DONATE

Showing posts with label International Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International Law. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 17, 2019

A Globalist Anti-American Scheme


If you read my blog it is no secret I am a huge President Trump supporter and regard the leadership of the Democratic Party to be witting and maybe in some cases (though can’t think of any) unwitting transform-America Marxists. BUT I am not a registered Republican.

Why?

After President Reagan, GOP Presidents and nominees for President have been largely a disappointment to the Originalism of America’s Founding principles (that Dems so often LIE to defend). After McCain and Romney in varying degrees proved to be Republicans in Name Only (aka not loyal to Conservative Americans) losing to an obvious Marxist liar in Barack Hussein Obama (Old SlantRight blog posts on BHO Marxism: HERE, HERE, HERE & HERE) – more race-baiter than friend of Black-Americans, I became a registered Independent. My only regret with that move is in my State that means I cannot participate in Primary elections.

As you will recall or discover below, one of President Trump’s campaign issues for 2016 was an anti-NAFTA and anti-TPP stand as a bad deal. So, I’m a bit astounded to-date he is supportive of the equally egregious USMCA globalist/sovereignty robbing deal being pushed seemingly by equal manners in the GOP, the Dems and unsurprisingly by the MSM. Justin Smith exposes a glaringly BAD DEAL.

JRH 12/17/19
Your generosity is always appreciated: 
Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 


Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.
****************************
A Globalist Anti-American Scheme
President Trump Has Been Duped

By Justin O. Smith
Sent 12/16/2019 9:44 PM

President Donald J. Trump, "the Great Negotiator", is touting the worse "trade agreement" in U.S. history, after he and Democrats reached an agreement on the ** United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement [aka USMCA] on December 10th 2019, and if this globalist mess is the best he can do, something is dreadfully wrong within his administration. This agreement is the antithesis of America First and merges the worse parts of NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership [aka TPP] that was rejected in 2017, and President Trump has either inadvertently taken his eye off the process, as the globalist wolves entered the hen-house, or he is a willing and complicit actor in a process that destroys U.S. sovereignty. 

In a morning tweet, on December 10th, President Trump hailed the prospect of completing one more campaign promise: "America's great USMCA Trade Bill is looking good."

Robert Lighthizer, the chief trade official leading negotiations for the U.S., stated: "We have created a deal that will benefit American workers, farmers, and ranchers for years to come. This will be the model for American trade deals going forward."

This egregious piece of legislation is set to go to a vote on Thursday December 19th in the House of Representatives, unless something cancels the vote, according to one staffer in Representative Mark Green's office, and it more than likely will pass, since, as of this writing, even some Republicans-In-Name-Only, such as Congressman Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN) -- Tennessee 3rd District, are currently set to vote in favor of its passage. As an aside, I made sure to tell Rep. Fleischmann's staffer that I would in fact travel to his area and work against him, if he votes for this deeply flawed, anti-American piece of ill-conceived crap.

Americans have continuously been told that this renegotiated deal is all about trade and improving life for all North Americans and Mexicans, but it is more than clear that it is really about control. This "deal" is about the total control of all things and all people that fall under its jurisdiction.

A page by page comparison of the 2325 page USMCA and the TPP reveals an extensive overlap. Nearly all the exact same problems inherent in the TPP also are found in the USMCA, in the manifest erosion of national sovereignty, the unrestricted movement of foreign nationals and the de facto facilitation of illegal immigration, collective bargaining for workers and measures to combat climate change.

According to ** this study -- How much of the Transpacific Partnership is in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement? (June 26th 2019) -- conducted by researchers from the University at Ottawa, fifty-seven percent of the text of the USMCA is copied from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a treaty repeatedly described as a "horrible deal" by President Trump. Twenty-nine out of thirty chapters have equivalents in the USMCA and seventy-two percent of the matched USMCA chapters are found in both agreements. Many of the chapter titles are identical and so too are the various articles and clauses they each contain. And upon deep analysis, the textual similarity between the USMCA and the TPP reveal that have a great deal in common; they are of the same generation of treaties, and they do not mark a fundamental rupture in U.S. practices, despite President Trump's rhetoric.

Within days of the release of the first text of the USMCA, Richard Haass, a globalist proponent of the New World Order and president of the Council on Foreign Relations, praised the USMCA due to its alignment with the TPP. According to Haass, "USMCA is NAFTA plus TPP plus a few tweaks".

Take an in depth look at the agreement, and one will discover Chapter 30 establishes a new governing bureaucracy under a Free Trade Commission of unelected and unaccountable men and women overseeing various lower regional committees. Just as initially set forth in the TPP Commission, the Free Trade Commission can make changes to the USMCA without the consent of Congress, and this fact, in and of itself, completely undermines Article I Section 8 of the Constitution and Congressional authority and power to regulate trade with foreign nations.

The United States already has enough problems with an illegal alien invasion of between 22 to 40 million illegals without compounding it by relinquishing any sovereignty and decision making in this regard to an unelected Commission of the USMCA, which very well could be the consequence, if this treaty is ratified by the Senate, after the House passes it. Illegal immigration is certain to be further facilitated by Article 23.8 (Chapter 23) on Migrant Workers and a requirement to "ensure that migrant workers are protected under its (each respective nation's) labor laws, whether they are nationals or non-nationals" (read "illegal aliens" and "foreign nationals"). This would serve to circumvent any determinations by our Congress and federal judiciary regarding the arrival of caravans of illegal aliens from Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador, as well as a final determination on DACA. And making it plain in language identical to language in the TPP, Article 15.5 of the USMCA states: "No party shall adopt or maintain ... a measure that ... imposes a limitation on ... the total number of natural persons that may be employed in a particular financial service sector or that a financial institution or cross-border service supplier may employ ... in the form of numerical quotas or the requirement of an economic needs test." This opens the door for any number of people to be brought across the border for any reason deemed necessary by one or more Parties involved, flooding America with radical Central American socialists. 

[Blog Editor: Interesting perspective on USMCA ending National Sovereignty -  USMCA “Trade Agreement”, the North American Union, an Article V convention, and Red Flag Laws: Connecting the Dots; Posted by TMH – By Publius Huldah; Noisy Room; 12/7/19]

Staying true to other globalist anti-American schemes, the USMCA also forces signatories to submit to international concerns, such as the International Labor Organization, the World Trade Organization and United Nations mandates like the Law of the Sea, that the United States refused to ratify in 1982, along with "sustainable development" -- mentioned no less than nine times in the chapter on the environment -- and International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives directives and edicts, that many of the U.S. states have fought to eradicate over the past decade, after experiencing years of their oppressive nature. [Blog Editor: All related to sovereignty robbing UN Agenda 21, Agenda 2030 et al]

Although the original NAFTA agreement did not contain any directive on the environment in 1994, the USMCA contains a thirty pages in Chapter 24 dedicated to the environment, that mentions "sustainable development" nine times. Page two of this chapter states: "The Parties recognize that a healthy environment is an integral element of sustainable development and recognize the contribution that trade makes to sustainable development." Other similar points address "sustainable fisheries" and the "sustainable use of biodiversity", both of which are aligned with and straight from the United Nation's Agenda 2030; and, it also contains the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation among the Governments of the United States, Canada and the United Mexican States, that has a subsidiary called the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, quite like a supra-EPA for all of North America.

The purpose of the USMCA's environment chapter, according to Article 24.2, is as follows [page 2 of PDF]: " ... to promote mutually supportive trade and environmental policies and practices; promote high levels of environmental protection and effective enforcement of environmental laws; and enhance the capacities of the Parties to address trade-related environmental issues, including through cooperation, in furtherance of sustainable development."

So, the USMCA is essentially calling for the regulation and control over all the waters, lands and organisms across three countries, in much the same way President Obama sought to exert complete control over America through the Water Rules for the United States EPA regulation. The USMCA would strip the United States of control in these areas, through its control over three countries and multi-layers of government overseen and directed by regional government entities. This would effectively put all American lives -- where they live, how they live and what jobs they may perform in any given region -- in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, with little to no real oversight whatsoever.

As far back as the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan was intelligent enough and prescient to recognize the Law of the Sea Treaty as a thinly veiled attempt to force a lurch towards world government and the New World Order later described in glowing terms by President George H.W. Bush, a globalist "Republican", and so Reagan refused to sign it, after Jeanne Kirkpatrick, U.S. Ambassador to the UN from 1981 to 1985, testified before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, in fierce opposition to its ratification. And although Pres. Bush Jr urged its ratification in 2007 and it was once again supported in 2012 by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as of 2019, the U.S. Senate has still refused to ratify the UN convention.

However, in the USMCA's Chapter 24, [Scroll to] Article 24.18, "Sustainable Fisheries Management", the United States, Canada and Mexico are required to adhere to the Law of the Sea Treaty in regards to managing their fishing industries. In other words, the United States will essentially surrender its sovereignty over all its waterways and miles of coastal oceans to the jurisdiction of UN international law, which would be a national security nightmare on too many levels possible to entertain here, all in the name of protecting fish and marine life.


All of this opens a path towards a North American Union, as the USMCA seeks to merge the economies of these three countries into one. Think of it as similar to the authoritarian European Union on steroids, dashing madly along and trampling on each and every inalienable right and each item in our U.S. Bill of Rights along the way.

Is it any wonder that the anti-American Travelers, the Communists and the New World Order globalists are so ecstatic over the creation of this USMCA "New Deal", the old made new?

According to the Huffington Post, "At least half of the men and women standing behind Trump during his Rose Garden ceremony praising the new deal were the same career service staff who negotiated nearly identical provisions in TPP, which Trump had railed against." Trevor Kincaid, one of the group and the lead negotiator for TPP, observed, "It's really the same with a new name."

Doesn't most of America remember just how bad TPP was proven to be? Don't all of You recall how hard freedom loving Americans fought to defeat TPP?

All America must flood the White House and Congress with calls and letters demanding this treaty be completely eradicated and thrown in the trash where it belongs. Remind Trump how he felt about the TPP when he rejected it by executive order in 2017, and explain to him how disastrous the USMCA will be in practice. If he and representatives and senators look at this honestly with America's best interests at heart, they will all take immediate action to terminate this ill-founded evil machination, designed by men who would destroy America.

Lincoln Bloomfield, a longtime State Department bureaucrat and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote a report in 1962, that was financed by the State Department. His report proposed that "ever-larger units evolve through customs unions, confederation, regionalism, etc., until ultimately the larger units coalesce under a global umbrella. America is now witnessing the culmination of those globalists' efforts coming to fruition through the completion of one segment of the "global umbrella" -- a globalist objective -- by way of the USMCA.

Those who created the USMCA have no respect for U.S. sovereignty and the Constitution, no true love for America and no honor, and more than likely, President Trump has been duped by them, since no evidence exists that shows the President has ever supported globalism. More than that, President Trump failed to understand that the management of the entire United States is guided by approximately five pages and a single paged Bill of Rights, rather than over 2000 pages, or that a real free trade agreement keeping with American principles of Liberty would be noted for its absence of rules on trade; and, while it may be hard to move the President to disavow and kill this miserable treaty, he will do it and he must, if he truly decries world government and does not wish to be known as the progenitor of "the worst agreement ever negotiated", akin to the one-worlders and the likes of the Rockefellers and Soros; and in the process, let us place our government back in the hands of “We the People" in 2020, as we hold people and organizations accountable for moving in such a reprehensible, ignoble manner to end our Republic and destroy our Constitution in pursuit of Marxist-Leninism and a global government, actions that most freedom and liberty loving Americans use to call treason.

By Justin O. Smith
++++++++++++++
Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.
_________________________
Edited by John R. Houk
All text embraced by brackets are by the Editor. Unless indicated by ** source links are by the Editor. The Double Asterisks indicates the source is by Justin Smith.

© Justin O. Smith


Wednesday, May 19, 2010

SCOTUS, Life Sentences and International Law



John R. Houk
© May 19, 2010


It is time for a rock and a hard place of what is right and of what is wrong.

At the age of 17 Terrance Graham was given a life sentence for breaking parole. Graham was involved in some armed robberies at age 16 in which there were no deaths. He was sentenced to one year for this. He broke parole when he was caught fleeing the scene from a non-lethal home invasion. In the adult world this would be strike two. I am guessing the seventeen year old Graham was a cocky kid at 17 for the Florida Judge threw the book at him.

Terrance Graham was 16 when he pleaded guilty to attempted robbery of a restaurant in which one of his accomplices hit the restaurant manager over the head with a steel pipe. Graham served one year in jail, then was released on probation. Six months later he was arrested fleeing the scene of an armed home invasion robbery.

The judge revoked his probation, but rejected the four-year prison sentence recommended by the Department of Corrections and instead sentenced Graham, by then 17, to life in prison without parole. "If I can't do anything to help you," said the judge, "then I have to . . . protect the community from your actions."
(NPR 11/9/09)


Graham was informed by the Judge he felt Graham was beyond help and so chose to give the kid a life sentence even though the recommended prison sentence was four years. In the brief articles I’ve read about Graham there is no indication of his actual demeanor during sentencing. Was the 17 year old contrite about his crimes? Did Graham cop an attitude that he was above the law and that he could do whatever he d**ned well pleased because he would just get out and no one could stop him?

The Left is all about the kid was a child in the eyes of the law and you would be imposing cruel and unusual punishment (EIGHTH Amendment) upon someone who does not have the maturity to comprehend the life time consequences of a crime. The Right is all about the Constitution and protection for the community at large rather than stroking a repeat offender already at the age of 17.

So what is right and what is wrong?

On a purely subjective level I have to tell you I can’t see giving a minor under the age of 18 a life sentence without any possibility of parole for a non-lethal crime. I think that tips the scale toward cruel and unusual punishment in relation to the crime committed. On the other hand if a minor committed a heinous murder I do believe considerations for either a life sentence without parole or a death sentence should be considered. Again the circumstances involved for a minor committing the crime should be weighed. Like was it a murder of spontaneous passion or a well calculated premeditated murder. Was the minor afflicted with childhood trauma in which mental health counseling did not reach the minor who turned to murder for whatever level of mental disorder – purely crazy, tired of molestation or beatings, simply a case of a delusional sociopath incapable of feeling emotion and so on. I don’t know that a death sentence should be carried out for a nut case kid who went on a heinous murder rampage. I think a life sentence with the possibility of parole based on clinical findings of counseling should be involved. Again, there should NOT be a life sentence without the possibility of parole. There should never be a life sentence without parole for a non-lethal crime for a juvenile.

Now what about the practice of States utilizing “Three Strikes” in felony convictions for a life sentence? What if the first two strikes occurred when a person was a minor?

Without knowing the law I would have to say the level of offense and the age the kid when the felony occurred should be weighed in Three Strikes cases. For the most part I highly favor the Three Strikes punishment. There is no reason for society to put up with a career criminal who commits felony after felony. Putting up with that makes society crazier than some actual nut cases.

So back to Terrance Graham: should he have been sentenced to life without parole at 17? NO!

The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision indeed ruled that a life sentence without parole was an EIGHTH Amendment violation under the cruel and unusual punishment clause for a minor juvenile. I am a Conservative and I agree with that decision. This is in the right.

The part of the decision I find disturbing is the Supreme Court’s usage of extra-Constitutional Law that was considered as precedent in its ruling in favor of Graham. SCOTUS cited International Law that the U.S. has not bought into via a Senate approved Treaty. In effect SCOTUS – the Branch that exists to protect the Constitution – used case law outside of the United States based on the huge amount of Nation signatories relating to rights for children. This is scary because the rights for children agenda is a Leftist United Nations agenda designed to usurp parental guidance for their children. Again I have to reiterate that America is not a signatory of this U.N. initiative to disrupt parental prerogatives in training a child.

The Judicial Branch of American government in its supreme finality has thus created case law that can be cited in the future by Leftists who can further dilute the U.S. Constitution into a meaningless relic of yesteryear that will be esteemed and honored but not followed according to the Founding Fathers’ original intent.

This is wrong.

JRH 5/19/10

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Thoughts on BHO Immunity Extended to Interpol



John R. Houk
© December 29, 2009


I have to admit I neglect participation in the many Yahoo Groups that I am a member of. The lame reason for this is the management of several blogs including my flagship blog SlantRight.com. Nonetheless fate had its way and I ran into a post at the American Freedoms Yahoo Group pertaining to President Barack Hussein Obama delivering freedom of movement (including immunity) for the European police agency known as Interpol.

I have another admission. I really don’t know much about Interpol except from what I hear from entertainment venues such as motion pictures and television. In entertainment Interpol is often portrayed in a positive light.

Here is an excerpt from Interpol’s about page:

INTERPOL is the world’s largest international police organization, with 188 member countries. Created in 1923, it facilitates cross-border police co-operation, and supports and assists all organizations, authorities and services whose mission is to prevent or combat international crime.

INTERPOL aims to facilitate international police co-operation even where diplomatic relations do not exist between particular countries. Action is taken within the limits of existing laws in different countries and in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. INTERPOL’s constitution prohibits ‘any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.’


The about page goes on to inform of Interpol’s structural make with a brief explanation of the rules it can operate under. It is at the about page that I discovered Interpol’s official name is The International Criminal Police Organization. Here is a link different from Interpol with a brief history.

All the Interpol information appears to indicate a benign organization dedicated to the common good of the international community.

The problem Conservative members have with Interpol is its legal mindset congruent to European, United Nations and repressive Interpol member nations. At best European rule of law is egalitarian with a large dose of everything multiculturally diverse being imposed upon society. At worst Interpol is forced to respect the law systems of repressive regimes like Muslim dominated nations, Marxist regimes and whatever third world despotic nation that joined Interpol’s umbrella of international law. In neither scenario is there a compatibility with United States Constitutional Law.

Centrist egalitarian apologists, U.N. apologists and Leftist apologists only defense seems to be that the Conservative Right is Chicken Little saying the sky is falling. The apologist argument flows something like this: Interpol’s own constitution prohibits the organization from overriding the law enforcement agencies of sovereign nations. Another argument is Interpol is not an international police force with the power to enforce.

Check out this recent reality that international apologists conveniently do not include in their arguments:

During a conference in Singapore this week, delegates to the Interpol-United Nations meeting agreed: the budding global police force needs more power.

According to reports, the international group is aiming to step up its efforts to battle crime worldwide, claiming the need for its own special passports, shared global DNA and biometric information databases, cooperation with the UN’s military arm and much more. “It is the first step toward creating what Interpol calls a ‘global policing doctrine,’” reported the New York Times in an article entitled "Interpol and U.N. Back ‘Global Policing Doctrine.'’’

“As the world’s largest police organization, Interpol needs to remain at the forefront of all activity which enhances member country security and safety,” explained Interpol President Khoo Boon Hui. The organization — officially known as 'THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL POLICE ORGANIZATION - INTERPOL' — is comprised of more than 180 member nations, including a wide array of repressive regimes like China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Sri Lanka (which is currently operating concentration camps), and even Zimbabwe. It was originally founded in 1923 and is based in Lyon, France.

The government ministers and high-level police representatives in attendance endorsed a special declaration that would create a “roadmap” for international police to fulfill their “full role” in so-called “peacekeeping challenges,” an Interpol press release explained. The UN already has over 12,000 civilian law-enforcement officers deployed around the globe.

“The police will be trained and equipped differently with resources,” said Interpol Secretary-General Ronald Noble, known as the “Enforcer” for his role in the infamous Waco siege, murders, and subsequent coverup in his position as Undersecretary of Enforcement at the U.S. Treasury. “When they stop someone, they will be consulting global databases to determine who they are stopping.”

The group also began issuing its own passports on Tuesday, aimed at eliminating visa requirements so global cops can get anywhere quickly. “That a person is traveling with an Interpol passport for official business should be all the information a country needs in order to grant them access,” explained Noble, the first American to head the organization. “By agreeing to waive visas, member countries will ultimately be assisting themselves.”
(New American 10/14/09)


Yes, once again the apologists are either ignorant or are outright deceiving their readers. In the previous excerpt note the concept of increased international police powers and the words “world’s largest police organization.”

Now I have to say kudos to Interpol in its actual crime fighting mandate which has been successful to a certain degree in drug trafficking and human trafficking. But here is something to think about. You have to be aware that many European Leftists (God help us because many American Leftists) are hot to snag Americans in government and/or in the military for war crimes as defined by the International Criminal Court. Meaning those that bury their heads in the sand of Islamic and Palestinian propaganda is bent on prosecuting Americans and not Muslims and not Palestinians for committing global atrocities.

A post attributed to the obvious pseudonym of Mataharley at Flopping Aces draws what I believe to be very significant conclusions to President Barack Hussein Obama signing an Executive Order granting Interpol full immunity in America:

The second is this just may be a great dumping ground for future enemy combatants… alleviating this POTUS of the repercussions of an unsuccessful and controversial prosecution in the US federal justice system.

Both potential “int’l law” scenarios are a win win for the Obama extreme left base – a group feeling they’ve been abandoned by a “central” Obama. To this day, they thirst for Bush’s blood, and those in his administration. Obama can use the int’l court system and regulations to virtually hand them Bush’s head. Voila… a surprise campaign promise fulfilled.

As for Gitmo, for a POTUS who’s greatest skill is voting “present” and passing the buck of responsibility to others, Obama would be grateful not to fill up the cell blocks of a new “Gitmo” located on US soil if he could simply pass them off to the ICC. He again washes his hands of any ill-treatment in the hands of international authorities. If this is the case, there will be some new ROE following soon.

Time will perhaps reveal more what the Obama admin has planned with this subterfuge. Until then, were I the former admin members, I’d be keeping a watchful eye over my shoulder. But what I am most sure about is this Executive Order is not to benefit INTERPOL – who has functioned for decades without these immunities. Executive Order #13524 is all about the power of “appearing powerless” in the court of public opinion.


So check this posited theory. Flopping Aces is saying BHO will satisfy the fringe Left of the Democrats and open the international community to have the ability to come after President Bush and key members of his Administration to satisfy the blood lust of deceived and deceiving Leftists. President BHO will merely can skate in plausible deniability and abrogate American Constitutional Law to the treaty law of the ICC. Yes that is a surrender of sovereignty to global regulation.

Here is the American Freedom’s post that initiated my looking into the amendment to Executive Order 12425.

JRH 12/29/09 (See Also: National Institute of Prevarication and Pajamas Media)