Obama's Human Rights and Non-Nuclear Utopia

switching American values
Changing America: human rights outweighing sovereignty and defense.

Lest Senate Democrats choose to insert the language of S. 1346 into another bill, sitting en queue is The Bill Dick Cheney and the Sundry Bad Guys who prosecuted The Engagement Formerly Known as WOT TM should be worried about.

So should anyone else who defends America on foreign soil. So should our allies.

Introduced by Democratic Senators Durbin, Cardin, Feingold, Feinstein, and Leahy in June '09 and considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee May 6th, the Crimes Against Humanity Act  would more than just "[open] the door to demands of reciprocity from other nations that seek to prosecute US military personnel and government officials for alleged criminal acts committed anywhere in the world" by establishing "universal jurisdiction," as Heritage argues.

This piece of legislation would also:

  1. domesticate all crimes against humanity as defined by the UN -- including  terrorism on American soil --  making these crimes punishable by federal prosecutors and judges 
  2. afford reciprocity in other countries, subjecting our military and elected officials to -- not just The Hague -- but to the "Crimes Against Humanity" laws of other countries
  3. tie the hands of our elected officials and military, as every plan of action to defend our country must comply "with all of the foreign nation's applicable laws"
  4. limit any foreseeable way for America to ever utilize its nuclear arsenal in retaliation to strikes against our homeland
  5. exacerbate instability in the Middle East by signaling the non-existant threat of US retaliation in defending allies (such as Great Britain or Israel)

Not only would we not retaliate, we could not. Our nuclear posture would be eliminated by institutionalizing international law.

This would be the domino effect for nuclear disarmament, absent a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, through the pretense of protecting human rights.

Under Obama, the nuclear option is off the table for America, as would be expected for our allies. Under this scenario, a swift end to World War II would not have been possible, without subsequent prosecution for war crimes. We would have been standing right next to Hitler's men at The Hague.

And just as we've moved KSM to federal court, mirandized Abdulmutallab, and unnecessarily publicized the federal complaint against Faisal Shahzad -- calculated moves to show compliance with international norms -- the most Americans could expect if rogue nations like Iran or North Korea were to strike America might be prosecution in absentia.

S. 1346 establishes "universal jurisdiction" in America without Senate treaty ratification of ICC, effectively completing a parallel track, achieving the UN's goal of international jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against humanity.

This is worse than Obama's Treaty for Utopia, and his supposed naivete' is fast disappearing.

Obama would guarantee every terrorist the constitutional rights afforded citizens of the United States, completely neutralize our defensive arsenal by preventing America from utilizing every available resource, and would subject all US citizens to potential prosecution in other countries through reciprocity.

The highest court of appeal would no longer be the Supreme Court.

The ICC would be the supreme law of the land.

And in setting this precedence, our allies will soon be pressured by the international community to follow suit in implementing similar "Crimes Against Humanity" laws, limiting their own ability to defend themselves using any and all means necessary.

 -- with Hugo Estrada


Crossposted at NewsReal Blog,

UN's "Ecocide" - The Wake-up Call Worse than Cap and Trade


The Activists' War on Private Property, Industrialization and the Free Market

As the self-proclaimed Superguardian of human rights, the UN defines the following 4 crimes  as "crimes against humanity," prosecutable under the jurisdiction of the ICC (International Criminal Court):

  • genocide
  • war crimes
  • ethnic cleansing
  • crimes against humanity

The UN works incredibly hard to be the final authority by citing these and other "international laws" to member states -- including the United States. 

Despite the fact that we remain the model for democracy throughout the world, the UN threatens to usurp the Constitution and the sovereignty of America by invoking the supremacy of international law. These attempts remains hidden from public discourse. If all the UN intends to accomplish were made  common knowledge, we'd have louder debates and realize that the problems of socialized healthcare is just the beginning.  

Realize that the UN doesn't have anymore muscle power than they did a decade or 25 years ago to address these crimes against humanity as they occur, but they have found another way to try to address these crimes-- and that is by aligning prevention through the utilization of resources of its member states, by its member states,  for its member states.    

In other words, member states have been compelled to adopt laws that would prevent these crimes against humanity from occurring. Laws against hate crimes are examples we can readily understand. But even though we create the laws and enforce them, the UN and international laws take precedence over member states' sovereignty. 

On the horizon is a 5th prosecutable crime, but it's not a crime against humanity. Including this crime would frame the new 5-crime set "Crimes Against Peace."  

This 5th crime against peace would be the crime against nature, called "Ecocide." 

Wesley Smith posts details from the UK article via First Things about the British radical who is campaigning the UN "to accept 'ecocide' as [an] international crime":

A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace - alongside genocide and crimes against humanity - is being launched in the UK. 

The proposal for the United Nations to accept "ecocide" as a fifth "crime against peace", which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins. 

The radical idea would have a profound effect on industries blamed for widespread damage to the environment like fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry. 

Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute "climate deniers" who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change. 

"Ecocide is in essence the very antithesis of life," says Higgins. "It leads to resource depletion, and where there is escalation of resource depletion, war comes chasing behind. Where such destruction arises out of the actions of mankind, ecocide can be regarded as a crime against peace." 

Higgins, formerly a barrister in London specialising in employment, has already had success at the UN with a Universal Declaration for Planetary Rights, modelled on the human rights declaration. "My starting point was 'how do we create a duty of care to the planet, a pre-emptive obligation to not harm the planet?'"

A Universal Declaration for Planetary Rights. 

Socialist Bolivia is among the first to work on an adoption of the idea of "ecocide." Bolivia was also one of the anti-accord noisemakers at Copenhagen. So was Ecuador, which has given "Nature"  Constitutional rights that read:

Persons and people have the fundamental rights guaranteed in this Constitution and in the international human rights instruments. Nature is subject to those rights given by this Constitution and Law.

Some may attempt to dismiss this as infighting over environmentalism, gone awry. This has nothing to do with climate concerns and everything to do with further weakening our nation. 

What it is, is exploitation of a radical idea to make all nations operate at the lowest common denominator. These radicals would curtail our ownership of private property, outlawing production and consumption, making the United States a 3rd world country, if this isn’t happening already. 

If the UN were to adopt a proposed 5th "crime against peace" -- the Crime Against Nature --  harnessing and utilizing energy in ways we see fit to benefit our nation would be impaired, and our nation's production and consumption would be subject to international regulations and restrictions. 

If this "crime" becomes international law and is enforced in our country, we can expect a restriction on our rights to personal wealth. In the same sense that cap and trade regulates, the amount of personal possessions -- and the industry involved in their production, consumption and disposal -- would be regulated.   

Again, the UN doesn't have the muscle power to enforce, so the United States would adopt regulations -- not necessarily laws -- to prevent over-production and over-consumption. 

This would be the end of industrialization, the end of America as we know it. 

President Obama has already stripped our national defense of the title of military superpower. Next will come the UN's blow to our nation's ability to rebuild itself as an economic superpower. 

This is akin to 9/11, where our military (pentagon) and the institutions of our industry and trade (WTC) were targeted and attacked, bringing our country to its knees. 

If this 5th Crime Against Peace were to become a recognized protection under international law, this would give the UN power to affect our legislation in the halls of Congress. It would be up to us, the people, to gain control, halt, and redirect those efforts. 

-- written with Hugo Estrada

ICC and the UN in the Twitterverse

Fascinating day today.

I’m happily off to a “political meeting,” but before I do, I couple of things I came across as I hung around the Twitterverse today:

First thanks to Clyde Middleton over at The Patriot Room for piqueing my interest with “Here We Go: ICC About to Grab Power; Interpol Next In Line.”

Then Heritage’s David Erhlich put up a great article in The Foundry, entitlted “The ICC: International Justice or Global Government?

It’s an excellent primer on how, should the Obama Administration decide to become a signatory of the Rome Statute, the ICC’s authority usurps our American rights under the Constitition.

There is also an excellent Online Symposium from the Yale Journal of International Law, put on by Opinio Juris. The Volokh Conspiracy’s Kenneth Anderson participates in it. At his blog, he’s referenced a paper he wrote addressing some of Paul Kennedy’s arguments on collective security, multipolarity and global governance.

Fascinating reads, folks.  

I will blog more on it later, but for now, I’m very glad to be re-entering the fray.

This is the time.

God bless our spouses, our families, and those rallying for freedom and liberty.

Syndicate content