Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 04, 2015, 12:11:05 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
86831 Posts in 2278 Topics by 1069 Members
Latest Member: ctelerant
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] Print
Author Topic: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law  (Read 45583 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33614


« Reply #200 on: December 12, 2013, 12:02:09 PM »

http://www.dickmorris.com/urgent-d-day-for-the-2nd-amendment-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33614


« Reply #201 on: January 16, 2014, 10:31:15 AM »

Hat tip to our BD:

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/127/january14/forum_1023.php
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33614


« Reply #202 on: January 21, 2014, 11:15:38 AM »

Gun Owners of America
________________________________________
The Omnibus Appropriations Bill:
Pro-gun or Anti-gun?
 
Dear Marc F.,
On Friday, Congress sent a $1.1 trillion government funding bill to the President, who promptly signed the legislation into law.

Like every "omnibus," the bill has a number of gun-related provisions -- some pro-gun, some anti-gun. And we suspect that a majority of our members will probably oppose this bloated monstrosity.

That being said, there were some key victories in this bill.  So briefly, here are the pros and cons.

THE PROS

THE "OMNIBUS" KILLS THE ARMS TRADE TREATY.  In the 113th Congress, we believe we have about twenty votes more than we need to stop ratification of the UN Arms Trade Treaty.  This is extremely important because, if implemented, this treaty -- signed by the Obama administration -- could, without further legislation, result in massive semi-auto and handgun bans, magazine bans, gun registration, and microstamping.

Even though we felt comfortable that we could stop the treaty's ratification, we were concerned that Obama would attempt to implement it by administrative fiat.  For this reason, we drafted language defunding its implementation.  With your help, we have spent the last year pushing incessantly for the adoption of this amendment defunding the ATT.

That language is contained on the "Omnibus."  For many of our members, killing the ATT is more important than any other issue.
, , ,
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4496


« Reply #203 on: February 15, 2014, 03:40:18 PM »

No he is not a radical in sheep's clothing.  rolleyes  Just political grandstanding by right wing nuts.  (heavy on the sarcasm)
And we keep hearing what a nice guy he is.  If I hear O'Reilly say one more time he doesn't doubt Obama's good intentions..... rolleyes
I keep thinking how is someone who is a serial liar, serial deceiver, bully,  a nice guy.  Oh but he cares about the po' is always the response.  It is his goals that matter not how he gets there.  

****The Soul of the Obama Administration

Mona Charen
By Mona Charen February 14, 2014 3:00 AM
 
Few have ever heard the name Debo Adegbile. He's President Barack Obama's nominee to head the civil rights division of the Justice Department.

A few months ago, his nomination would have been a non-starter — there is more than a whiff of radicalism in his past. But we are in a new world. Sen. Harry Reid is now absolute monarch of the Senate. Republicans are largely irrelevant. They cannot offer amendments to legislation. They cannot filibuster. I suppose they can write letters to the editor, and march outside the chamber wearing sandwich boards.

Before the Reid invocation of the "nuclear option" eliminating the filibuster, Adegbile would have been considered too controversial. But now, the administration can have its head on nominations.

Adegbile is a passionate advocate for racial quotas in hiring and university admissions, and also urges that employers not be permitted to do background checks on potential hires — presumably because more African-Americans have criminal records than other applicants.


(POSTED IN THIS THREAD FOR THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES: MARC)

He has encouraged the president to nominate judges who recognize that "ratified treaties" are the law of land. Well, no argument there, but he goes further. Adegbile wants judges who will decree that "customary international law" is the law of the United States as well, asking for God only knows what mischief. Who would decide what "customary international law" is? By what authority would it be imposed on Americans? Investor's Business Daily reports that Adegbile supports George Soros's campaign to create a new "progressive" constitution. If that doesn't make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, you're not paying attention.

It was Adegbile's role in the case of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal that incurred the wrath of Justice Department employees though. The union representing FBI agents, which rarely expresses itself on nominations, along with the Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement groups, have written to Attorney General Eric Holder to protest Adegbile's nomination. Carl Rowan Jr., a former deputy U.S. marshal, FBI special agent and chief of police, wrote: "He isn't the first questionable nomination made by a president who ... seems drawn to those with radical backgrounds, but this one is an open slap in the face to everyone in law enforcement."

Abu-Jamal has long been a poster boy for the radical left in America. His fine speaking voice (he had been a radio host), long dreadlocks, Muslim moniker (he was born Wesley Cook), radical memberships (in the Black Panthers and black liberation group MOVE), and admiration of Mao Zedong made him irresistible to the Ed Asners, Jonathan Kozolses, National Lawyers Guilds, Michael Moores and NPRs of the world. But until this administration, most mainstream liberals would have steered clear.

Adegbile revealed a great deal about himself by choosing to have the NAACP Legal Defense Fund join the campaign to defend Abu-Jamal. There are many miscarriages of justice that cry out for redress, but Abu-Jamal's 1981 conviction for killing 25-year-old Philadelphia policeman Daniel Faulkner is one of the most litigated in American jurisprudence. The verdict was reviewed or allowed to stand by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court, among others, over the course of more than 30 years.

On Dec. 9, 1981, at about 4 a.m., Faulkner pulled over a driver named William Cook (Abu-Jamal's brother) for driving the wrong way on a one-way street. Cook threw a punch at Faulkner, who then hit Cook with his flashlight. At that point, four eyewitnesses said that Abu-Jamal, who had been across the street, fired at Faulkner hitting him in the back. Though wounded, Faulkner fired back at Abu-Jamal, hitting him in the chest, before falling onto his back. Abu-Jamal approached the wounded officer and holding his gun 18 inches in front of Faulkner's face, fired the shots that killed him.

Ballistics confirmed that the bullets that killed Faulkner were from Abu-Jamal's gun, found with him at the scene.

Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death, but decades of litigation and agitation on his behalf delayed the sentence. He has claimed ineffective assistance of counsel (though at one point he represented himself), racism by the judge, racism in jury selection — the usual gamut. In 2011, prosecutors announced that they would no longer pursue the death penalty.

Every defendant deserves a defense, of course. But Abu-Jamal has had a celebrity lineup of lefty lawyers. That Adegbile wanted to join their ranks is a sign of his sympathies. That Obama believes Adegbile can get confirmed by the neutered Senate is a sign of the times.

To find out more about Mona Charen and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2014 CREATORS.COM

« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 05:30:01 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33614


« Reply #204 on: March 13, 2014, 10:31:14 AM »

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/annexation_calls_into_question_the_foundation_of_modern_statehood
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33614


« Reply #205 on: March 15, 2014, 05:10:25 PM »

Hat tip to CCP:


*****U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet

 Joe Raedle/Getty Images -  Pressure to let go of the final vestiges of U.S. authority over the system of Web addresses and domain names that organize the Internet has been building for more than a decade.

By Craig Timberg,   
 
U.S. officials announced plans Friday to relinquish federal government control over the administration of the Internet, a move that pleased international critics but alarmed some business leaders and others who rely on the smooth functioning of the Web.

Pressure to let go of the final vestiges of U.S. authority over the system of Web addresses and domain names that organize the Internet has been building for more than a decade and was supercharged by the backlash last year to revelations about National Security Agency surveillance.

Move comes after revelations about National Security Agency surveillance.

The change would end the long-running contract between the Commerce Department and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based nonprofit group. That contract is set to expire next year but could be extended if the transition plan is not complete.

“We look forward to ICANN convening stakeholders across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition plan,” Lawrence E. Strickling, assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information, said in a statement.

The announcement received a passionate response, with some groups quickly embracing the change and others blasting it.

In a statement, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) called the move “consistent with other efforts the U.S. and our allies are making to promote a free and open Internet, and to preserve and advance the current multi-stakeholder model of global Internet governance.”

But former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) tweeted: “What is the global internet community that Obama wants to turn the internet over to? This risks foreign dictatorships defining the internet.”

The practical consequences of the decision were harder to immediately discern, especially with the details of the transition not yet clear. Politically, the move could alleviate rising global concerns that the United States essentially controls the Web and takes advantage of its oversight position to help spy on the rest of the world.

U.S. officials set several conditions and an indeterminate timeline for the transition from federal government authority, saying a new oversight system must be developed and win the trust of crucial stakeholders around the world. An international meeting to discuss the future of Internet is scheduled to start on March 23 in Singapore.

The move’s critics called the decision hasty and politically tinged, and voiced significant doubts about the fitness of ICANN to operate without U.S. oversight and beyond the bounds of U.S. law.



“This is a purely political bone that the U.S. is throwing,” said Garth Bruen, a security fellow at the Digital Citizens Alliance, a Washington-based advocacy group that combats online crime. “ICANN has made a lot of mistakes, and ICANN has not really been a good steward.”

Business groups and some others have long complained that ICANN’s decision-making was dominated by the interests of the industry that sells domain names and whose fees provide the vast majority of ICANN’s revenue. The U.S. government contract was a modest check against such abuses, critics said.

“It’s inconceivable that ICANN can be accountable to the whole world. That’s the equivalent of being accountable to no one,” said Steve DelBianco, executive director of NetChoice, a trade group representing major Internet commerce businesses.

U.S. officials said their decision had nothing to do with the NSA spying revelations and the worldwide controversy they sparked, saying there had been plans since ICANN’s creation in 1998 to eventually migrate it to international control.

“The timing is now right to start this transition both because ICANN as an organization has matured, and international support continues to grow for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance,” Strickling said in a statement.

Although ICANN is based in Southern California, governments worldwide have a say in the group’s decisions through an oversight body. ICANN in 2009 made an “Affirmation of Commitments” to the Commerce Department that covers several key issues.

Fadi Chehade, president of ICANN, disputed many of the complaints about the transition plan and promised an open, inclusive process to find a new international oversight structure for the group.

“Nothing will be done in any way to jeopardize the security and stability of the Internet,” he said.

The United States has long maintained authority over elements of the Internet, which grew from a Defense Department program that started in the 1960s. The relationship between the United States and ICANN has drawn wider international criticism in recent years, in part because big American companies such as Google, Facebook and Microsoft play such a central role in the Internet’s worldwide functioning. The NSA revelations exacerbated those concerns.

“This is a step in the right direction to resolve important international disputes about how the Internet is governed,” said Gene Kimmelman, president of Public Knowledge, a group that promotes open access to the Internet.

Verizon, one of the world’s biggest Internet providers, issued a statement saying, “A successful transition in the stewardship of these important functions to the global multi-stakeholder community would be a timely and positive step in the evolution of Internet governance.”

ICANN’s most important function is to oversee the assigning of Internet domains — such as dot-com, dot-edu and dot-gov — and ensure that the various companies and universities involved in directing digital traffic do so safely.

Concern about ICANN’s stewardship has spiked in recent years amid a massive and controversial expansion that is adding hundreds of new domains, such as dot-book, dot-gay and dot-sucks, to the Internet’s infrastructure. More than 1,000 new domains are slated to be made available, pumping far more fee revenue into ICANN.




Major corporations have complained, however, that con artists already swarm the Internet with phony Web sites designed to look like the authentic offerings of respected brands.

“To set ICANN so-called free is a very major step that should done with careful oversight,” said Dan Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers. “We would be very concerned about that step.”

 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33614


« Reply #206 on: March 28, 2014, 04:46:17 PM »



President Obama Wins One

President Obama won a significant victory in the United Nations yesterday.

President Putin found himself surprisingly isolated.

I am often critical of President Obama and his foreign policy team but when he gets one right, he deserves recognition and the event deserves some notice.
When the United Nations votes to repudiate Putin's takeover of Crimea -- and does so by a ten to one margin -- something good has happened.

Votes in the United Nations General Assembly are expressions of sentiment. They are not legally binding. Only the Security Council -- in which Russia and China have vetoes, as do the United States, Great Britain, and France -- can pass a binding resolution.

Nonetheless a decisive General Assembly vote is psychologically useful.

Yesterday's vote in the General Assembly was so one-sided that I was startled. I can't remember the last time the United States had an almost ten-to-one vote for its position.

The actual vote was 100 "Yes" to 11 "No" with 58 abstentions and 25 countries not voting. Abstention is a method of voting without taking sides. The non-voting countries are overwhelmingly small and their government may not have been able to issue instructions in a timely manner or they may have wanted to avoid offending anyone by simply hiding.

The most startling result was the tiny number of countries who sided with Russia in voting "No". The pro-Putin alliance consisted of Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.

Putin has to be a little sobered by being reduced to an alliance of the outcast, the self-destructive and the decaying. This is a long fall from the glory days of the Soviet Union in the United Nations.

The Obama Administration, on the other hand, has to worry about two sets of countries that abstained and refused to vote against the Russian takeover of Crimea.
First, some of the largest and most important countries in the world, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa abstained. These are big countries with big populations and big economies. Their abstention is not a good sign and indicates some space for Putin to gain allies.

Second, and in some ways more troubling, are the countries in which we have invested - and in some cases for which we have bled - who refused to stand with us. Look at Afghanistan, Egypt, El Salvador, Iraq, and Pakistan. If we haven't earned the right to expect some support from these countries, something is seriously wrong.
Even with these exceptions, this is still a significant psychological victory and vividly signals how isolated Putin is in his Crimean adventure. It has to cause some of the Moscow leadership to urge caution before undertaking more adventures.

President Obama deserves credit for following through on a political-diplomatic strategy which has led to a significant psychological victory.

Your Friend,
Newt
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12509


« Reply #207 on: March 28, 2014, 10:06:26 PM »

The only thing more meaningless is Buraq's Nobel Peace prize.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33614


« Reply #208 on: April 14, 2014, 05:11:33 PM »

Keeping the Internet Free—for Now
The Commerce Department has second thoughts about surrendering America's online oversight.
By
L. Gordon Crovitz
April 13, 2014 6:51 p.m. ET

Less than a month after announcing its plan to abandon U.S. protection of the open Internet in 2015, the White House has stepped back from the abyss. Following objections by Bill Clinton, a warning letter from 35 Republican senators, and critical congressional hearings, the administration now says the change won't happen for years, if ever.

"We can extend the contract for up to four years," Assistant Commerce Secretary Lawrence Strickling told Congress last week, referring to the agreement under which the U.S. retains ultimate control over the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, known as Icann. If the administration makes good on that reassurance, it would punt the decision to 2019 and the next president.

Mr. Strickling originally linked the end of U.S. control to the September 2015 expiration date of the current Icann agreement. He backtracked at a Hudson Institute conference last week: "We did not intend that to be a deadline after which 'bad things' would happen. There has been some misapprehension that we were trying to impose a deadline on this process. We weren't." Fadi Chehade, Icann's CEO, agreed. "There is no deadline," he said. "The U.S. has many years on the contract."

In an interview, Mr. Chehade assured me that he understands why supporters of the open Internet want the U.S. to retain its oversight role, which keeps countries like Russia and China from meddling. "I'm worried, too," he said. "There's no question that governments like power and certain governments will always try to take control of the Internet, so we will have to be careful."

The Commerce Department tasked Icann to come up with a plan to invite authoritarian governments to participate while still keeping the Internet open. This is likely impossible—and wholly unnecessary. Nongovernmental "multi-stakeholders," such as engineers, networking companies and technology associations, now run the Internet smoothly. They are free to do so because the U.S. retains ultimate control over Internet domains, blocking authoritarian regimes from censoring or otherwise limiting the Internet outside their own countries.

The Obama administration proposal would have treated other governments as equal stakeholders, turning the concept of private-sector self-governance on its head. Robert McDowell, a former commissioner at the Federal Communication Commission, pointed out at the Hudson Institute event that "'multi-stakeholder' historically has meant no government," not many governments.

Mr. Strickling tried to deflect criticism in his testimony: "No one has yet to explain to me the mechanism by which any of these individual governments could somehow seize control of the Internet as a whole." The senior State Department official involved in Internet governance, Daniel Sepulveda, similarly claimed at the Hudson Institute: "Governments can no more take over Icann than Google GOOGL +1.38% can take over Icann."

These are false assurances. Steve DelBianco of the NetChoice trade association gave this example in congressional testimony: Under Icann rules, a majority of governments can simply vote to end the current consensus approach and switch to majority voting. China and Iran are already lobbying for this change. Russia, China and other governments switched to majority voting to outfox the U.S. at a conference of the International Telecommunications Union, a United Nations agency, in 2012. Mr. Sepulveda called that an "anomaly," but the result was an 89-55 vote for a treaty giving U.N. legitimacy to governments cutting off the open Internet in their countries. This division of the Internet into open and closed networks goes into effect next year.

The Obama administration somehow thinks sacrificing U.S. control of Icann will satisfy regimes eager further to undermine the open Internet. Mr. Strickling argues: "Taking this action is the best measure to prevent authoritarian regimes from expanding their restrictive policies beyond their borders." The opposite is true. Granting these countries access to Icann and the root zone filenames and addresses on the Internet would give them the potential to close off the global Internet, including for Americans, by deciding rules for how all websites anywhere must operate.

The letter sent by Republican senators identified a dozen criticisms of the plan. They asked why it's in the U.S. interest to cede control and how control could be regained once lost.

The senators also asked to see the legal opinion claiming the executive branch has the power to transfer control of the Internet without congressional approval. A bill called the Internet Stewardship Act was introduced in the House to mandate congressional approval before any change is made. Unanimous congressional resolutions starting in 2005 have called on the U.S. to retain control over Icann.

If Mr. Obama still thinks giving up U.S. protection of the open Internet and its multi-stakeholder community is such a great idea, he should ask Congress to vote on it. He won't, because there is zero chance that an Abandon the Internet Act would ever pass
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33614


« Reply #209 on: August 04, 2014, 01:30:03 AM »

The point being made here would have been much better served by a different tone of voice, but the point remains

http://madworldnews.com/german-general-us-army/
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2168


« Reply #210 on: August 04, 2014, 05:34:28 AM »

The point being made here would have been much better served by a different tone of voice, but the point remains

http://madworldnews.com/german-general-us-army/

From the article:

"This is the first time since the arrival of US forces in Europe on D-Day during WWII, and the first time in history a non-American has EVER been placed in charge of our forces."

Except for these times: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/29/karl-rove/karl-rove-says-american-troops-have-never-been-und/. There's this, too: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/doctrine/research/p176.pdf.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33614


« Reply #211 on: August 04, 2014, 11:35:01 AM »

Good catch BD.

One suspects the recent contratemps regarding our listening in to Merkel etc had something to do with this.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33614


« Reply #212 on: November 10, 2014, 11:26:44 AM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/05/voters-in-this-state-overwhelmingly-pass-amendmnet-to-ban-sharia-law-other-foreign-laws-here-are-the-details/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6550


« Reply #213 on: April 16, 2015, 11:11:31 AM »

Other than climate change, getting economic sanctions removed from the world's number one sponsor of terror is the highest priority of this administration.  Pres. Obama is putting the judgment of his "P5+1" group ahead of US people, congress or Senate ratification.  Of the P5, it turns out Russia was chomping at the bit to sell them missiles and same for China with nuclear technology sales.  And Germany has historically been the biggest exporter to Iran.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/14/europe/russia-iran-air-defense-system-sale/
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-to-build-new-nuke-plants-in-iran/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/04/germany-economy-iran-idUSL6N0SU20220141104
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/5/irans-nuclear-program-helped-by-china-russia/?page=all

Shouldn't at least Russia and China recuse themselves from this process given these facts.  Of course that is a joke, they aren't allies of ours or interested in peace or western security in the first place.  So why do we keep agreeing to this type of phony security framework?

The UN can't be discredited anymore than it has been already - with the Iraq 'oil for food' scandal, the phony UN IPCC reports, the use of the podium by tyrants and bloody dictators, and so many other scandals and problems.   Are there not some basic values a nation must embrace to get a seat at the table?

Let's move past the old, counter-productive framework and create a new one for real international cooperation.  Leave the UN in place so that places like Burundi, Djibouti and Malawi all have a place to talk.  But remove US financial support down to what is commensurate with our one vote.  Then form new organizations with real allies who actually do share our values.   How about putting Japan, India, Taiwan, Israel and Canada on the new security council along with the US and our European allies, for starters.  The topics to address would include how to contain countries like Russia and China.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33614


« Reply #214 on: April 20, 2015, 04:00:40 PM »

The idea of developing an alternative/competing institution to the UN makes sense to me, though the execution of this would need nuance of a level that seems well above the capacity of our current leadership in either party.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33614


« Reply #215 on: May 01, 2015, 05:23:41 PM »


https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/993775303968399/

Also, Dick Morris says that it will allow free movement of labor as in the EU.  I've not seen this stated elsewhere.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12509


« Reply #216 on: May 01, 2015, 07:21:44 PM »


https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/993775303968399/

Also, Dick Morris says that it will allow free movement of labor as in the EU.  I've not seen this stated elsewhere.


If that evil dwarf is against it, it is probably a good thing.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33614


« Reply #217 on: May 12, 2015, 11:06:37 PM »

Patriot Post

The Senate voted 98-1 Thursday to approve a bill giving Congress 30 days to examine the pending nuclear deal with Iran and to express its disapproval through the resolution process. Tom Cotton (R-AR) was the lone opposing vote, a symbolic gesture of protest that the bill was not crafted more strongly. The bill, authored by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN), says nothing about Iran’s continued sponsorship of terrorism, for example, or its refusal to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. Yet Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called the bill “worthy of our support,” claiming it “offers the best chance we have to provide the American people and the Congress they elect with power to weigh in on a vital issue.”

Unfortunately, it’s just the opposite. Instead of the constitutionally required two-thirds majority to approve a treaty, this bill means Barack Obama’s deal-that’s-not-a-treaty will a require two-thirds majority to reject it.

One of the issues is U.S. sanctions on Iran put in place by Congress, as opposed to other sanctions put in place by executive order or by the UN Security Council. Republican senators, led by Cotton, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, want to prevent Obama from giving away the farm by removing all U.S. sanctions as soon as a nuclear deal is signed. Obama has repeatedly claimed sanctions can “snap back” if Iran is found to be cheating and that he has the authority to remove all U.S. sanctions — including those passed by Congress — with a wave of his hand. Court jester Joe Biden and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew recently advanced that argument in a speech before the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, claiming both U.S. and international sanctions could be reinstated quickly, and without serial miscreants China or Russia being able to veto such a move.

And speaking of a veto, 150 congressional Democrats sent a letter to Obama Thursday making clear they would support him if he vetoed a congressional resolution disapproving the nuclear deal. With enough Democrat signatures to guarantee a presidential veto would stand, the letter virtually preempts any significant action by Congress to stop Obama from throwing away the most effective tool the world has in forcing Iran to meet its Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations. It’s also yet another example that Obama and his friends in Congress are so desperate to get a deal that they are willing to accept even a very bad one.

Still, we remain guardedly optimistic that the June 30 deadline will not yield a final agreement, as Iran has consistently and emphatically rejected the requirement for unfettered, intrusive inspections, without which no deal is possible. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has also demanded repeatedly that all sanctions be dropped permanently the moment a deal is signed, something we still hope even Obama and his sycophants won’t accept. But it remains one of the most sorry spectacles in recent memory to see the leader of the free world and his fellow travelers in Congress working so hard to ensure the world’s number-one sponsor of terror is rewarded, not punished, for its intransigence.


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33614


« Reply #218 on: May 21, 2015, 06:55:20 PM »

Dear Friend,

The House just passed HR 1191 that purports to restore Congressional oversight over the President’s negotiations with Iran’s fascist-Islamic leaders.  I believe it completely missed the point.
 
Any agreement with Iran’s leaders is meaningless, because their word is meaningless.  Iran’s government is a notoriously untrustworthy rogue state that has made it unmistakably clear that it intends to acquire nuclear weapons and once acquired, to use them.  The only way to avert this nightmare -- short of war -- is for the regime to collapse from within. 
 
Our Constitution requires that any treaty be approved by 2/3 of the Senate.  This wasn’t going to happen, so Mr. Obama simply redefined the prospective treaty as an agreement between leaders – an agreement with no force of law and no legal standing.
 
I fear that Congress has just changed this equation by establishing a wholly extra-constitutional process that lends the imprimatur of Congress to these ill-advised negotiations with no practical way to stop the lifting of sanctions.  Instead of 2/3 of the Senate having to approve a treaty as the Constitution requires, this agreement takes effect automatically unless 2/3 of both houses reject it – a complete sham.
 
I fear that this bill gives tacit approval to extremely harmful negotiations that Congress instead ought to vigorously condemn and unambiguously repudiate.
 
We can only pray that in the days ahead, what Churchill called “the Parliamentary democracies” will regain the national leadership required to prevent a repetition of the Munich Accords in the Middle East.
 
That will require treating the Iranian dictatorship as the international pariah that it is.  And it will require providing every ounce of moral and material support that the Iranian opposition needs to rid their nation of this fascist-Islamic dictatorship, to restore their proud heritage and to retake their place among the civilized nations of the world.

Sincerely,

 

Tom McClintock
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33614


« Reply #219 on: May 28, 2015, 05:00:58 PM »

TPP Not About Trade
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on May 26, 2015
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has nothing to do with trade.

While it officially embraces 11 countries plus the U.S., 76 percent of our trade with these nations is with Mexico and Canada, already covered by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Any export growth is likely to have been already covered by NAFTA, making the TPP irrelevant to our trade relations.

The TPP is nothing but an effort by the globalists to circumvent American sovereignty, transferring a host of issues from the control of the U.S. Congress and the various state legislatures to international trade courts.

Start with the fact that nobody knows what is in the TPP. President Obama will not let anyone see it. Indeed, many of the provisions are said to be aspirational, setting policy goals and leaving it to the trade courts to sort out. Any assurance that the treaty curbs currency manipulation is fanciful. The courts can interpret it any way they want. Indeed, the International Monetary Fund now does so, preventing any effort to restrict Chinese manipulation, despite overwhelming evidence that it is happening.

But the main impact of the TPP is to create legal obstacles in the way of American attempts to regulate access to our market.

Does American or state law restrict genetically modified food? The TPP won't permit it.

Does the U.S. Congress impose limitations on the "free flow of labor" between America and Mexico? The TPP can stop it.

Will Congress refuse to take action to restrict greenhouse gas emissions? Lawmakers can be required to under the environmental provisions of the TPP.

Obama has labored long and hard to strip Congress of its authority over immigration, emissions and the environment, food regulations and energy policy. Congress, in turn, has worked to take away state power over insurance regulation and banking. Now comes the coup de grâce: a treaty taking many of these powers away from the United States -- executive and legislative branches -- and state government.

The long-term goal of the globalists is an international rule of law unaccompanied by democracy. Because there is no global forum for the manifestation of worldwide popular will, this formula leads to rule by bureaucrats: those who know best. It is government by a new aristocracy of civil servants and technicians.

Why are they so eager to pre-empt the power of elected bodies? Steeped in the traditions of opposition to democracy, they regard the will of the people as unpredictable and subject to demagoguery. The French and the British have always used their civil service to insulate their countries from the ravages of ambitious populist politicians. Germany has a well-deserved suspicion of popular sovereignty, and Japan has always been ruled by its bureaucracy.

Multinational corporations find bureaucrats easy to control, subject as they are to the influences of the revolving door between regulators and those they regulate. Coming from industry or planning to return there, the supposedly disinterested bureaucrats are anything but impartial.

What is incomprehensible is why normally trustworthy Republican senators and congressmen are falling in line behind Obama. Hasn't this president stripped our nation of enough power? Has he not tipped the system of checks and balances all out of kilter? Are we to trust him with more power? Are the Republicans to vote him more power?

Under fast-track authority he can negotiate anything he wants, put it in a treaty, jam it through Congress and make it the law of the land, permanently. Don't Republicans see what they are doing in handing him this kind of power?

In the hands of other presidents, fast-track made sense. Before the development of the World Trade Organization, free trade deals were the only way to stop a world of tariffs and prosperity-killing regulations. But now, the era of tariffs is over, and trade deals are really about sovereignty and power.

Don't hand over more of American sovereignty, particularly under this president!
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4496


« Reply #220 on: May 29, 2015, 09:51:32 AM »

This explains 100% the reason why Brock is shoving it down our throats in secret.   
There is no way Brock is pushing it and it will be good for Americans.  Zero chance. 
No doubt rumors that it will help illegals have basis of truth to it.   Cruz can say that President should pledge that he cannot do anything unilaterally towards this end but says nothing about it already being in the agreement buried on page 50,000 somewhere that it is already the case.
The Republicans are sell outs. 

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33614


« Reply #221 on: June 01, 2015, 12:06:56 PM »



http://www.dickmorris.com/the-trade-agreement-fraud-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33614


« Reply #222 on: June 11, 2015, 07:19:35 PM »

This is from a Tea Party site of uneven reliability:  http://www.tpnn.com/2015/06/10/obamatrade-will-give-free-rein-to-obama-regarding-amnesty/


Obamatrade Will Give Free Rein To Obama Regarding Amnesty

June 10, 2015 By Colleen Conley
FacebookTwitterMore3.8K

Screen Shot 2015-06-10 at 3.07.38 PMTucked inside the secretive Obamatrade agreement about which Congress has been debating are broad new powers giving the President free rein over matters of illegal immigration.

A recent Wikileaks document dump on the dubious deal, described by some as more of a “treaty akin to the European Union” has prompted much commentary in the mainstream media, but little has been mentioned about the immigration chapter contained within.

Until now.

Fortunately, Breitbart looked deep within the documents and uncovered that the president’s “Trade in Services Act (TiSA) documents, one of the three different close-to-completely-negotiated deals that would be fast-tracked making up the president’s trade agreement, show Obamatrade in fact unilaterally alters current U.S. immigration law. TiSA, like TPP or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) deals, are international trade agreements that President Obama is trying to force through to final approval. The way he can do so is by getting Congress to give him fast-track authority through TPA.”

Disturbingly, TiSA is even more secretive than TPP. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill can review the text of TPP in a secret, secured room inside the Capitol—and in some cases can bring staffers who have high enough security clearances—but with TiSA, no such draft text is available.

Voting for TPA, of course, would essentially ensure the final passage of each TPP, T-TIP, and TiSA by Congress, since in the history of fast-track any deal that’s ever started on fast-track has been approved.

Roughly 10 pages of this TiSA agreement document leak are specifically about immigration.

“The existence of these ten pages on immigration in the Trade and Services Agreement make it absolutely clear in my mind that the administration is negotiating immigration – and for them to say they are not – they have a lot of explaining to do based on the actual text in this agreement,” Rosemary Jenks, the Director of Government Relations at Numbers USA, told Breitbart News following her review of these documents.

Obama will be able to finalize all three of the Obamatrade deals, without any Congressional input, if Congress grants him fast-track authority by passing TPA.

It is up to the House to put the brakes on Obama’s unilateral power, as the Senate passed the TPA last month. The House could vote as early as Friday on fast-track, but may head into next week. By all counts, it’s going to be a very tight vote—and may not pass. It remains to be seen what will happen in light of leaks about things like the immigration provisions of TiSA—which deals with 24 separate parties, mostly different nations but also the European Union.

In 2003, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution that said no immigration provision should be in trade agreements – and in fact, former Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) voted for this resolution.

Obama has told members of Congress very specifically the U.S. is not negotiating immigration – or at least is not negotiating any immigration provisions that would require us to change our laws.  Of course, this is yet another lie by an Administration that does so with impunity.

Obama is once again attempting to circumvent the Constitution, this time with the express consent of a Republican majority Congress.  Our representatives need to be told NOW that any legislation relinquishing such powers to the executive branch is unconscionable, and a violation of their constituents’ trust.  Sign The Tea Party petition now to STOP OBAMATRADE!




Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6550


« Reply #223 on: June 11, 2015, 10:27:54 PM »

I don't understand the politics of this decision at all.  While I watched Dick Morris, I listened to Mark Levin on radio make the same points.  They are so specific about what this and say supporters haven't read it because no one has.  Well how do THEY know what is in it then.

Of course we don't trust Obama.  But authority to negotiate a trade agreement for an up or down vote should include strict parameters from which to negotiate a trade agreement.  In other words, an agreement named a trade agreement that includes non-trade items like all of what Dick Morris claims, giving away sovereignty etc., will NOT be brought before the House or Senate for an up and down vote.  If it covers immigration issues too or changes our constitutional process, overrides congressional powers, any of these things, then it shall be amended.  Put that in there and then give him the authorization.

Republicans have the majority in both the House and the Senate right now.  They will have 60 days to read and argue it.  Too bad Republicans can't trust Republicans to vote down a bad agreement. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33614


« Reply #224 on: June 12, 2015, 04:39:03 PM »

Morris wrote this based upon a mistaken report that the bill had passed.
=======================================================

The Disgraceful Trade Vote
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on June 12, 2015
All but 54 courageous Republicans sided with President Obama to approve giving this president fast track authority to OK trade deals.

As a result, trade pacts will require only a majority vote in each house rather than the two-thirds specified for treaties in the Constitution. (I did not realize this!!!) And no amendments will be allowed.  Debate will be limited and no filibusters permitted.

The spectacle of Republicans, led by Paul Ryan, fighting to give this president more power -- and Congress less -- is revolting.

And there is nothing to stop him from inserting anything he wants in the trade pacts.  He can use them to advance his climate change agenda or to allow unrestricted immigration (free flow of labor).  Obama promises not to do so, but what are his commitments worth?

So now don't trust Speaker John Boehner or Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or Ryan when they protest Obama's executive power grabs.  They handed him this one.

And it isn't about trade.  75% of the trade covered is with Canada and Mexico.  We already have NAFTA guaranteeing free trade with them.  This is about permitting a treaty to override the ability of state legislatures and Congress to govern such areas as genetic modification, intellectual property, and the like.  It is a fraud and the Republicans who voted for it all deserve primary fights!
« Last Edit: June 12, 2015, 05:38:37 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33614


« Reply #225 on: June 25, 2015, 10:43:39 AM »

http://www.dickmorris.com/how-fast-track-allows-massive-immigration-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!