Obama Hauls Arizona Before the UN Human Rights Council

Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports

Apparently Barack Obama is not content to make a federal case out of his immigration feud with Arizona; he just made it an international one.

The president’s first-ever report on U.S. human rights to the UN Human Rights Council contains a rich vein of offensive material. So far, one aspect has not been reported: our petty president used the situation to bash Arizona’s immigration law — and possibly transfer jurisdiction over the law from Arizona to the UN. Throughout the report, which sounds like an Obama campaign speech, the president discusses “the original flaw” of the U.S. Constitution, America’s tolerance for slavery, and his version of our long and despicable history of discriminating against and oppressing minorities, women, homosexuals, and the handicapped. After each complaint, he addresses how he is delivering us from ourselves, patting himself on the back for such initiatives as ending “torture,” promoting Affirmative Action, and passing health care legislation.

In his section on “Values and Immigration,” he praised the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to provide better medical care for detainees and increase “Alternatives To Detention” (e.g., letting them go). Then he turned to the one state that has had the temerity to stand in his way of fundamentally transforming the American electorate:

A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.

On Obama’s command, Attorney General Eric Holder has sued the State of Arizona for passing a law that he criticized without reading, and which merely upholds federal law. (He gave sanctuary cities a pass.) He now threatens an additional lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio for “racial profiling” when arresting illegal immigrants near the Mexican border.

Obama’s turns his skirmish with Jan Brewer from a states rights dispute into an international human rights cause. It also places Arizona’s law in the hands of the United Nations.

The national report is but the first step of the international government’s review process. On November 5, the United States will be examined by a troika of UN bureaucrats from France, Japan, and Cameroon (an oppressive nation which is a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference). This trio will consider three items: Obama’s self-flagellating report, reports written about America by UN tribunals or international governing bodies, and testimony from NGOs with a pronounced anti-American bias. It will also consider “voluntary pledges and commitments made by the State,” such as suspending an Arizona state law.

Then the French, Japanese, and Cameroon diplomats will draw up a plan of action for the United States to implement.

Nations are re-examined every four years. The Human Rights Council looks for voluntary compliance. However, its website asserts, “The Human Rights Council will decide on the measures it would need to take in case of persistent non-cooperation by a State with the” World Body.

When the Left cannot win at the ballot box (virtually every time), it overrules the people in the courts. Now that Obama is not sure he can prevail in the courts, he has overruled the American people by hauling Arizona and the two-thirds of Americans who support its law before the United Nations.

The Lawsuit that Could Overturn ObamaCare

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, Floyd Reports

When Missouri voters attempted to stop ObamaCare at the ballot box via the initiative process, the national news media took notice. In the August 3 vote, 7 in 10 voters in the “Show Me State” supported Proposition C, which overturns government mandates requiring health insurance. Proposition C actually bars penalties against people who pay their own health bills without insurance.

On August 2, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled against a U.S. Justice Department request to throw out a lawsuit brought by Virginia against ObamaCare. Virginia is arguing in the lawsuit that the U.S. Congress had unconstitutionally exceeded its powers by forcing individuals to buy insurance.

Hudson wrote, “While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate — and tax — a citizen’s decision not to participate in interstate commerce…”

Hudson continues by saying there is, “some authority arguably supporting the theory underlying each side’s position.” Hudson’s decision sets up the opportunity to have appellate and eventually the Supreme Court decide these issues.

But our personal favorite of the many lawsuits challenging ObamaCare is from Arizona. Yes, the land of immigration enforcement could also be the site of a major constitutional battle about ObamaCare. The citizens of Arizona are restless with their Washington, D.C. overseers.

The Goldwater Institute, a public policy outfit named for Arizona’s most famous son, is taking a different swing at the question.

Representing a local business owner, Nick Coons of Tempe, Ariz., the Goldwater Institute has built an intriguing legal strategy which will shake up the debate: “Mr. Coons pays for all of his medical care out of his own pocket and he wants to continue making his own health care decisions. Under the federal health care bill, Mr. Coons will face significant fines from the IRS if he doesn’t buy a health insurance plan that has been approved by the government by 2014.”

In announcing the lawsuit Coons complained, “The government is making me spend money on something that I don’t want. Is a stranger who works for the government in some other part of the country really going to know what I need? I am the best qualified to make these decisions for myself.”

The Goldwater Institute’s lawyer is well-known constitutional litigator Clint Bolick. Bolick argues, “The new federal law also violates Mr. Coons’ medical privacy by forcing him to disclose his medical records to an insurance company, and those records could be accessed by the federal government and others without his permission.”

We have always been disturbed by the arrogance of government officials that seem to believe they have a right to know the most intimate details of your discussions with your doctor. ObamaCare will violate the sanctity and privacy of the relationship you have with your physician.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution would be shocked by the manipulation we have recently experienced at the hands of Congress, Obama, and out-of-control federal judges. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli sums it all up when he said of ObamaCare’s attempts to regulate the behavior of doing nothing: “Even the king and the parliament acknowledged they didn’t have this power back before the Declaration of Independence.”

Obama Has Lost Eligibility Issue

Joseph Farah, World Net Daily

Just as Richard Nixon lost the battle of Watergate because of cover-up and stonewalling, Barack Obama has lost the battle over his constitutional eligibility for the same sins.

With the latest CNN poll showing only 42 percent of Americans definitively persuaded that he was born in the U.S., those who claimed this wasn’t a “winning issue” have been proven wrong.

Not only is it a winning issue, it is the only issue that can effectively undo the nightmare of the Obama era in one fell swoop.

There would be no need for repealing Obamacare if it turns out his presidency was a sham from the beginning.

There would be no need to wait until Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan retire or die to see them replaced on the Supreme Court if it turns out his presidency was a sham from the beginning….

Read more.

Obama Signs Away Your Rights

With the signing of an under-publicized amendment to Executive Order 12425, Barack Obama has fundamentally altered your constitutional rights. His actions are undermining your rights to protect personal privacy from a foreign internationalist police agency named Interpol. A one-paragraph executive order may seem inconsequential to many, but this action has far-reaching implications and threatens the sovereignty of America.

Obama’s secretive executive order amended an order issued by President Reagan in 1983. Reagan’s order recognized Interpol as an international organization and gave it privileges and immunities commonly extended to foreign diplomats. Reagan opened the door to allow Interpol to operate in partnership with the U.S. but with significant constitutional safeguards. Specifically, Interpol’s property and assets remained subject to search and seizure by American law enforcement, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Interpol had to answer to the FBI and U.S. courts under Reagan’s order. These safeguards were stripped away by Obama’s action the week before Christmas without debate or explanation. Obama picked the holiday season to make this radical change, to minimize media coverage.

This order marks a significant change in federal policy and usurps the constitutional power of our government by yielding it to an international organization. Michael van Der Galien writes, "This foreign law-enforcement organization can operate free of an important safeguard against government and abuse. Property and assets, including the organization’s records, cannot now be searched or seized. Their physical operational locations are now immune from U.S. legal and investigative authorities."

Obama has given an international organization unsupervised freedom to investigate Americans on our own soil without recourse or the supervision of our own government.

Andy McCarthy writing for the National Review asks some very significant questions: "Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media and the American people to scrutinize?"

Interpol is the enforcement arm of the International Criminal Court, or ICC. The United States never signed onto the Rome Treaty, which created the ICC, because of the potential for abuse by foreign interests. Obama has signaled he may sign the treaty over these objections and subject Americans to prosecution overseas in the ICC. This is harmful for two reasons. First, the U.S. Constitution clearly states that it is the supreme law of our land, and allowing the ICC to supersede the U.S. Constitution violates America’s sovereignty. Second, the War on Terror is unpopular with Europeans, and the ICC may attempt to prosecute heroic American soldiers with trumped-up war crimes. Obama is putting brave American men and women at grave risk.

An added wrinkle to this executive order is that Interpol’s operations center for the United States is housed within our own Justice Department. Many of the agents are Americans who work under the aegis of Interpol. This order has potentially created the new civilian security force that Obama proposed during his campaign. This group of law-enforcement officials is no longer subject to the restraints enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

The order guarantees that Interpol officers have immunity from prosecution for crimes they may commit in the United States. Ironically, some Interpol nations are attempting to try American intelligence agents for their work abroad in the War on Terror.

This order shows blatant disregard for the U.S. Constitution. While Obama is extending due process rights to terrorists he is weakening those same rights for American citizens. If a citizen were to be prosecuted by Interpol, their newly granted immunity would interfere with the discovery process. Since Interpol files are immune to disclosure, a citizen could be denied his right to see the information used to prosecute him or her.

Obama’s executive order has done more to weaken civil liberties than the much-maligned Patriot Act. The silence in the mainstream media on this issue should scare all freedom-loving Americans. Obama just signed away parts of our precious legal protections.

————————————————————————————————————

If you liked this article, sign up for my RSS Feed, updated with every new post.

Senate and Obama ignore the Constitution to Socialize Healthcare

In an outrageous example of the abuse of near dictatorial power, the leader of the United States Senate, Harry Reid, forced a vote on nationalized health care. With total disregard for the will of the people and turning a blind eye to the United States Constitution, Reid sought passage for this bill by corrupting the legislative system.

"This process is not legislation. This process is corruption," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, referring to the last-minute blitz of dirty deal making that enabled Obama to lock in the 60 votes needed to pass the bill.

The final hold out was Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson. But he hit the jackpot when they bought his yes vote, scoring $45 million to completely cover Nebraska’s Medicaid bill every year into the indefinite future.

Clearly this deal violates Article 1 Section 9 part 6 of the Constitution which says: “No preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one state over another…” and Article 4 Section 2 which says: “The Citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities of the Citizens in the several states.”

Citizens of Nebraska will now have state medical bills, other states must pay, funded courtesy of the United States government (meaning you and me.) Nebraskans are clearly receiving a special privilege. According to this monstrosity, they are more equal than other Americans.

Sitting on high, the President encouraged this corrupt, ugly spectacle. Not only that, he broke the vow he took to uphold the US Constitution as he raised his hand and recited his oath of office.

While we all sleep, the U.S. Senate is stripping us of our freedom. Clearly the time for impeachment is at hand. Reid and Pelosi deserve to be removed right along with Obama.

All these outrages only fuel our efforts. The citizenry is in full revolt.

I am proud that our campaign for impeachment is growing stronger by the hour. We have surpassed 100,000 signatures and are fast approaching 125,000 signatures. This movement cannot be stopped by the corrupt deals in Washington. We will succeed, and the socialist dreams of our president will end on the ash heap of history.

Thank you for continuing to post the links to the impeachment petition. Remember, most people will not sign until they have seen the link ten times or more, so we need to continue pushing. Here is the link: http://tinyurl.com/ygz4wfe

We have also posted a special page which will provide the HTML code for banner ads. If you have a blog or website, please consider posting these ads. They have been very successful recruiting new people to our cause. Here is the special page:
http://www.c4strategies.com/ImpeachObama/affiliates.html

With gratitude in our hearts from our unprecedented success, we approach the celebration of our Saviors’ birth on Christmas day. The New Year brings us to the next mile-stone of this campaign. If we are to succeed, the 2010 elections must bring to office a pro-impeachment majority.

Every day Barack Hussein Obama occupies the White House, America is in grave danger.

————————————————————————————————————

If you liked this article, sign up for my RSS Feed, updated with every new post.