Obama Threatens Sovereignty

[Wry Catcher]

The President of the United States does not believe in American Exceptionalism, or sovereignty.

Please define "American Exceptionalism"
The following proves that he opposes it for other nations, as well.

Um, once you've defined "American Exceptionalism", please explain how it applies to "other nations".


1. The term sovereignty was rarely used before the 17th century, the time that people first came to think of representative assemblies as legislatures, reflecting the modern emphasis on law as an act of governing, i.e. government by consent.

Ah yes, the Liberal Paradigm. "Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains" Rousseau devines "the Sovereign" in The Social Contract, do you agree with his idea?

a. This was also the time when professional armies came into being, serving distinct governments, and a seriousness about defense.

The Roman Army wasn't a professional one? The Battle of Hastings occurred in 1066 during the Norman conquest of England, between the Norman-French army of Duke William II of Normandy and the English army under King Harold II

b. And during this period, discussions began about international law, the relations of sovereign nations. In fact, the Declaration of Independence refers to such a law, in its first sentence: “…necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station…” thus assuming that nations, like individuals, have rights.
Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009

That assumption may have convinced individuals, even today the Rights of Nations are determined by the size of their guns even when settled without violence. See the on going controversy on rights today among China, Japan, The Philippines, Vietnam and other sovereign nations on fishing and mineral rights in the region.




2. For Obama, and for Progressives, there are no unalienable rights, only those granted by government. If ' nations ...have rights,' one must ask from what source? For Leftists of any stripe, it is a necessity to remove those rights.

It is interesting that Jefferson described unalienable rights as to life, liberty and happiness; interesting he changed property to happiness. Why?

a. Since the dawn of politics, men have envisioned some global authority that would bring peace and harmony….Utopia. During the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant argued in favor of a “united power and law-governed decisions of a united will” to create “perpetual peace.”
Cosmopolitan citizenship and postmodernity

Those men were dreamers, not doers. Doers who held such dreams generally adopted these two precepts: Might makes Right and The End Justifies the Means.

b. ‘Global governance, the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority, has not existed so far in human history. This is not to say that it hasn’t been debated, called for, fought for…and as recently as the 20th century, the usual method of the Left, enforced on large swaths of the planet….called communism. And 100 million deaths.
Fonte, "Sovereignty or Submission."

Seems as if you left out Hitler himself, or do you beieve he was a leftists too?





3. The next attempt was the European Union. One can see that it is possible to lose sovereignty quickly. Consider the European Union. It began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.

a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!

I'm no expert on International Law, but that sounds correct.

b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!

Link please.

c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.
Rabkin, Op. Cit.




4. But sometimes, the people demand a return to sovereignty: "Twenty Conservative MPs today step up pressure on David Cameron to hold an EU referendum before the next general election.... Mr Cameron has so far pledged only to renegotiate Britain's relationship with Europe and then hold an “in-out” referendum on the new deal by 2017 − meaning today’s expression of support for a new plan puts him under pressure to fast-track a referendum, risking a Coalition split with the Liberal Democrats." Twenty Tory MPs demand Europe referendum bill - Telegraph




5. Now....watch the response of petty tyrant Obama to this shocking demand for liberty: "jPetty tyrant Obama?
a. " So much scandal is swirling around President Obama that it was hard to spot what must be the biggest strategic error of the week — his warning to Prime Minister Cameron that if Britain leaves the European Union it could lose clout in Washington. London Financial Times: “Obama warns Cameron that Britain would lose influence in the US if it pulls out of EU.”

Makes sense, I don't see a threat. The UK is small, the EU is huge. It's all about the Market, correct?

b.... that’s an intervention by Mr. Obama into Britain’s domestic political situation, where a fast-growing political party is challenging Mr. Cameron’s government over the issue of Europe.... So when did it become American policy to set itself against the British voters?" Obama’s British Blunder - The New York Sun

R i d i c u l o u s





One more blunder by Obama in an ever-growing string of foreign policy missteps.

Compare this one to ignoring the pleas of the opposition to the Iranian election. Did Obama ignore plea for help from Iranian opposition in 2009? « Hot Air

This makes no sense and simply demonstrates the hypocrisy of he Obama haters. They damn him for what he does and what he doesn't do. Very adult PC. (sarcasm noted).


This President is oblivious to people's demands for liberty and freedom.
One more of the dreams from his socialist father.

You unbiased opinion? LOL


Will the public understand that they've placed their fate in the hands of one who doesn't understand American values??

Please do tell us what values are American values.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Seriously is there anybody who doubts that Barack Obama doesn't have a lot of respect for our constitution and sovereignty?

Who did he consult before he acquiesced to the United Nations and handed over our troops for them to use to attack Lybia? Was the media informed in advance so the American people could know? No. Was there any resolution in either chamber of Congress to authorize the funds and initiative? No. Was anybody of authority consulted before that action was taken? To the best of my knowledge, no.

When did the United Nations become the authority to direct our President rather than the elected Congress and the American people?

Does anybody doubt that if Congress ever did vote to hand over regulation and management of our national energy grid to foreign powers via Kyoto or other international treaty, that Obama would sign that legislation in a New York minute? That he is doing his damndest to get around Congress to do it anyway?

Does anybody seriously doubt that Obama would like to bypass Congress and the American people altogether and immerse himself in the limelight of a one world government? Can anybody point to any action of his or even any speech that he has given that would reassure me that my perceptions here are all wrong?

Good one, Foxy!


And any who are not familiar with the R2P doctrine that the global governance crowd has been pushing, and using.....


1. The Doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect,” (RtoP) was accepted by the 2005World Summit, and the 2006 Security Council of the UN. The basic ideas are:

a. A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities).
b. The international community has a responsibility to assist peacefully.
c. The international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.



2. “Philanthropist billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the global organization that promotes the military doctrine used by the Obama administration to justify the recent airstrikes targeting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. Also, the Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

Power has been a champion of the doctrine and is, herself, deeply tied to the doctrine's founder.According to reports, Power was instrumental in convincing Obama to act against Libya.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been described by its founders and proponents, including Soros, as promoting global governance while allowing the international community to penetrate a nation state's borders under certain conditions.” Soros Fingerprints on Libya Bombing - George Soros - Fox Nation Soros Fingerprints on Libya Bombing | George Soros | Fox Nation


3. Well, what if the real intentions behind the RtoP was to allow certain forces a ‘moral’ right to ‘interfere’ in the National Sovereignty of a nation they didn’t care for. Say…oh, I don’t know….the United States? Or Israel?

4. “Advocates of RtoP claim that only occasions where the international community will intervene on a State without its consent is when the state is either allowing mass atrocities to occur, or is committing them, in which case the State is no longer upholding its responsibilities as a sovereign.” Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect

 

[PoliticalChic]

The President of the United States does not believe in American Exceptionalism, or sovereignty.

Please define "American Exceptionalism"
The following proves that he opposes it for other nations, as well.

Um, once you've defined "American Exceptionalism", please explain how it applies to "other nations".


1. The term sovereignty was rarely used before the 17th century, the time that people first came to think of representative assemblies as legislatures, reflecting the modern emphasis on law as an act of governing, i.e. government by consent.

Ah yes, the Liberal Paradigm. "Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains" Rousseau devines "the Sovereign" in The Social Contract, do you agree with his idea?

a. This was also the time when professional armies came into being, serving distinct governments, and a seriousness about defense.

The Roman Army wasn't a professional one? The Battle of Hastings occurred in 1066 during the Norman conquest of England, between the Norman-French army of Duke William II of Normandy and the English army under King Harold II

b. And during this period, discussions began about international law, the relations of sovereign nations. In fact, the Declaration of Independence refers to such a law, in its first sentence: “…necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station…” thus assuming that nations, like individuals, have rights.
Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009

That assumption may have convinced individuals, even today the Rights of Nations are determined by the size of their guns even when settled without violence. See the on going controversy on rights today among China, Japan, The Philippines, Vietnam and other sovereign nations on fishing and mineral rights in the region.




2. For Obama, and for Progressives, there are no unalienable rights, only those granted by government. If ' nations ...have rights,' one must ask from what source? For Leftists of any stripe, it is a necessity to remove those rights.

It is interesting that Jefferson described unalienable rights as to life, liberty and happiness; interesting he changed property to happiness. Why?

a. Since the dawn of politics, men have envisioned some global authority that would bring peace and harmony….Utopia. During the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant argued in favor of a “united power and law-governed decisions of a united will” to create “perpetual peace.”
Cosmopolitan citizenship and postmodernity

Those men were dreamers, not doers. Doers who held such dreams generally adopted these two precepts: Might makes Right and The End Justifies the Means.

b. ‘Global governance, the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority, has not existed so far in human history. This is not to say that it hasn’t been debated, called for, fought for…and as recently as the 20th century, the usual method of the Left, enforced on large swaths of the planet….called communism. And 100 million deaths.
Fonte, "Sovereignty or Submission."

Seems as if you left out Hitler himself, or do you beieve he was a leftists too?





3. The next attempt was the European Union. One can see that it is possible to lose sovereignty quickly. Consider the European Union. It began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.

a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!

I'm no expert on International Law, but that sounds correct.

b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!

Link please.

c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.
Rabkin, Op. Cit.




4. But sometimes, the people demand a return to sovereignty: "Twenty Conservative MPs today step up pressure on David Cameron to hold an EU referendum before the next general election.... Mr Cameron has so far pledged only to renegotiate Britain's relationship with Europe and then hold an “in-out” referendum on the new deal by 2017 − meaning today’s expression of support for a new plan puts him under pressure to fast-track a referendum, risking a Coalition split with the Liberal Democrats." Twenty Tory MPs demand Europe referendum bill - Telegraph




5. Now....watch the response of petty tyrant Obama to this shocking demand for liberty: "jPetty tyrant Obama?
a. " So much scandal is swirling around President Obama that it was hard to spot what must be the biggest strategic error of the week — his warning to Prime Minister Cameron that if Britain leaves the European Union it could lose clout in Washington. London Financial Times: “Obama warns Cameron that Britain would lose influence in the US if it pulls out of EU.”

Makes sense, I don't see a threat. The UK is small, the EU is huge. It's all about the Market, correct?

b.... that’s an intervention by Mr. Obama into Britain’s domestic political situation, where a fast-growing political party is challenging Mr. Cameron’s government over the issue of Europe.... So when did it become American policy to set itself against the British voters?" Obama’s British Blunder - The New York Sun

R i d i c u l o u s





One more blunder by Obama in an ever-growing string of foreign policy missteps.

Compare this one to ignoring the pleas of the opposition to the Iranian election. Did Obama ignore plea for help from Iranian opposition in 2009? « Hot Air

This makes no sense and simply demonstrates the hypocrisy of he Obama haters. They damn him for what he does and what he doesn't do. Very adult PC. (sarcasm noted).


This President is oblivious to people's demands for liberty and freedom.
One more of the dreams from his socialist father.

You unbiased opinion? LOL


Will the public understand that they've placed their fate in the hands of one who doesn't understand American values??

Please do tell us what values are American values.

'Please define "American Exceptionalism" '

I was hopin' you'd ask!

1. "ONCE UPON A TIME, hardly anyone dissented from the idea that, for better or worse, the United States of America was different from all other nations. Founders aimed to create a society in which, for the first time in the history of the world, the individual’s fate would be determined not by who his father was, but by his own freely chosen pursuit of his own ambitions. In other words, America was to be something new under the sun: a society in which hereditary status and class distinctions would be erased, leaving individuals free to act and to be judged on their merits alone.

2. In all other countries membership or citizenship was a matter of birth, of blood, of lineage, of rootedness in the soil. To become a full-fledged American, it was only necessary to pledge allegiance to the new Republic and to the principles for which it stood.

3. In all other nations, the rights, if any, enjoyed by their citizens were conferred by human agencies: kings and princes and occasionally parliaments. As such, these rights amounted to privileges that could be revoked at will by the same human agencies. In America, by contrast, the citizen’s rights were declared from the beginning to have come from God and to be “inalienable”—that is, immune to legitimate revocation.

4. Other characteristics that were unique to America gradually manifested themselves. For instance, in the 20th century, social scientists began speculating as to why America was the only country in the developed world where socialism had failed to take root.

5. In fact, the first reference to the term “American exceptionalism” was not in Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, where it has mistakenly been thought to have originated, but in a book by the sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset, who used it in connection with the absence in America of a strong socialist party." WashingtonPost.com: American Exceptionalism : A Double Edged Sword

a. Reflecting on his travels in the United States in his seminal work, Democracy in America, French intellectual Alexis de Tocqueville writes that the "position of the Americans" is "quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one." 'American Exceptionalism' - By Uri Friedman | Foreign Policy


6. Actually, the term may have originated with Joseph Stalin! “Coining a new term, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin condemns the "heresy of American exceptionalism" while expelling American communist leader Jay Lovestone and his followers from the Communist International for arguing that U.S. capitalism constitutes an exception to Marxism's universal laws. Within a year, the Communist Party USA has adopted Stalin's disparaging term. "The storm of the economic crisis in the United States blew down the house of cards of American exceptionalism," the party declares, gloating about the Great Depression.” 'American Exceptionalism' - By Uri Friedman | Foreign Policy.


God bless America.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The President of the United States does not believe in American Exceptionalism, or sovereignty.

Please define "American Exceptionalism"
The following proves that he opposes it for other nations, as well.

Um, once you've defined "American Exceptionalism", please explain how it applies to "other nations".


1. The term sovereignty was rarely used before the 17th century, the time that people first came to think of representative assemblies as legislatures, reflecting the modern emphasis on law as an act of governing, i.e. government by consent.

Ah yes, the Liberal Paradigm. "Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains" Rousseau devines "the Sovereign" in The Social Contract, do you agree with his idea?

a. This was also the time when professional armies came into being, serving distinct governments, and a seriousness about defense.

The Roman Army wasn't a professional one? The Battle of Hastings occurred in 1066 during the Norman conquest of England, between the Norman-French army of Duke William II of Normandy and the English army under King Harold II

b. And during this period, discussions began about international law, the relations of sovereign nations. In fact, the Declaration of Independence refers to such a law, in its first sentence: “…necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station…” thus assuming that nations, like individuals, have rights.
Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009

That assumption may have convinced individuals, even today the Rights of Nations are determined by the size of their guns even when settled without violence. See the on going controversy on rights today among China, Japan, The Philippines, Vietnam and other sovereign nations on fishing and mineral rights in the region.




2. For Obama, and for Progressives, there are no unalienable rights, only those granted by government. If ' nations ...have rights,' one must ask from what source? For Leftists of any stripe, it is a necessity to remove those rights.

It is interesting that Jefferson described unalienable rights as to life, liberty and happiness; interesting he changed property to happiness. Why?

a. Since the dawn of politics, men have envisioned some global authority that would bring peace and harmony….Utopia. During the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant argued in favor of a “united power and law-governed decisions of a united will” to create “perpetual peace.”
Cosmopolitan citizenship and postmodernity

Those men were dreamers, not doers. Doers who held such dreams generally adopted these two precepts: Might makes Right and The End Justifies the Means.

b. ‘Global governance, the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority, has not existed so far in human history. This is not to say that it hasn’t been debated, called for, fought for…and as recently as the 20th century, the usual method of the Left, enforced on large swaths of the planet….called communism. And 100 million deaths.
Fonte, "Sovereignty or Submission."

Seems as if you left out Hitler himself, or do you beieve he was a leftists too?





3. The next attempt was the European Union. One can see that it is possible to lose sovereignty quickly. Consider the European Union. It began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.

a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!

I'm no expert on International Law, but that sounds correct.

b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!

Link please.

c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.
Rabkin, Op. Cit.




4. But sometimes, the people demand a return to sovereignty: "Twenty Conservative MPs today step up pressure on David Cameron to hold an EU referendum before the next general election.... Mr Cameron has so far pledged only to renegotiate Britain's relationship with Europe and then hold an “in-out” referendum on the new deal by 2017 − meaning today’s expression of support for a new plan puts him under pressure to fast-track a referendum, risking a Coalition split with the Liberal Democrats." Twenty Tory MPs demand Europe referendum bill - Telegraph




5. Now....watch the response of petty tyrant Obama to this shocking demand for liberty: "jPetty tyrant Obama?
a. " So much scandal is swirling around President Obama that it was hard to spot what must be the biggest strategic error of the week — his warning to Prime Minister Cameron that if Britain leaves the European Union it could lose clout in Washington. London Financial Times: “Obama warns Cameron that Britain would lose influence in the US if it pulls out of EU.”

Makes sense, I don't see a threat. The UK is small, the EU is huge. It's all about the Market, correct?

b.... that’s an intervention by Mr. Obama into Britain’s domestic political situation, where a fast-growing political party is challenging Mr. Cameron’s government over the issue of Europe.... So when did it become American policy to set itself against the British voters?" Obama’s British Blunder - The New York Sun

R i d i c u l o u s





One more blunder by Obama in an ever-growing string of foreign policy missteps.

Compare this one to ignoring the pleas of the opposition to the Iranian election. Did Obama ignore plea for help from Iranian opposition in 2009? « Hot Air

This makes no sense and simply demonstrates the hypocrisy of he Obama haters. They damn him for what he does and what he doesn't do. Very adult PC. (sarcasm noted).


This President is oblivious to people's demands for liberty and freedom.
One more of the dreams from his socialist father.

You unbiased opinion? LOL


Will the public understand that they've placed their fate in the hands of one who doesn't understand American values??

Please do tell us what values are American values.

1. Rousseau was a fascist, the French Revolution is the precursor of the Russian Revolution.

Robespierre’s view was based on Rousseau’s theory of the general will: individuals who live in accordance with the general will are ‘free’ and ‘virtuous’ while those who defy it are criminals, fools, or heretics. Rousseau: Political Economy
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot are of the same mold. They are the characteristic scourges of humanity in modern times, but Robespierre has a good claim to being the first.” Why Robespierre Chose Terror by John Kekes, City Journal Spring 2006


a. Stalin and Hitler could say the same in recognizing their debt to the concept of "the Sovereign" of Rousseau and its mystical identification with the people. 200 years later we have only millions and millions of innocents murdered in the "name of the people," etc. ad nauseam.

Thus the primacy of the collective, directly from Rousseau.
His view was that they don't deserve to live if they don't agree with the 'general will.'
You too?



2. "It is interesting that Jefferson described unalienable rights as to life, liberty and happiness; interesting he changed property to happiness. Why?"
They didn't want to give credence to slavery. Slave holders would have claimed slaves were property....as Taney did.



3. "Seems as if you left out Hitler himself, or do you beieve he was a leftists too?"
Of course. National SOCIALIST.

Liberals claim the center by placing socialism on the left and national socialism on the right, even though Lenin/Stalin and Hitler/other Nazis had much in common as they centralized power and preached hatred. A more accurate spectrum would place totalitarians of many stripes on the left and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right. WORLD | Let's admit who we are | Marvin Olasky | July 17, 2010


Nazi...national socialism....based on nationalism and/or race... Communism....international socialism.
And you?


4. b.... that’s an intervention by Mr. Obama into Britain’s domestic political situation, where a fast-growing political party is challenging Mr. Cameron’s government over the issue of Europe.... So when did it become American policy to set itself against the British voters?" Obama’s British Blunder - The New York Sun

R i d i c u l o u s

I've made you look ridiculous....haven't I.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The President of the United States does not believe in American Exceptionalism, or sovereignty.

Please define "American Exceptionalism"
The following proves that he opposes it for other nations, as well.

Um, once you've defined "American Exceptionalism", please explain how it applies to "other nations".

Seems PC has chosen to ignore this question. I wonder why, lol


1. The term sovereignty was rarely used before the 17th century, the time that people first came to think of representative assemblies as legislatures, reflecting the modern emphasis on law as an act of governing, i.e. government by consent.

Ah yes, the Liberal Paradigm. "Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains" Rousseau devines "the Sovereign" in The Social Contract, do you agree with his idea?

a. This was also the time when professional armies came into being, serving distinct governments, and a seriousness about defense.

The Roman Army wasn't a professional one? The Battle of Hastings occurred in 1066 during the Norman conquest of England, between the Norman-French army of Duke William II of Normandy and the English army under King Harold II

I could have named dozens more, but why. One more example of PC's arrogant disregard for the truth.

b. And during this period, discussions began about international law, the relations of sovereign nations. In fact, the Declaration of Independence refers to such a law, in its first sentence: “…necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station…” thus assuming that nations, like individuals, have rights.
Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009

That assumption may have convinced individuals, even today the Rights of Nations are determined by the size of their guns even when settled without violence. See the on going controversy on rights today among China, Japan, The Philippines, Vietnam and other sovereign nations on fishing and mineral rights in the region.

Again, no comment from MS PC




2. For Obama, and for Progressives, there are no unalienable rights, only those granted by government. If ' nations ...have rights,' one must ask from what source? For Leftists of any stripe, it is a necessity to remove those rights.

It is interesting that Jefferson described unalienable rights as to life, liberty and happiness; interesting he changed property to happiness. Why?

Did this change mean that Jefferson was a commie?

a. Since the dawn of politics, men have envisioned some global authority that would bring peace and harmony….Utopia. During the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant argued in favor of a “united power and law-governed decisions of a united will” to create “perpetual peace.”
Cosmopolitan citizenship and postmodernity

Those men were dreamers, not doers. Doers who held such dreams generally adopted these two precepts: Might makes Right and The End Justifies the Means.

b. ‘Global governance, the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority, has not existed so far in human history. This is not to say that it hasn’t been debated, called for, fought for…and as recently as the 20th century, the usual method of the Left, enforced on large swaths of the planet….called communism. And 100 million deaths.
Fonte, "Sovereignty or Submission."

Seems as if you left out Hitler himself, or do you beieve he was a leftists too?

How could you forget Hitler? Or to claim him as a leftist would be too much even for you?





3. The next attempt was the European Union. One can see that it is possible to lose sovereignty quickly. Consider the European Union. It began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.

a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!

I'm no expert on International Law, but that sounds correct.

b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!

Link please.

c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.
Rabkin, Op. Cit.




4. But sometimes, the people demand a return to sovereignty: "Twenty Conservative MPs today step up pressure on David Cameron to hold an EU referendum before the next general election.... Mr Cameron has so far pledged only to renegotiate Britain's relationship with Europe and then hold an “in-out” referendum on the new deal by 2017 − meaning today’s expression of support for a new plan puts him under pressure to fast-track a referendum, risking a Coalition split with the Liberal Democrats." Twenty Tory MPs demand Europe referendum bill - Telegraph




5. Now....watch the response of petty tyrant Obama to this shocking demand for liberty: "jPetty tyrant Obama?
a. " So much scandal is swirling around President Obama that it was hard to spot what must be the biggest strategic error of the week — his warning to Prime Minister Cameron that if Britain leaves the European Union it could lose clout in Washington. London Financial Times: “Obama warns Cameron that Britain would lose influence in the US if it pulls out of EU.”

Makes sense, I don't see a threat. The UK is small, the EU is huge. It's all about the Market, correct?

b.... that’s an intervention by Mr. Obama into Britain’s domestic political situation, where a fast-growing political party is challenging Mr. Cameron’s government over the issue of Europe.... So when did it become American policy to set itself against the British voters?" Obama’s British Blunder - The New York Sun

R i d i c u l o u s





One more blunder by Obama in an ever-growing string of foreign policy missteps.

Compare this one to ignoring the pleas of the opposition to the Iranian election. Did Obama ignore plea for help from Iranian opposition in 2009? « Hot Air

This makes no sense and simply demonstrates the hypocrisy of he Obama haters. They damn him for what he does and what he doesn't do. Very adult PC. (sarcasm noted).


This President is oblivious to people's demands for liberty and freedom.
One more of the dreams from his socialist father.

You unbiased opinion? LOL


Will the public understand that they've placed their fate in the hands of one who doesn't understand American values??

Please do tell us what values are American values.

'Please define "American Exceptionalism" '

I was hopin' you'd ask!

1. "ONCE UPON A TIME, hardly anyone dissented from the idea that, for better or worse, the United States of America was different from all other nations. Founders aimed to create a society in which, for the first time in the history of the world, the individual’s fate would be determined not by who his father was, but by his own freely chosen pursuit of his own ambitions. In other words, America was to be something new under the sun: a society in which hereditary status and class distinctions would be erased, leaving individuals free to act and to be judged on their merits alone.

So, to paraphrase Dr. M. L. King our citizens would be judged by their character and not their color. Interesting, how has that worked out?

2. In all other countries membership or citizenship was a matter of birth, of blood, of lineage, of rootedness in the soil. To become a full-fledged American, it was only necessary to pledge allegiance to the new Republic and to the principles for which it stood.

Hmmm, so when all of those black citizens enlisted in the service of America following the start of WW II their color mattered not and they enjoyed all the rights of full-fledged Americans. I must have read one of those books by a leftist who believed otherwise.

3. In all other nations, the rights, if any, enjoyed by their citizens were conferred by human agencies: kings and princes and occasionally parliaments. As such, these rights amounted to privileges that could be revoked at will by the same human agencies. In America, by contrast, the citizen’s rights were declared from the beginning to have come from God and to be “inalienable”—that is, immune to legitimate revocation.

And yet today we have a small, loud and radical minority calling for the repeal of section I of the 14th Amendment. What would God say? I suggest S/HE would support the Dream Act.

4. Other characteristics that were unique to America gradually manifested themselves. For instance, in the 20th century, social scientists began speculating as to why America was the only country in the developed world where socialism had failed to take root.

5. In fact, the first reference to the term “American exceptionalism” was not in Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, where it has mistakenly been thought to have originated, but in a book by the sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset, who used it in connection with the absence in America of a strong socialist party." WashingtonPost.com: American Exceptionalism : A Double Edged Sword

Who cares. I asked what you thought it meant.

a. Reflecting on his travels in the United States in his seminal work, Democracy in America, French intellectual Alexis de Tocqueville writes that the "position of the Americans" is "quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one." 'American Exceptionalism' - By Uri Friedman | Foreign Policy

And yet your side of the aisle claims we do not live in a democracy. Do you believe we do, or are we a Constitutional Republic as many right wingers state?


6. Actually, the term may have originated with Joseph Stalin! “Coining a new term, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin condemns the "heresy of American exceptionalism" while expelling American communist leader Jay Lovestone and his followers from the Communist International for arguing that U.S. capitalism constitutes an exception to Marxism's universal laws. Within a year, the Communist Party USA has adopted Stalin's disparaging term. "The storm of the economic crisis in the United States blew down the house of cards of American exceptionalism," the party declares, gloating about the Great Depression.” 'American Exceptionalism' - By Uri Friedman | Foreign Policy.

Your point?

God bless America.

Demagoguery, ain't it great!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Please do tell us what values are American values.

'Please define "American Exceptionalism" '

I was hopin' you'd ask!

1. "ONCE UPON A TIME, hardly anyone dissented from the idea that, for better or worse, the United States of America was different from all other nations. Founders aimed to create a society in which, for the first time in the history of the world, the individual’s fate would be determined not by who his father was, but by his own freely chosen pursuit of his own ambitions. In other words, America was to be something new under the sun: a society in which hereditary status and class distinctions would be erased, leaving individuals free to act and to be judged on their merits alone.

So, to paraphrase Dr. M. L. King our citizens would be judged by their character and not their color. Interesting, how has that worked out?

2. In all other countries membership or citizenship was a matter of birth, of blood, of lineage, of rootedness in the soil. To become a full-fledged American, it was only necessary to pledge allegiance to the new Republic and to the principles for which it stood.

Hmmm, so when all of those black citizens enlisted in the service of America following the start of WW II their color mattered not and they enjoyed all the rights of full-fledged Americans. I must have read one of those books by a leftist who believed otherwise.

3. In all other nations, the rights, if any, enjoyed by their citizens were conferred by human agencies: kings and princes and occasionally parliaments. As such, these rights amounted to privileges that could be revoked at will by the same human agencies. In America, by contrast, the citizen’s rights were declared from the beginning to have come from God and to be “inalienable”—that is, immune to legitimate revocation.

And yet today we have a small, loud and radical minority calling for the repeal of section I of the 14th Amendment. What would God say? I suggest S/HE would support the Dream Act.

4. Other characteristics that were unique to America gradually manifested themselves. For instance, in the 20th century, social scientists began speculating as to why America was the only country in the developed world where socialism had failed to take root.

5. In fact, the first reference to the term “American exceptionalism” was not in Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, where it has mistakenly been thought to have originated, but in a book by the sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset, who used it in connection with the absence in America of a strong socialist party." WashingtonPost.com: American Exceptionalism : A Double Edged Sword

Who cares. I asked what you thought it meant.

a. Reflecting on his travels in the United States in his seminal work, Democracy in America, French intellectual Alexis de Tocqueville writes that the "position of the Americans" is "quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one." 'American Exceptionalism' - By Uri Friedman | Foreign Policy

And yet your side of the aisle claims we do not live in a democracy. Do you believe we do, or are we a Constitutional Republic as many right wingers state?


6. Actually, the term may have originated with Joseph Stalin! “Coining a new term, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin condemns the "heresy of American exceptionalism" while expelling American communist leader Jay Lovestone and his followers from the Communist International for arguing that U.S. capitalism constitutes an exception to Marxism's universal laws. Within a year, the Communist Party USA has adopted Stalin's disparaging term. "The storm of the economic crisis in the United States blew down the house of cards of American exceptionalism," the party declares, gloating about the Great Depression.” 'American Exceptionalism' - By Uri Friedman | Foreign Policy.

Your point?

God bless America.

Demagoguery, ain't it great!

Next time, stick to something more appropriate: "Duhhhh."

 

[germanguy]

The President of the United States does not believe in American Exceptionalism, or sovereignty.
The following proves that he opposes it for other nations, as well.


1. The term sovereignty was rarely used before the 17th century, the time that people first came to think of representative assemblies as legislatures, reflecting the modern emphasis on law as an act of governing, i.e. government by consent.

a. This was also the time when professional armies came into being, serving distinct governments, and a seriousness about defense.

b. And during this period, discussions began about international law, the relations of sovereign nations. In fact, the Declaration of Independence refers to such a law, in its first sentence: “…necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station…” thus assuming that nations, like individuals, have rights.
Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009




2. For Obama, and for Progressives, there are no unalienable rights, only those granted by government. If ' nations ...have rights,' one must ask from what source? For Leftists of any stripe, it is a necessity to remove those rights.

a. Since the dawn of politics, men have envisioned some global authority that would bring peace and harmony….Utopia. During the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant argued in favor of a “united power and law-governed decisions of a united will” to create “perpetual peace.”
Cosmopolitan citizenship and postmodernity

b. ‘Global governance, the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority, has not existed so far in human history. This is not to say that it hasn’t been debated, called for, fought for…and as recently as the 20th century, the usual method of the Left, enforced on large swaths of the planet….called communism. And 100 million deaths.
Fonte, "Sovereignty or Submission."





3. The next attempt was the European Union. One can see that it is possible to lose sovereignty quickly. Consider the European Union. It began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.

a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!

b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!

c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.
Rabkin, Op. Cit.




4. But sometimes, the people demand a return to sovereignty: "Twenty Conservative MPs today step up pressure on David Cameron to hold an EU referendum before the next general election.... Mr Cameron has so far pledged only to renegotiate Britain's relationship with Europe and then hold an “in-out” referendum on the new deal by 2017 − meaning today’s expression of support for a new plan puts him under pressure to fast-track a referendum, risking a Coalition split with the Liberal Democrats." Twenty Tory MPs demand Europe referendum bill - Telegraph




5. Now....watch the response of petty tyrant Obama to this shocking demand for liberty:
a. " So much scandal is swirling around President Obama that it was hard to spot what must be the biggest strategic error of the week — his warning to Prime Minister Cameron that if Britain leaves the European Union it could lose clout in Washington. London Financial Times: “Obama warns Cameron that Britain would lose influence in the US if it pulls out of EU.”

b.... that’s an intervention by Mr. Obama into Britain’s domestic political situation, where a fast-growing political party is challenging Mr. Cameron’s government over the issue of Europe.... So when did it become American policy to set itself against the British voters?" Obama’s British Blunder - The New York Sun





One more blunder by Obama in an ever-growing string of foreign policy missteps.

Compare this one to ignoring the pleas of the opposition to the Iranian election. Did Obama ignore plea for help from Iranian opposition in 2009? « Hot Air


This President is oblivious to people's demands for liberty and freedom.
One more of the dreams from his socialist father.


Will the public understand that they've placed their fate in the hands of one who doesn't understand American values??

Just to throw in some ideas:

Whatever you may think of the EU, the "precedence of the treaty over the constitution" must be explained.
The different treaties on which the EU is based have precedence i.e. over the German Basic Law (our constitution) but only for the things which are regulated by the treaty.
The integrity of the constitutional order are not allowed to be touched, i.e. the precedence of the "Dignity of man" as overruling constitutional principle. Still, the preamble of the German Constitution states:

Preamble

Conscious of their responsibility before God and man,

Inspired by the determination to promote world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe, the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law.

Germans in the Länder of Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Hesse, Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein, and Thuringia have achieved the unity and freedom of Germany in free self-determination. This Basic Law thus applies to the entire German people


Art 24 GG of the German Constitution allows:

"With a view to maintaining peace, the Federation may enter into a system of mutual collective security; in doing so it shall consent to such limitations upon its sovereign powers as will bring about and secure a lasting peace in Europe and among the nations of the world."

Also:
Art 79
"(3) Amendments to this Basic Law affecting the division of the Federation into Länder, their participation on principle in the legislative process, or the principles laid down in Articles 1 and 20 shall be inadmissible.

Art 1:
(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.

(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.

Art 20:
(1) The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state.

(2) All state authority is derived from the people. It shall be exercised by the people through elections and other votes and through specific legislative, executive, and judicial bodies.

(3) The legislature shall be bound by the constitutional order, the executive and the judiciary by law and justice.

(4) All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.

(3) The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary as directly applicable law.


Thus, Germany is -by it´s constitution - enabled to join multinational organisations and it is also possible to hand over certain parts of sovereignty to other institutions or organisations, as long as the principles of the constitution are observed.

To give you an example.
The German Constitution prohibits woman to serve in the Bundeswehr (German Armed Forces). This was challenged in 2000 by a german woman at the European Court as a violation of the EU Treaties. Therefore the constitution was amended, because the the protection of an individual right by the EU Treaties is above the german constitution.

The European Law should by principle harmonize the European States in order to form a unified Europe. If you join the EU, you accept this as an aim of the Union. If you do not accept ths, you might better leave.

In Germany Carl Schmitt once wrote the controversial sentence: the sovereign is he who decides about a state of emergency. If you interpret this sentence, you may see, that even the membership in NATO might touch a state´s sovereignty.

IMHO we will have in the very near future a very multipolar world. Even the mighty US will have problems to solve problems all alone. Therefore a form of international cooperation is necessary. In Europe the Union has many flaws, but is much better than what was before. I personally enjoy liberties I would miss in a less unified Europe.

regards
ze germanguy

 

[PoliticalChic]

The President of the United States does not believe in American Exceptionalism, or sovereignty.
The following proves that he opposes it for other nations, as well.


1. The term sovereignty was rarely used before the 17th century, the time that people first came to think of representative assemblies as legislatures, reflecting the modern emphasis on law as an act of governing, i.e. government by consent.

a. This was also the time when professional armies came into being, serving distinct governments, and a seriousness about defense.

b. And during this period, discussions began about international law, the relations of sovereign nations. In fact, the Declaration of Independence refers to such a law, in its first sentence: “…necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station…” thus assuming that nations, like individuals, have rights.
Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009




2. For Obama, and for Progressives, there are no unalienable rights, only those granted by government. If ' nations ...have rights,' one must ask from what source? For Leftists of any stripe, it is a necessity to remove those rights.

a. Since the dawn of politics, men have envisioned some global authority that would bring peace and harmony….Utopia. During the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant argued in favor of a “united power and law-governed decisions of a united will” to create “perpetual peace.”
Cosmopolitan citizenship and postmodernity

b. ‘Global governance, the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority, has not existed so far in human history. This is not to say that it hasn’t been debated, called for, fought for…and as recently as the 20th century, the usual method of the Left, enforced on large swaths of the planet….called communism. And 100 million deaths.
Fonte, "Sovereignty or Submission."





3. The next attempt was the European Union. One can see that it is possible to lose sovereignty quickly. Consider the European Union. It began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.

a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!

b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!

c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.
Rabkin, Op. Cit.




4. But sometimes, the people demand a return to sovereignty: "Twenty Conservative MPs today step up pressure on David Cameron to hold an EU referendum before the next general election.... Mr Cameron has so far pledged only to renegotiate Britain's relationship with Europe and then hold an “in-out” referendum on the new deal by 2017 − meaning today’s expression of support for a new plan puts him under pressure to fast-track a referendum, risking a Coalition split with the Liberal Democrats." Twenty Tory MPs demand Europe referendum bill - Telegraph




5. Now....watch the response of petty tyrant Obama to this shocking demand for liberty:
a. " So much scandal is swirling around President Obama that it was hard to spot what must be the biggest strategic error of the week — his warning to Prime Minister Cameron that if Britain leaves the European Union it could lose clout in Washington. London Financial Times: “Obama warns Cameron that Britain would lose influence in the US if it pulls out of EU.”

b.... that’s an intervention by Mr. Obama into Britain’s domestic political situation, where a fast-growing political party is challenging Mr. Cameron’s government over the issue of Europe.... So when did it become American policy to set itself against the British voters?" Obama’s British Blunder - The New York Sun





One more blunder by Obama in an ever-growing string of foreign policy missteps.

Compare this one to ignoring the pleas of the opposition to the Iranian election. Did Obama ignore plea for help from Iranian opposition in 2009? « Hot Air


This President is oblivious to people's demands for liberty and freedom.
One more of the dreams from his socialist father.


Will the public understand that they've placed their fate in the hands of one who doesn't understand American values??

Just to throw in some ideas:

Whatever you may think of the EU, the "precedence of the treaty over the constitution" must be explained.
The different treaties on which the EU is based have precedence i.e. over the German Basic Law (our constitution) but only for the things which are regulated by the treaty.
The integrity of the constitutional order are not allowed to be touched, i.e. the precedence of the "Dignity of man" as overruling constitutional principle. Still, the preamble of the German Constitution states:

Preamble

Conscious of their responsibility before God and man,

Inspired by the determination to promote world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe, the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law.

Germans in the Länder of Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Hesse, Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein, and Thuringia have achieved the unity and freedom of Germany in free self-determination. This Basic Law thus applies to the entire German people


Art 24 GG of the German Constitution allows:

"With a view to maintaining peace, the Federation may enter into a system of mutual collective security; in doing so it shall consent to such limitations upon its sovereign powers as will bring about and secure a lasting peace in Europe and among the nations of the world."

Also:
Art 79
"(3) Amendments to this Basic Law affecting the division of the Federation into Länder, their participation on principle in the legislative process, or the principles laid down in Articles 1 and 20 shall be inadmissible.

Art 1:
(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.

(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.

Art 20:
(1) The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state.

(2) All state authority is derived from the people. It shall be exercised by the people through elections and other votes and through specific legislative, executive, and judicial bodies.

(3) The legislature shall be bound by the constitutional order, the executive and the judiciary by law and justice.

(4) All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.

(3) The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary as directly applicable law.


Thus, Germany is -by it´s constitution - enabled to join multinational organisations and it is also possible to hand over certain parts of sovereignty to other institutions or organisations, as long as the principles of the constitution are observed.

To give you an example.
The German Constitution prohibits woman to serve in the Bundeswehr (German Armed Forces). This was challenged in 2000 by a german woman at the European Court as a violation of the EU Treaties. Therefore the constitution was amended, because the the protection of an individual right by the EU Treaties is above the german constitution.

The European Law should by principle harmonize the European States in order to form a unified Europe. If you join the EU, you accept this as an aim of the Union. If you do not accept ths, you might better leave.

In Germany Carl Schmitt once wrote the controversial sentence: the sovereign is he who decides about a state of emergency. If you interpret this sentence, you may see, that even the membership in NATO might touch a state´s sovereignty.

IMHO we will have in the very near future a very multipolar world. Even the mighty US will have problems to solve problems all alone. Therefore a form of international cooperation is necessary. In Europe the Union has many flaws, but is much better than what was before. I personally enjoy liberties I would miss in a less unified Europe.

regards
ze germanguy

1." Therefore the constitution was amended, because the the protection of an individual right..."

Americans don't believe that rights come from any body, elected or 'EU-ized.'



2. "to hand over certain parts of sovereignty to other institutions or organisations,..."
Not in America.



3. "Therefore a form of international cooperation..."
Cooperation but not submission.




4. History explains our differences:

a. The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, " Society and Democracy in Germany").

b. A history of civil, rather than common law, stemming from Justinian’s Codex, and the Codex still exerts its influence on Europe and is known as the Civil Law tradition. The Inquisition, Renaissance, the Napoleonic Code, and the Holocaust are all, in part, an outgrowth of the lex regia: “The will of the prince has the force of law.”( Quod principi placuit, legis haget vigorem)”
“Justinian’s Flea,” William Rosen.

c. America has a history of individualism, and the Common Law. This, in part, is the reason why, a century after the statist Woodrow Wilson, the battle remains fierce.
I have faith that Americans will awaken from the socialist malaise.....and not turn out like you.
God willing.