Tuesday, March 31, 2009

That sucking sound you hear is coming from the White House


And the world’s greatest nation slides further into the crapper…
The Obama White House Circus, hereafter known as “The Obamanation” has nominated a man to be the main legal advisor at the State Department who will lead this country to yet undiscovered depths of self-hating crapulence.

He has all the criteria to be a part of the current “cabal of idiocy”:
1. Elitist Left Wing-East Coast education (Hopkins Prep School, Harvard, Oxford (just like ‘ol Bubba Clinton) and Harvard Law)
2. Leftist friends and mentors (clerked for Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, who authored Roe Vs. Wade and who regularly french kissed radical lawyer William Kunstler)
3. Previous service in the most corrupt, shameful Administration since Grant was President, The Clinton Administration.
4. Hatred of America and the principles of our Founding Fathers.
Was that last one too harsh? Well, let’s look at the facts of the case.

Koh also advocates a "transnational legal process" and has criticized the U.S. for its failure to "obey global norms."
What does that mean? Well, Mr. Koh thinks we would be better off following the same laws as countries like England (no firearms), Germany (no freedom of speech), or maybe even Sharia law where you can kill your wife for cheating on you, or stone your daughter to death for kissing a boy. That, my friends, is what “transnational legal process” means.

In an article published in the Berkeley Journal of International Law in 2004, Koh wrote, "What role can transnational legal process play in affecting the behavior of several nations whose disobedience with international law has attracted global attention after September 11th -- most prominently, North Korea, Iraq and our own country, the United States of America? For shorthand purposes, I will call these countries 'the axis of disobedience.'"

This liberal buttlick just compared our country to North Korea and Iraq. I hope to meet Harold Koh someday, just to remind him of the brave men and women who gave their lives up so he could grow up with overindulgent parents and their liberal hippie friends in Boston and bad mouth the very country that made it possible for him to climb so far, so fast.

And in a Stanford Law Review article published in May 2003, Koh wrote that supporters of the International Criminal Court should bring pressure to bear on U.S. opinion "with an eye toward persuading U.S. officials that the ICC actually serves U.S. interests."

Do you know anything about the International Criminal Court? Probably not since the US of A told it to eat the corn out of our star-spangled crap back in 2002. Well, here is the crux of the problem from the last source of intellegent news in America, Wikipedia:

Article 5 of the Rome Statute grants the court jurisdiction over four groups of crimes, which it refers to as the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole”: the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The statute defines each of these crimes except for aggression: it provides that the court will not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until such time as the states parties agree on a definition of the crime and set out the conditions under which it may be prosecuted.
Many states wanted to add terrorism and drug trafficking to the list of crimes covered by the Rome Statute; however, the states were unable to agree on a definition for terrorism and it was decided not to include drug trafficking as this might overwhelm the court's limited resources.
[3] India lobbied to have the use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction included as war crimes but this move was also defeated.[31] India has expressed concern that “the Statute of the ICC lays down, by clear implication, that the use of weapons of mass destruction is not a war crime. This is an extraordinary message to send to the international community.”
Some commentators have argued that the Rome Statute defines crimes too broadly or too vaguely. For example, China has argued that the definition of ‘war crimes’ goes beyond that accepted under customary international law.

So, the ICC is basically a bunch of suck-ass European countries like France, Serbia and Switzerland, tin-pot African mudholes such as Burkina Faso and Liberia, bass-ackward South and Central American countries like Mexico and Venezuala and of course Mongolia and Australia. And we, the greatest country on earth, the country that everyone loves to hate, will have to let these 3rd rate suck-tatorships judge American citizens for whatever they decide is a crime. Oh yea, except for terrorism and drug trafficking. Those aren’t big deals, right? This is the one court of law in the world that would not be able to convict Osama Bin Laden, yet we are supposed to cuddle up and suck at the teat of “Globalism”.

A March 21, 2007, blog posting on National Review's Web site shows a letter written by New York attorney Steven J. Stein to Koh, challenging Koh for supposedly saying during a speech to the Yale Club of Greenwich that year that Islamic law could apply to disputes in U.S. courts.

And, Mr. Koh thinks Sahria Law is ok. Not familiar with Sharia Law? Well, let me intelligenate you. Sharia is a complex set of laws, drawn from the Koran. Now, do we as Americans draw our law from the bible? No, although the bible touches on many of the same principles as American Law, such as not stealing, not killing, etc, our laws are not drawn from it. Neither are the drawn from the Book of Mormon, the Bhagavad Gita, The Satanic Bible or the entertaining writings of J.K. Rowling. However, if Mr. Koh has his way, we will have to submit IN COURT to the belief system of a religious group. Here, as an example, are the Sharia laws governing marriage:

Requirements for Islamic Marriages:
These are guidelines; Islamic law on divorce is different depending on the school of thought.
[119]
The man who is not currently a
fornicator can only marry a woman who is not currently a fornicatress or a chaste woman from the people of the Book.
The woman who is not currently a fornicatress can only marry a man who is not currently a fornicator.
The fornicator can only marry a fornicatress – and vice versa.
The Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim man.
The guardian may choose a suitable partner for a virgin girl, but the girl is free to contest and has the right to say 'no'.
The guardian cannot marry the divorced woman or the widow if she didn't ask to be married.
It is obligatory for a man to give
bride wealth (gifts) to the woman he marries – "Do not marry unless you give your wife something that is her right."[119]
A woman who wishes to be divorced usually needs the consent of her husband. However, most schools allow her to obtain a divorce without her husband's consent if she can show the judge that her husband is impotent. If the husband consents she does not have to pay back the dower.[
citation needed]
Men have the right of unilateral divorce. A divorce is effective when the man tells his wife that he is divorcing her. At this point the husband must pay the wife the "delayed" component of the dower.
A divorced woman of reproductive age must wait four months and ten days before marrying again to ensure that she is not pregnant. Her ex-husband should support her financially during this period.[
citation needed]
If a man divorces his wife three times, he can no longer marry her again unless she marries another man, and if they got divorced (only in a way that this divorce is not intended for the woman to re-marry her first husband) the woman could re-marry her first husband.[
citation needed]

I won’t even start about what you can and can’t eat. Let’s just say this; bacon is a crime!

So, President Obama and the rest of “The Obamanation” have found the missing tool in their toolbox. And Harold Koh will play his part. Geithner will move us towards a shared currency with the other failed economic systems in the world, Hillary will make us weak in the eyes of our enemies, Holder will disarm us so resistance is futile and Koh will make sure we no longer have to protection of the greatest legal system in the world.

America has never faced darker days.

From Fox News- President Obama's nominee to be the State Department's legal adviser has ignited a fury among conservative critics who say his views are a threat to American democracy -- an accusation the White House on Tuesday called "outrageous" and "completely baseless."
Former Clinton administration official Harold Koh, who has been dean of the Yale Law School since 2004, once wrote that the U.S. was part of an "axis of disobedience" with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Koh also has long held that the U.S. should accept international law when deliberating cases at home.
Obama nominated Koh on March 23 to become the State Department's legal adviser -- an appointment that, if confirmed by the Senate, will give Koh far-reaching influence over the extent to which international norms affect U.S. law.
"This is not a desk job. This guy will be the face of American international law around the world," said Steven Gross, legal expert and fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
"The top legal adviser at State travels extensively and is involved in international legal negotiations, treaties and in major United Nations conferences.
"The president should have the right to choose the most conservative or liberal legal advisers to give them advice, but this is much more than that. The concern is that he cares as much about -- if not more about -- international law and integrating that into the American judicial system than he does about protecting American prerogatives and American sovereignty," Gross said.
The White House vehemently defended Koh's nomination on Tuesday, telling FOXNews.com that he is "one of the most respected members of the legal community."
Koh "earned wide bipartisan praise as assistant secretary of state and he's universally respected by legal scholars," White House spokesman Reid Cherlin told FOXNews.com. "The president looks forward to working with him at the State Department. He's a strong believer in the Constitution, and the president nominated him because of his firm defense of the Constitution."
State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid also offered praise for Obama's nominee.
"Dean Koh is universally respected for his legal scholarship and previously served as an assistant secretary of state -- and was praised for his work by Republicans and Democrats alike," Duguid said. "President Obama and Secretary Clinton strongly believe he's the right person for the job."
Koh, like Obama, is a strong opponent of the Iraq war and the use of harsh interrogation techniques that some consider torture. He has fiercely criticized former President George W. Bush for invading Iraq in 2003 and has accused the Bush administration of trying to "block public release of more Abu Ghraib type pictures."
"We should resist the claim that a War on Terror permits the commander in chief's power to be expanded into a wanton power to act as torturer in chief," Koh wrote in an article published in May 2006 in the Indiana Law Journal.
Koh also advocates a "transnational legal process" and has criticized the U.S. for its failure to "obey global norms."
In an article published in the Berkeley Journal of International Law in 2004, Koh wrote, "What role can transnational legal process play in affecting the behavior of several nations whose disobedience with international law has attracted global attention after September 11th -- most prominently, North Korea, Iraq and our own country, the United States of America? For shorthand purposes, I will call these countries 'the axis of disobedience.'"
And in a Stanford Law Review article published in May 2003, Koh wrote that supporters of the International Criminal Court should bring pressure to bear on U.S. opinion "with an eye toward persuading U.S. officials that the ICC actually serves U.S. interests."
A March 21, 2007, blog posting on National Review's Web site shows a letter written by New York attorney Steven J. Stein to Koh, challenging Koh for supposedly saying during a speech to the Yale Club of Greenwich that year that Islamic law could apply to disputes in U.S. courts.
"In your discussion of 'global law' I recall at least one favorable reference to 'Sharia,' among other foreign laws that could, in an appropriate instance (according to you) govern a controversy in a federal or state court in the U.S.," Stein wrote in his letter addressed to Koh.
Cherlin said Stein's version of events is "not accurate," and that the host of the event in question disputed the account. Stein could not be reached for comment.
Koh's critics insist his legal views undermine the U.S. Constitution and American sovereignty.
John Fonte, senior fellow and director of the Center for American Common Culture at the Hudson Institute, told FOXNews.com that Koh's views have "a very big practical effect on American foreign policy and on American democracy.
"This is international imperialism. Under Koh's plan, the Constitution would become secondary and international law would take precedence regardless of what Americans said about the matter."
Supporters tout Koh as a leading expert on public and private international law, national security law and human rights.
He served as assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor from 1998 to 2001, and previously had served on the secretary of state's Advisory Committee on Public International Law. He has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court and testified before Congress dozens of times, and he's received more than 30 awards for his human rights work, according to Yale's Web site.
Cherlin described Koh as "an American success story." (His brother, Howard Koh, was tapped by the president two days later for a position in the Health and Human Services Department.)
"He's the son of immigrants. He's a dedicated teacher and professor, and does great work. We don't have any question whatsoever about any of these issues raised by critics who are sworn opponents of the administration," said Cherlin, who said the conservative critics' opposition was "ideologically driven."

1 comment:

future mantra said...

Nice blog. Only the willingness to debate and respect each other’s views keeps the spirit of democracy and freedom alive. Keep up the good work. Hey, by the way, do you mind taking a look at this new website www.indianewsupdates.com . It has various interesting sections. You can also participate in the OPINION POLL in this website. There is one OPINION POLL for each section. You can also comment on our news and feature articles.

At present we provide Live Cricket (From: 4 April Onwards) , News Updates, Opinion Polls, Movie Reviews and Gadget Reviews to our readers.

Kindly go through the entire website. Who knows, it might just have the right kind of stuff that you are looking for. If you like this website, can you please recommend it to at least 5 of your friends. Your little help would help us in a big way.

Thank you,

The Future Mantra