper which, given President Hussein's daily record, is no small feat. Sharia law in America? This is the dawning of the barbaric age in America.

I think Koh kinda likes the rape is legit thing. Or is it the child bride thing?

Jihad Watch has the whole thing here:

Obama nominee sees no "reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States"

On top of that, this Obama pick believes that "America's focus on the War on Terror [is] 'obsessive.'" And his list of countries that flagrantly disregard international law highlights North Korea, Iraq, and the U.S.A. -- which he collectively calls "the axis of disobedience."

"Obama's most perilous legal pick," by Meghan Clyne for the New York Post

Will the people not rise up? Do they even know this is happening?

JUDGES should interpret the Constitution according to other nations' legal "norms." Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts. The United States constitutes an "axis of disobedience" along with North Korea and Saddam-era Iraq.

Those are the views of the man on track to become one of the US government's top lawyers: Harold Koh.

President Obama has nominated Koh -- until last week the dean of Yale Law School -- to be the State Department's legal adviser. In that job, Koh would forge a wide range of international agreements on issues from trade to arms control, and help represent our country in such places as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.

It's a job where you want a strong defender of America's sovereignty. But that's not Koh. He's a fan of "transnational legal process," arguing that the distinctions between US and international law should vanish.

What would this look like in a practical sense? Well, California voters have overruled their courts, which had imposed same-sex marriage on the state. Koh would like to see such matters go up the chain through federal courts -- which, in turn, should look to the rest of the world. If Canada, the European Human Rights Commission and the United Nations all say gay marriage should be legal -- well, then, it should be legal in California too, regardless of what the state's voters and elected representatives might say.

He even believes judges should use this "logic" to strike down the death penalty, which is clearly permitted in the US Constitution.

The primacy of international legal "norms" applies even to treaties we reject. For example, Koh believes that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child -- a problematic document that we haven't ratified -- should dictate the age at which individual US states can execute criminals. Got that? On issues ranging from affirmative action to the interrogation of terrorists, what the rest of the world says, goes.

Including, apparently, the world of radical imams. A New York lawyer, Steven Stein, says that, in addressing the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007, Koh claimed that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."

A spokeswoman for Koh said she couldn't confirm the incident, responding: "I had heard that some guy . . . had asked a question about sharia law, and that Dean Koh had said something about that while there are obvious differences among the many different legal systems, they also share some common legal concepts."

Score one for America's enemies and hostile international bureaucrats, zero for American democracy.

Koh has called America's focus on the War on Terror "obsessive." In 2004, he listed countries that flagrantly disregard international law -- "most prominently, North Korea, Iraq, and our own country, the United States of America," which he branded "the axis of disobedience.[...]

Even though he's up for a State Department job, Koh is a key test case in the "judicial wars." If he makes it through (which he will if he gets even a single GOP vote) the message to the Obama team will be: You can pick 'em as radical as you like.

BOLTON ON WORLD GOVERNMENT

Good segment: John Bolton's appearance on Glenn Beck discussing world government (though the Orwellians don't call it that anymore, instead they talk about "global governance" - same diff), supranational currency and the abdication of American self rule, and the leftopaths' new oxymoron: "responsible sovereignty". Bolton 2012! (Make that 2010!)

UPDATE: Geithner Confirms China Confidential Report that US is Open to New World Currency, Sending Dollar Down; Currency Rebounds After Affirmation

PRESIDENT HUSSEIN DROPS "ENEMY COMBATANT" AS BASIS FOR DETENTION, DEFERS TO "INTERNATIONAL LAW"

Why doesn't he just hand over the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to Ahmadinejad? President Hussein is dismantling every tool, every weapon in our defense arsenal.

This should be splashed on the front page of every soon-to-be-dead news daily. The insanity is explained by AG Holder this way: in developing new policy to govern Islamic terrorists, it is essential we "operate in a manner consistent with our values".

Well, let me state this plainly: this is not consistent with our values. This has no value. There is right and there is wrong. There good and there is evil. There are allies and there are enemies. These are American values. Abdicating our sovereignty to an international Islamic code is suicidal. Who is writing this international law, the OIC?

U.S. drops "enemy combatant" as basis for detention Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration dropped the term "enemy combatant" and incorporated international law on Friday as its basis for holding terrorism suspects at Guantanamo prison while it works to close the facility.

The U.S. Justice Department said it had filed court papers outlining its break from Bush administration detention standards, and said only those who provided "substantial" support to al Qaeda or the Taliban would be considered detainable.

"As we work toward developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

"The change we've made today meets each of those standards and will make our nation stronger."

They think the American people are complete idiot sheeples.

Instead, the Justice Department said, "It draws on the international laws of war to inform the statutory authority conferred by Congress.

"It provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial. And it does not employ the phrase 'enemy combatant.'"

It said it had told the court that the Obama administration was reviewing its entire detention policy -- as part of its plan to close the prison at the U.S. naval base on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- and further refinements of the policies were possible.

How many of the released Gitmo detainees rejoined the Islamic armies of al qaeda and taleban? We are so screwed.

Previously at Atlas (related):

WHERE'S CAIR? AMERICAN TEEN GIRL MURDERED BY EX-GITMO DETAINEE

FREED GITMO MUSLIMS: "I thank Allah, Lord of the Worlds, who freed me from Guantanamo prison and --" ****SPLAT!!!!!****

B. HUSSEIN O-BLUNDER'S GITMO EMBARRASSMENT

MORE FREED GITMO ISLAMIC TERRORISTS GO JIHAD

Report: Ex-Gitmo detainee joins al-Qaida in Yemen

Even the Taliban say Obama's call on modertes "illogical"

PRESIDENT SCARY WILL SURRENDER TO TALIBAN

US CAPITULATES TO ISLAMIC DOMINATION

UPDATE 7:30 pm: Officials: Taliban's New Top Operations Officer Is Former Guantanamo Bay Detainee (thanks Matthew)

Even the Taliban say Obama's call on moderates "illogical"

Can you imagine? This insufferable megalomaniac is transparent to all. He is surrendering but wants to put a happy face on it. Obama was raised a Muslim, he knows there is no "moderate" Islam for the pious. And the Taliban are very pious.

The reverbs of this incompetent traitorous fool will be felt in spades.

Taliban say Obama's call on moderates "illogical" Reuters hat tip David

KABUL (Reuters) - Afghanistan's Taliban on Tuesday turned down as illogical U.S. President Barack Obama's bid to reach out to moderate elements of the insurgents, saying the exit of foreign troops was the only solution for ending the war.

Obama, in an interview with the New York Times, expressed an openness to adapting tactics in Afghanistan that had been used in Iraq to reach out to moderate elements there.

"This does not require any response or reaction for this is illogical," Qari Mohammad Yousuf, a purported spokesman for the insurgent group, told Reuters when asked if its top leader Mullah Mohammad Omar would make any comment about Obama's proposal.

"The Taliban are united, have one leader, one aim, one policy...I do not know why they are talking about moderate Taliban and what it means?"

Can you say schmuck? 

First reported here at Atlas:

PRESIDENT SCARY WILL SURRENDER TO TALIBAN
US CAPITULATES TO ISLAMIC DOMINATION

ORGANIZATION OF ISLAMIC CONFERENCE IMPOSES ISLAMIC DOMINATION ON THE FREE WORLD

This is Islamic supremacism. The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) is bent on imposing Islam on the free world. They are singular in their purpose, barbaric in their goal. Before they can go for the jugular, freedom of speech must silenced. The UN is an Islamic organization -- we should not be there. We should belong to a union of democratic nations. President Hussein intends to move closer to the rat-house. President Hussein intends to turn over huge chunks of American sovereignty to the Muslims.

U.N. to make ban on criticizing Islam mandatory?    WND
Expected proposal would criminalize such comments in U.S.

Muslim-dominated nations at the United Nations are once again pushing a religious "anti-defamation" plan that would bar worldwide all criticism of their founder Muhammad and his teaching.

According to a report by CNN's Lou Dobbs posted on YouTube, the proposal that has been repeatedly brought in recent years by the Organization of Islamic Conference states is expected to resurface as early as this spring.

This time, however, the resolution wouldn't allow nations to opt out.

"The United Nations has adopted what it calls a Resolution to Combat Defamation of Religion," Dobbs said in the report. "The U.N. now wants to make that anti-blasphemy resolution binding on member nations, including, of course, our own. That would make it a crime in the United States ... to criticize religion, in particular, Islam."

Constitutional lawyer Floyd Abrams said in the report, "What they would do would be to make it illegal to put out a movie or write a book or a poem that somebody could say was defamatory of Islam."

Sinking the Law of the Sea Treaty

Prick up your ears. The Law of the Sea Treaty is a bad idea. Very bad for America. Buying into this latest bit of international fascism. Abandoning  our national sovereignty to UN warlords? You're kidding right?

How Many Lawyers Does It Take to Sink the U.S. Navy?
Unfortunately, the Law of the Sea Treaty is no laughing matter.
by Jeremy Rabkin, Weekly Standard

On October 1962, President Kennedy ordered the U.S. Navy to prevent foreign ships from reaching Cuba unless they submitted to U.S. inspections on the high seas to verify that they were not transporting missiles or other offensive weapons to the island. Similar measures had been adopted in wartime blockades, but the Kennedy administration, not wanting to acknowledge a state of war with Cuba, termed this intervention a "quarantine."

It was a soothing term in the midst of a confrontation which threatened to trigger a catastrophic nuclear exchange. So the Kennedy administration did not let itself worry that its "quarantine" did not happen to correspond with any recognized practice in international law.

If a similar crisis should arise today, the Bush administration seems to think we could rely on an international tribunal to determine whether U.S. actions were or were not legally valid.

[...]

In the 1980s, Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi claimed the Gulf of Sidra as Libyan territorial waters and demanded that foreign ships obtain Libyan permission before entering this broad bay on the Mediterranean coast. Since the mouth of the bay is 300 miles wide, it was not very plausible, under generally recognized principles of international law, to claim that all the enclosed waters were Libyan territorial seas. But Libya could have claimed authority to enforce conservation standards in an "exclusive economic zone" covering the whole Gulf of Sidra.

Rather than argue the fine points at length, President Reagan sent a carrier task force into these waters in 1986 to prove that they were open to international navigation, without prior permission. The task force opened fire on Libyan patrol boats which tried to resist its intervention. Two of the Libyan boats were sunk, with the loss of all hands.

Today, the Bush administration seems to think we could avoid such unpleasantness by relegating all such disputes to the determination of an international tribunal.

[...]

In the past, writers on international law acknowledged that states could not be expected to submit the most sensitive political questions--those most vital to national security--to international arbitration. Most of the world seems to have abandoned this view, but most nations no longer make great efforts to provide for their own defense. So, even as the United States has substantially reduced the scale of its naval forces, since the peak years of the Reagan build-up we have acquired a larger and larger share of the world's naval capacity. Others have shrunk their forces further and faster.

In past centuries, rules about the conduct of ships at sea emerged from agreements among major naval powers, and there were always a number of naval powers engaged in challenging, enforcing, and accommodating agreed-upon standards. Now, when the United States (by some estimates) actually deploys a majority of the world's naval capacity, we are told that our security requires us to participate with 150 other states in electing international judges to determine, in the last analysis, what rules our Navy must accept.

To find this convincing, one must be awed by the moral authority of the U.N. majority. To think that way means that we seek consensus at almost any price. Why do we claim to be independent, why do we invest so many billions in defense capacities, if we are prepared to go along with an international consensus, articulated (and -readjusted) by international jurists? The Senate should think long and hard before making the U.S. Navy answer to the U.N version of the Law of the Sea.