valsword: THE OBAMA TRANSNATIONAL IRONY

By: Marion Valentine
April 19, 2009 at 2:12 pm

Written by Zach Jones

Sovereignty, Eligibility & War crimes

A few weeks ago, Obama selected attorney Harold Koh to be the State Department’s top lawyer; and this pick quickly set off a fire storm of controversy. Evidently, Mr. Koh has on numerous occasions indicated that he believes the Transnational philosophy that espouses supremacy of certain international laws and treaties over the laws and Constitutions of individual nation states, including the United States of America. Given Obama’s repeated assertion that he is also a citizen of the world, this should not come as a surprise but as a wake up call.

What this means is nicely summarized by Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice -

…Now, here's the danger. Dean Koh is a smart guy… But what he is proposing is to take the State Department — he is not going to be a senior lawyer at the State Department, he is going to be the lawyer at the State Department, the chief counsel, and he is basically saying, we take our American experience and if it doesn't mesh with the rest of the world, the rest of the world wins….

Each time Obama agrees to allow the world community (UN et. al.) to set up organizations and courts that can control the regulation of American businesses, financial institutions, environmental concerns, our military, our intelligence agencies, individuals, or trade; all of which should rightfully be within the purview of the individual states and/or the federal government, he is surrendering the sovereignty of both. There will come a point when all the chipping away at sovereignty will leave the United States Constitution as nothing more than a guide or museum artifact.

The left’s assault on the Constitution is unfortunately not limited to their international law deference. Not only are Obama’s actions at this year’s G-20 and selections such as Harold Koh putting at risk the sovereignty of the Constitution of the United States vis-à-vis international laws, regulations and treaties; Obama and Congress appear to be going at break neck speed to usurp and/or trample powers guaranteed to the States under Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Power flows from the people and the states to the federal government and not the other way around as many in Congress believe.

Nancy Pelosi’s government is clearly willing to chip away at powers and rights that historically have been retained by the states and the people. They are attempting to coerce governors to take federal stimulus money, linking federal funding to states passing certain other legislation, over taxing, attempting to regulate/manipulate gun rights, smoking, gas prices, businesses, the internet, contracts, market risk, what is grown, tilling, drilling, energy, etc. though any means possible (direct or indirect, with rewards, punishment and taxation). To get to guns there are rumors that Congress is considering taxing guns and ammunition out of people’s ability to pay.

Governor Rick Perry of Texas recently expressed his concern and support for efforts to push back on the Congressional grab for power:

“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

If fact, scores of states are warning the federal government to back off its encroachment on their power! (Of course the media is ignoring this phenomenon just like they did Rezko, Wright, Larry Sinclair, Ayers, Birth Certificate/Eligibility, Tea Parties, etc.)

So it’s becoming crystal clear that the sovereignty of our Constitution and the powers retained by the states and the people are under attack by the Obama administration.

Not only are these under attack, but also the people themselves, those who are the backbone of this country, are now being attacked and vilified by the federal government. Recently, Homeland Security issued a warning to law enforcement about a rise in “rightwing extremist activity”. In footnotes, they gave as examples of such of rightwing extremist activity, the following:

.."rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority...

…It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration…

According to the report some disgruntled returning war veterans may also swell the ranks of rightwing extremists. Will there be a government test of veteran gruntleness administered by ACORN?

I guess this means that Gov. Perry is now a domestic terrorist. Gov. Perry is also opposed to abortion so I suppose Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will be coming to lock him up. I would bet that his belief in the Second Amendment will be the final strike for Gov. Perry - getting him solitary confinement. It’s a good thing Gov. Perry is not a returning Veteran or who knows what would happen to him.

This morning I heard a National Public Radio report on this Homeland Security document and they too seem eager to take part in getting the tag/label of “rightwing extremist” in the public’s psyche with no mention that millions of patriotic Americans have been included its definition (returning veterans, those supporting limited federal government, those opposed to single issues like illegal immigration, abortion, second amendment? free-speech? Tenth Amendment?).

What has happened to America when the good guys are now portrayed as bad? Obama threw his own grandmother during the election and now he’s throwing millions of grandmothers, grandfathers, dads, moms, sisters, and brothers under the bus for believing in the Constitution.

Nevertheless, the Obama Administration’s current race to yield American sovereignty to the world may lead to some unexpected consequences that might yield a great deal of irony for Mr. Obama and America.

A few days ago I saw a news article that indicated that “Criminal proceedings have begun in Spain against six senior officials in the Bush administration for the use of torture against detainees in Guantánamo Bay. “ This action appears to be based in part on the fact that the United States is a signatory to the 1984 UN Convention against Torture that requires states to investigate allegations of torture committed on their territory or by their nationals, or extradite them to stand trial elsewhere. The argument goes that because these six officials were giving critical advice to President Bush, without which "it would have been impossible to structure a legal framework that supported what happened [in Guantánamo]", they can be held criminally liable.

If Spain issues arrest warrants for Alberto Gonzales, a former White House counsel and attorney general; David Addington, former vice-president Dick Cheney's chief of staff; Douglas Feith, who was under-secretary of defense; William Haynes, former Pentagon general counsel; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee, senior justice department legal advisers – Obama is going to be put in a fairly difficult position.

He will need to either start a criminal investigation here in the United States or deal with an extradition request from Spain. It might be possible for him, with a wink and a nod, to start an investigation and conclude the accused were simply giving advice that every President needs to govern and end it; or he might start an investigation and drag it out until he’s out of office. I believe the wink and nod would have to be there for Obama to pull that off. A simple statement that every President needs candid advice would probably not suffice to keep Spain from proceeding.

If Obama orders a real criminal investigation of these individuals or extradition, surely he will be opening himself up to Dr. Orly Taitz’s eligibility dragon raising its head and talons coming to the aid of these defendants. Dr. Orly Taitz is one of a number of attorneys across the country who have brought over 50 lawsuits challenging Obama eligibility to serve as President of the United States. If Obama does prove to be ineligible to serve as President of the United States - then his every order, directive, instruction, law signed and appointment (including the attorney general) made will be invalid. To date no judge has allowed an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the basic allegation that Obama is not a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution. However, given that the rights of the criminal accused to be heard, confront his accusers and to due process are paramount in American Jurisprudence that might have to change. (It is fairly certain that at least a few of these defendants would have had access to documents and reports raising Obama’s birth certificate controversy.)

What bigger violation of a criminally accused’ rights is there than to be investigated, prosecuted or extradited by a political appointee of a person usurping the Office of the President? Seems like a perfect opportunity to challenge the validity, authority and due process of the entire proceeding; and the legitimacy of the prosecutor. Such a challenge by the accused would also serve to drag out the process and give time rally public opinion against transnationalism. The political witch hunt of the century by a possibly illegitimate President would make great headlines. The defendants might also argue that because of Obama’s apparent lack of eligibility they are being deprived of the right to plead for pardon from the President of the United States. (Attorney General Holder has had volumes of Dr. Orly Taitz’s documentation for weeks/months and has so far failed to make sure the Constitution’s requirements have been complied with. Why? Conflict of interest? Catch 22? Why not recuse himself? )

What a circus it could be, and a circus may be just what is needed to break the media’s wall of silence regarding Obama’s probable lack of eligibility to hold the Office of the President.

In such a circus, the American media would not be able to continue in lockstep to suppress, misrepresent, mischaracterize, and/or gloss over allegations which could very well reveal the biggest fraud in the history of the Republic. How could they resist reporting if there are allegations involving President Bush’s people? The media still hates President Bush and the media’s (CNN, ABC, NBC, MS-NBC, FOX) satellite dishes would quickly surround the court house just like the O.J. trial.

If this does get fully before the public, there is enough evidence and circumstantial evidence to convince most Americans that this issue must be fully addressed in court. Dr. Orly Taitz and Philip Berg need only to get enough people to look behind the curtain, to call their representatives, judges, local newspapers – they need to get to the tipping point.

If Obama denies extradition, then Dr. Orly Taitz and Mr. Berg might want to fly to Spain and make the case (present evidence) that Obama and his appointees do not have the authority to deny Spain’s extradition request? They could make their case to the foreign press. Again, the tipping point needs to be reached to overcome the American media’s mischief.

I guess we can see why Mr. Obama would like for the Constitution to slip into obsolescence and is trying to have Homeland Security lump everyone who opposes him into the camp of rightwing extremists.

Obama may also want to think carefully about some other international laws and institutions that the United States has not yet signed on to.

The main one is the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The International Criminal Court -

Pursuant to the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor can initiate an investigation on the basis of a referral from any State Party or from the United Nations Security Council. In addition, the Prosecutor can initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court received from individuals or organizations (“communications”).

To date, three States Parties to the Rome Statute – Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic – have referred situations occurring on their territories to the Court. In addition, the Security Council has referred the situation in Darfur, Sudan – a non‐State Party.

What’s the basis of these actions? War Crimes

Let’s see, if the facts as alleged are true concerning Obama’s possible lack of eligibility?

What’s the legal ramification in regards to possible war crimes of a person who is knowingly usurping the Office of the Presidency; and thru that authority, the position of Commander In Chief of the United States Military? Would that be a war crime in and of itself should any deaths or injuries occur on the battle field following such a person’s “orders”? What do the civilians in Pakistan think about Obama’s orders to send predator drones to shoot missiles into their villages? If the facts as alleged against Obama’s eligibility are true, would Pakistan think Obama’s orders are lawful or war crimes? Would the International Criminal Court in The Hague think so?

Boy, it’s a good thing for Obama that he has not signed America on to the Rome Statute!

Will the doctrine of Respondeat Superior, also known as command responsibility, protect our military members from liability for following orders from Obama? With so many legitimate questions and allegations about Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” becoming widely known in military and political circles, and his continuing relentless efforts to keep out of public view the documents that can so easily verify the facts of eligibility one way or the other, who knows?

The Nuremberg trials established that persons cannot use the defense that they were only following the orders of their superiors, if that order violates international norms but especially that superiors that ordered, or "should have known," of such violations yet failed to intervene are also criminally liable.

I guess it begs the question – Is it an international norm that a nation’s military must be led and orders issued by one with legitimate authority?

Obama might want to consider these possibilities before signing away any more American sovereignty.

I’m always amazed that Obama would put our military is such a position when all he needs to do to prove his is eligibility is to produce his long form birth certificated and the few other requested documents. That doesn’t seem like a big deal, but putting a young soldier in the position to have to question whether he or she is following “lawful orders” and therefore living up to their duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States is a big deal.

However, if Obama does sign the U.S. on to the Rome Statutes, then at least any American Military defendants should be able to challenge Obama’s ability to commit America to the Rome Statute. Not a “natural born citizen” = not an American President.

Where’s code pink on all this?