Council for America

2019-12-06T11:03:00.003-08:00

Senate Majority Leader McConnell Attacks Religious Tests for Judicial Nominees

Following are excerpts of remarks delivered by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) December 5, 2019 on the Senate floor regarding nominations and religious freedom:

I want to take a moment to help clarify why I and millions of other Americans care so much about having federal judges who believe in the radical notion that words matter and that a judge’s job is to follow the law and the Constitution.

Take, for one example, the subject of religious freedom.

The liberty of conscience and the freedom to live out our faiths has been a foundational principle from the Republic’s earliest days. Many of the first Europeans who arrived in the New World came here fleeing religious persecution.

In the last several years, some of our Democratic colleagues have tried literally to impose religious tests on nominees for federal office. Just take the No Religious Test Clause and the First Amendment and throw them right out the window.

Judge Brian Buescher, now a district judge in Nebraska, was attacked by two Democrats on the Judiciary Committee for being a faithful Catholic and a member of the mainstream, worldwide Catholic group, the Knights of Columbus. In written questions, one senator called standard Catholic teachings “extreme positions” and asked if he’d dial down his personal faith practice if confirmed. As our colleague Senator Sasse observed at the time, Democrats were transparently implying that “Brian’s religious beliefs, and his affiliation with this Catholic, religious, fraternal organization, might make him unfit for service… [it’s] plainly unconstitutional.”

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, now a circuit judge on the Seventh Circuit, was likewise subjected to a religious test during a confirmation hearing. One Democrat senator literally asked: “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” Another offered this bizarre and ominous remark: “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s a concern.”

So, look— these warning signs on religious freedom are popping up everywhere the modern political left rears its head.

Religious freedom in America has never meant, and will never mean, solely the freedom to worship privately. It has never meant, and will never mean, the ability to practice only a subset of faiths acceptable to some subset of politicians. It means the right to live your life according to the dictates of your faith and conscience – free from government coercion.

If those statements strike anybody in this chamber as remotely controversial, that is exactly why President Trump, Senate Republicans, and millions of Americans are focused on confirming federal judges who will apply our Constitution as it was originally understood.

2017-07-03T11:19:00.000-07:00

Time for tougher penalties for those who violate the law.

A statement from U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan

Two years ago today, 32-year-old Kate Steinle was shot and killed in San Fransisco by an illegal immigrant with a stolen gun and a rough criminal record of seven felonies. He should not have been here, and she should not have died. Sadly, Kate is just one of many victims of a crime like this that was so preventable.

This cannot stand.

That is why on Thursday, the House passed two very important initiatives to keep Americans safe. The first is called Kate's Law, and it toughens penalties for illegal immigrants who repeatedly re-enter the country. The second cracks down on so-called 'sanctuary cities' that flagrantly disregard the rule of law. If a city does not cooperate with federal law enforcement, they should no longer receive federal grant money. End of story.

We are a nation of laws, and now, we must enforce the law.

USA NEITHER FEARED NOR RESPECTED UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA

2016-09-09T12:28:00.001-07:00

President Obama started his Presidency with an apology tour that included bowing to the Saudi Arabian King. He is ending it by being forced to come out of the back of the Presidential plane in China and having his aides yelled at by Chinese bureaucrats. The United States is no longer feared nor respected thanks to Obama's and his Administration's lacking of leadership and seriousness when it comes to America's national security. Between Obama and John Kerry, American foreign policy does not exist.

Bad actors are coming to the fore around the world. Obama and Kerry want to lecture us and the world about climate change while ignoring the the serious challenges our nation and the world faces.

In North Korea, yet another nuclear weapons test has been completed. Numerous firing of missiles toward Japan have taken place. The Obama Administration's reaction is to condemn yet again the North Korean leadership and to go to the United Nations. Kim Jong-un and his cronies are not exactly afraid of Obama's words.

China is not only embarrassing the President by not allowing him to come out the front door of his plane but is relentlessly taking control of the South China Sea and the vital trade routes there.. It's also expanding its naval presence to the Indian Ocean and even to the Americas.At home, the Chinese Communists are persecuting Christians and other and putting a strangle hold on Hong Kong though they signed agreements on Hong Kong that require the opposite. The plane incident shows that the Chinese have no respect for Obama and are very willing to show that lack of respect to the world.

Iran gets ransom from the United States for grabbing American sailors. Forces those sailors to kneel. Takes photos and video and sends it around the world. Secretary of State John Kerry thanked Iran for its supposedly good conduct. Obama signs a nuclear deal with Iran. Iran immediately import weapons that it is forbidden to do under other agreement. And then it violates the nuclear deal. Obama and Kerry turn a blind eye and ignore the provocations. And Iran continues to harass American planes and ships in the area.

Russia's Putin restricts human rights at home, has his military buzz American Air Force planes, helps murderous regimes like Syria, invades Ukraine, and more. Obama's reaction: Putin (the former KGB official) should live up to civilized norms. Obama refuses to send even defensive weaponry to Ukraine so it can defend itself.

Radical Islamic terrorism runs amok throughout the world: Europe, Asia, United States, and Africa. Millions become refugees. And Obama says climate chnage is the number one problem facing the world. Tell that to the millions who no longer have homes or have lost loved ones.

Obama's world is a much unsafer world than we have seen in decades. Leading from behind is not leading at all. Just look at what it has reaped.

You Won't Believe What Obama Just Did!

2014-12-31T11:40:00.000-08:00

Come hell or high water, Obama will close Guantanamo Bay. It was announced that five more terrorists held at Guantanamo are going to be released to Kazakhstan. This reduces the total inmates to 127.

In 2010, a Democrat controlled Senate passed a bill barring the president from spending any monies to transfer inmates to the U.S. or to close Guantanamo Bay. But Obama still has his pen and phone so he continues to reduce the prisoners there by sending them to other countries. This year alone, he has transferred almost 30 inmates out of the facility. And this results in too many of them going back into terrorism.

As Jennifer Griffin of Fox News reported, "As many as 20 to 30 former Guantanamo Bay detainees -- some of whom were released within the last three years -- are suspected by intelligence and Defense officials of having joined forces with the Islamic State and other militant groups inside Syria."

The Obama administration hopes to have the total number of inmates down to below 100. The goal of this program is to eventually put enough pressure on Republicans in Congress to allow Guantanamo inmates to be transferred into the U.S. and close Guantanamo.

The new Congress must find ways to stop this dangerous transfer of terrorists.

Obama Trying End Run with United Nations

2014-08-28T13:16:00.001-07:00

President Obama's continuing efforts to reduce American sovereignty had taken yet another giant step forward. The Obama Administration is in negotiations at the United Nations to come up with another global warming scheme that will hurt the U.S.while making no difference to the climate.

Some Democrat Senators are urging Obama not to come to any agreement until after the November elections. That way their own reelections will not be hurt by this.

The Obama Administration is saying they they are not sure that any agreement will be needed to be passed by the Senate. Obama continues to attempt to give himself more power -- no matter if it abides by the American Constitution or not.

Obama Administration’s Answer to High Gas Prices? New Regulations That Will Drive Prices Even Higher at the Pump. From the House Energy and Commerce Committee

2013-04-02T12:05:00.004-07:00

March 29, 2013

Committee Leaders Pledge to Review EPA’s Proposed New Tier 3 Gasoline Regulation Which Could Increase Cost of Gas by Six to Nine Cents Per Gallon

WASHINGTON, DC – Despite stubbornly high gas prices, the Obama administration today announced it is moving forward with a new regulation for gasoline that is expected to drive prices at the pump even higher. The Environmental Protection Agency unveiled its new Tier 3 rule requiring ultra-low sulfur gasoline as well as new tailpipe emissions standards for cars and light trucks. The agency has stated the proposal would cost no more than one cent per gallon of gasoline, while one industry study estimates the new regulation will add 6 to 9 cents per gallon.

“Increases in gas prices disproportionately hurt the nation’s most vulnerable individuals and families - with $4 dollar a gallon gas the norm in many parts of the country, we cannot afford policies that knowingly raises gas prices,” said Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI).

“Instead of raising gas prices, the Obama administration should focus on bringing stability and greater supplies to our energy markets by green-lighting projects like the Keystone XL pipeline, which will carry approximately one million barrels per day of oil from a close ally to the United States.”

“The Obama administration cannot be more out of touch. With hard-pressed families already struggling to afford each fill-up, Congress needs to take a hard look at any new EPA regulation that may raise the price at the pump. We will review this new proposal to make sure that it delivers air quality benefits at the least cost to the driving public while preserving auto and refining industry jobs. This is just another example of an overzealous EPA,” added Ed Whitfield (R-KY), Chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee.

Last year, the House passed H.R. 4480, the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, which would have deferred the finalization of Tier 3 pending an inter-agency analysis of its impact, along with other pending regulations, on energy prices, jobs, and American competitiveness.

###

UN Arms Treaty Will Rid Nation of 2nd Amendment

2013-03-21T12:22:00.000-07:00

As you read this, the United Nations (U.N.) is convening from March 18-28, to work on the final text for its “Arms Trade Treaty.” Thankfully, the conference couldn’t come to an agreement last year on the text of the treaty, but that doesn’t mean they won’t this time. The proposed goal of this treaty, which already has the support of over 100 nations, is to limit the black market deals that go on by illegal arms dealers. Even if this is the true intention behind the proposed treaty, the language within the treaty allows the U.N. to erase our 2nd Amendment and erodes American Sovereignty. If you do not know already, when the Senate ratifies a treaty, it becomes the law of the land.

The language of the treaty is particularly and purposefully ambiguous. This especially true in Article 2 Section 1 of the treaty where it applies at a minimum to certain weapons and machines used solely for the purposes of conducting war such as battle tanks and warships. The very last aspect of Article 1 Section 2 identifies “small arms and light weapons” as applicable to this treaty. This would, in every backdoor way possible, push the 2nd Amendment into the trash bin of history and further intrude on American Sovereignty.

Read the text of the treaty at:
http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Presidents_Non_Paper_of_20%20March_2013_%28ATT_Final_Conference%29.pdf

AFS Survey Rejects Obama’s “Trojan Horse” Treaty of the United Nations

2013-03-12T10:00:00.000-07:00

        A national survey of 5,000 supporters of Americans for Sovereignty revealed intense opposition to the ratification of a United Nations Treaty that the Obama Administration has sent to the Senate for ratification The survey indicated that they overwhelmingly opposed the so-called “United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.” (CRPD).

        Over 90% of respondents oppose the loss of American sovereignty to UN bureaucrats in dealing with matters of disabilities. The treaty would give oversight authority to a new UN committee over disability legislation in all countries.

        Similarly over 85% of respondents to the survey specifically opposed prospective United Nations mandates that could force homeowners make their home disabled accessible and even having UN bureaucrats determine the number of handicapped parking spaces should be allocated.

        Intense disagreement also arose over the implication in the treaty that UN bureaucrats should have superiority over parents in determining what is in the best interest of the disabled child. The survey also rejected development of a mechanism in the treaty that would compel the United States to directly fund disability programs in other countries.

        Overall, the survey consistently revealed over 80% opposition to the innocuous sounding treaty and thus it was viewed as a “Trojan horse” treaty that would undermine both American sovereignty and the integrity of the family.

        Americans for Sovereignty is a project of Council for America. With over 25,000 supporters, it is one of the largest organizations in the United States that focuses its attention on issues affecting continued American sovereignty.

Election Year Survey Rebukes the UN

2013-03-05T13:02:00.001-08:00

In an extensive survey, Americans for Sovereignty has tabulated over 8000 responses to questions concerning the United Nations.   The survey of American attitudes towards the United Nations found that the American people remain very hostile to the institution and hope that the newly elected American officials will undertake a critical review of the institution.

       Specifically, nearly unanimous opposition opinion existed that the United Nations should not investigate so-called human rights abuses inside the United States. This attitude contradicts the Obama Administration that has suggested that Arizona may be violating international human rights standards through its efforts to enforce violations of American immigration laws by illegal aliens.

    Similarly, over 90% of respondents to the survey believed that every candidate for federal office should promise to oppose any UN taxation schemes. That same 90% insisted that the new Congress needed to vigorously investigate waste, fraud and corruption at the United Nations.

    Given the continued problem of terrorism in the United States, the respondents to the survey believed that newly elected US Government officials should encourage the State Department to restrict activities of so-called diplomats from countries that sponsor or shelter terrorists.

    Grave concern was also expressed in the survey with the International Criminal Court that could violate rights ordinarily enjoyed by American citizens, including American military personnel overseas. The survey urged the rejection of the treaty that would lead to U.S. membership in the Court.

    Disillusionment was so great in the this latest survey that the respondents supported legislation that mandates the end of United States membership in the United Nations and the expulsion of the United Nations from the United States.

    Americans for Sovereignty is a project of Council for America. With over 30,000 supporters it is one of the largest organizations in the United States that focuses its attention on issues affecting continued American Sovereignty.

Obama's Energy Rhetoric Doesn't Match His Policies from U.S. House Natural Resources Committee

2012-01-25T14:18:00.000-08:00

President Obama Spins State of the Union Speech to

Claim Credit for Inherited Energy Successes

Administration’s Supposed Pro-Energy Rhetoric Does Not Match Anti-Energy Policies

For as much as President Obama complains about the bad economy that he inherited, he sure seems to be enjoying the inherited boom in U.S. oil and gas production on private and state lands. Last night President Obama dedicated a significant portion of his State of the Union speech to weaving a tale about what his Administration has done for American energy production. Unfortunately for the American people, President Obama’s energy policies have destroyed jobs and made America less energy secure. Here’s a look at what the Obama Administration has really done to American energy production.

CLAIM: “American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years.”

FACTS:

· Increases in onshore or offshore oil and natural gas production can be attributed to previous Presidents Bush and Clinton’s pro-energy policies and the significant increase in energy production on state and private lands.

· For example, North Dakota alone produced almost 16 million barrels of oil in January 2011, compared to only a little more than 2 million in January 2002.

The majority of North Dakota’s production is on state and private land where the Obama Administration’s restrictive policies cannot hinder production.

· The Obama Administration’s actions have caused energy production on federal lands to decrease.

· In 2000 federal oil production accounted for 32% of total US production—in 2010, after two years of job destroying Obama Administration policies, federal production only accounts for 19% of total U.S. oil production.

· This begs the question, why is this Administration refusing to use our federal lands to create American jobs and produce American energy resources to grow the economy and make America more energy secure?

CLAIM: “Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration.”

FACTS:

· The Obama Administration has closed millions of areas offshore and onshore to energy production.

· President Obama effectively reinstated an offshore drilling ban off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, closed off parts of the Arctic to offshore drilling, blocked uranium mining on one million acres of land in Arizona, withdrew oil and natural gas leases in Utah, and is now imposing mandatory ocean zoning that could limit all types of energy production.

The total onshore acreage leased under the Obama Administration in 2009 and 2010 is the lowest in over two decades, stretching back to at least 1984.

Under the Obama Administration, 2010 had the LOWEST number of onshore leases issued since 1984.

CLAIM: “I’m directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources.”

FACTS:

· The Obama Administration has released a new draft offshore drilling five-year lease plan that CLOSES the majority of the OCS to new energy production through 2017.

· There is LESS offshore acreage open for energy production now than there was when President Obama took office when nearly 100% of the OCS was open for production.

· The Administration’s draft five-year plan prohibits offshore drilling in NEW areas and only allows lease sales to occur in areas that are already open.

· President Obama is being misleading by saying that 75% of our offshore “resources” are open. The REAL number should be acres—of the 1.76 billion acres in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, only 38 million acres—or a mere 2.16%—is actually leased for energy development.

· The draft plan only allows lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic – leaving portions of Alaska and the entire Atlantic and Pacific Coasts off-limits to new energy production and job creation.

CLAIM: “With only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, oil isn’t enough.”

FACTS:

· The President is ignoring the majority of America’s energy resources. The 2% figure is a narrow estimate based on the United States’ “proven” oil reserves – currently measured at 28.4 billion barrels of oil. “Proven” reserves only means oil where we have drilled and confirmed there is oil in the ground.

· However, according to CRS the U.S. actually has 134.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil, the vast majority of which we haven’t drilled into to confirm if more could be there.

· Total recoverable energy reserves for the United States (combining oil, natural gas and coal) are 1.3 trillion barrels of oil equivalent – the largest in the world.

· This number does not even take into account the large oil shale reserves in the United States. The Department of Energy estimates 1.38 trillion barrels of shale oil are recoverable from approximately 7.8 million acres of federal land. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that our oil shale reserves could be greater than 1.5 trillion barrels of oil. This is five times larger than Saudi Arabia’s proven reserves.

###

House Natural Resources Committee Press Office

Contact: Spencer Pederson, Crystal Feldman or Jill Strait

202-229-9019

Radical Obama Court Nominee Defeated

2011-05-27T10:25:00.000-07:00

Council for America and its project Americans for Sovereignty opposed the nomination of Goodwin Liu to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Council for America and its thousands of supporters urged Senators to vote against cloture. Cloture failed and Liu was defeated.

Liu is yet another left-wing nominee of President Obama -- unfortunately, one of many. He is a far-left ideologue who is far out of the mainstream of jurisprudence.

On foreign law: Goodwin Liu states, “The use of foreign authority in American constitutional law is a judicial practice that has been very controversial in recent years. The U.S. Supreme Court has cited foreign authority in cases limiting the death penalty and invalidating criminal laws against homosexual sodomy, among others. The resistance to this practice is difficult for me to grasp, since the United States can hardly claim to have a monopoly on wise solutions to common legal problems faced by constitutional democracies around the world.”

On understanding the Constitution: Liu states, “I think that to say that all we do is we look at the text and we read the words literally, or all we do is look at the text and ask how did the people in 1789 or the people in 1868 understand it – that I think misses an entire range of experience that the nation has itself learned and that judges can rightly take into account.” He also says the Constitution is “ a living document,” “indeterminate,” and determined by “socially situated modes of reasoning…”

Mr. Liu openly supports judicial activism and the belief that a judge can interpret laws to suit their own world or political views.

Council for America in its 2011 Americans for Sovereignty Congressional Scorecard will be rating a vote against cloture as a plus vote. The defeat of Goodwin Liu’s nomination stops yet another far leftist from having a lifetime appointment to one of the highest courts of our land.

Stop It Before It START(s)

2010-12-22T12:00:00.000-08:00

The “New START” Treaty, expected to come before the United States Senate very shortly, serves no useful national security purpose for the United States. More importantly it may fatally undermine the continued development and deployment of vitally needed missile defense systems.

The total failures of the Obama Administration to deter Iran and North Korea from proceeding with both their nuclear and missile development programs means the United States will become increasingly vulnerable to nuclear attack in the future. Thus a vibrant missile defense program is essential to Western security and should not be held hostage (as in New START) by allegedly making Russia’s strategic forces vulnerable

But in its misguided drive to “re-set” relations with an increasingly authoritarian regime in Russia, President Obama has proposed a largely politically motivated treaty that provides lopsided strategic benefits to Moscow. Russia will continue to upgrade its strategic forces while the United States would unilaterally retire some of our most potent weapons.

The entire treaty as written lacks sufficient verification procedures and turns the famous Reagan axiom on its head by, in effect, mandating that “we verify some, but mostly trust.”

Finally the attempt to rush the treaty through the final days of 111th Congress, during a lame duck session, precludes the careful deliberation a serious treaty deserves. Also, Senators should demand the negotiating documents to know what actually happened, and to make sure there are no other surprises.

The Senate’s role in the treaty-making process is vitally important. It is being seriously weakened if the START treaty is dealt with in a lame duck session. It also excludes from the process the newly elected Senators who will have the responsibility to carry out the terms of the treaty in the years ahead.

Forget American Energy Independence

2010-12-02T13:47:00.000-08:00

Forget energy independence. Forget a sensible oil and gas drilling program. Forget reducing payments to foreign countries for our energy needs. Forget creating more good paying American jobs.

Remember the Obama Administration said back in March that it was opening more areas for drilling. It was a lie.

The Obama Administration has just put a big halt to offshore drilling off the Atlantic coast and any new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. They are also delaying two lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. And according to the Washington Post, further offshore drilling in Alaska may be postponed.

The United States is the only country in the world that severely restricts the use of its petroleum resources. Rather, we buy oil from many countries whose human rights and environmental standards are deplorable. And this new Obama policy will lead to even more such abuses.

Under the Obama policy, the earliest a new lease will be allowed is 2017.

What will the result be? More dependence on foreign oil that means less American sovereignty, more government spending on “green” energy if it is economically feasible or not, fewer American jobs, and more reliance on other countries. But then Council for America has been warning about this for months, just look at a few of our past blog posts on this subject (see in particular “Don’t Be Fooled”).

The Obama Administration has learned nothing from November. American voters said they want less government and less government spending. This decision will lead in the opposite direction. Federal and state governments spend billions of dollars a year on energy costs to heat and light buildings; to power military ships, tanks, jeeps and other vehicles; and to keep government cars and trucks on the roads. As a result of this policy, foreign countries will have even more control over our petroleum needs. Costs will go up.

If only we could forget the Obama Administration, maybe we could become energy independent.

Obama Moratorium: Hurts American Jobs and American Sovereignty

2010-09-14T12:10:00.000-07:00

A blow struck against energy independence and jobs is a blow struck against U.S. sovereignty. President Obama’s latest oil drilling moratorium makes the U.S. even more dependent on foreign governments.

On March 31st President Obama made an announcement that seemed to open oil drilling restricted areas in an effort to foster the U.S. economy and end U.S. energy dependence on foreign oil. In the fall of 2009, British Petroleum drilled Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico, and April 20th, 2010, the well blew killing eleven workers and polluting the Gulf waters.

On account of the disaster, the Secretary of the Interior fired the Minerals Management Services head Ms. Elizabeth Bernbaum. And recently, the President has placed a new moratorium on deep water drilling.

While the President Obama has put a moratorium on drilling, the U.S. Export Import Bank is providing a Brazilian company with resources to drill for oil for Brazil. Unfortunately, the Deepwater Horizon disaster shut thousands of jobs in the fishing and tour industry. According to Louisiana officials, the new moratorium will eliminate 40,000-100,000 American jobs.

At the same time, Cuba opens its coastal shores to deep water drilling. A Spanish oil company Repsol plans to begin drilling in 2011 and reports indicate that Russia and China are also planning to sign leases for deep water drilling. Much to U.S. chagrin, Cuba can officially allow drilling within 45 miles of Florida’s Key West. The drilling location is currently planned for approximately 65 miles south of Key West.

The U.S. receives one-third of its domestic oil and fifteen percent of its natural gas from the Gulf of Mexico. The President has struck out against U.S. coal and now the oil industry. Cuba is drilling off our shores, Brazil is getting U.S. government guaranteed credit to drill for more oil for themselves; and the U.S. is getting further away from energy independence. The Obama Administration is showing again that it cares little for U.S. sovereignty.

Oppose Kagan Now

2010-07-28T12:07:00.000-07:00

Should the Supreme Court use foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution? Elena Kagan, Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, thinks so. And the Democrats in the Senate with 4 Republicans hope to have her approved by August 6.

In 1995, Elena Kagan decried the judicial nomination process declaring that it had taken “on an air of vacuity and farce.” According to her review of Stephen Carter’s book, “The Confirmation Mess,” the Supreme Court nomination debate should focus on “the understanding of the Constitution that the nominee would carry with him to the court.” She has since changed her mind as can be seen by her performance at the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi wrote, “In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ms. Kagan acknowledged that it is ‘difficult to take off the advocate’s hat and put on the judge’s hat.’ I do not have confidence that Ms. Kagan would be able to restrain her personal views and political advocacy from influencing her decisions if she were confirmed to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court.”

When Ms. Kagan became the Dean of Harvard Law School, the school permitted military recruiters to use the campus recruiting facilities. Rather than continuing the present policy, she reinstated a previous dean’s policy breaking federal law and denying the military access to Harvard’s recruitment facilities.

She ignored precedence when she eliminated Harvard Law School requirements to study constitutional law and demanded that the curriculum require international and comparative law.

Her praise of Judge Barak Aharon’s judicial views (see our earlier post) shows that she will be a judge who will ignore what the Constitution says and give as much weight to foreign law as American. American freedom and American sovereignty will suffer. Barack Obama’s desire to radically change America will take a giant step forward.

To make your opinion known you can call your U.S. Senators now at 202-224-3121.

Kagan Nomination Threatens American Sovereignty

2010-06-15T12:35:00.000-07:00

Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court would be a threat to American sovereignty. She would move the U.S. Supreme Court further left.

Just look at what she has done and said:

 She unabashedly acclaims a foreign judge known for judicial activism as her hero.

 As the Dean of Harvard’s Law School, she denied U.S. military recruiters access to Harvard Law School campus facilities even though she broke Federal law by denying access. Her position was even overwhelmingly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in an 8-0 decision with even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposing Kagan’s position.

 While at Harvard Law, she excluded Constitutional Law as a course requirement while requiring International and Comparative Law.

 In 2005, she supported the terrorists’ petition to civil review denouncing efforts to try terrorists in military tribunals. . She and three other liberal law school deans compared Congress’s bipartisan effort to clarify the laws on the War on Terror with the “fundamentally lawless” actions of a “dictatorship.”

 In the words of an Obama White House legal counsel, “She is largely a progressive in the mold of Obama himself.”

And let’s look in more detail at Elena Kagan’s praise – in her own words -- for that foreign judge Aharon Barak:

“I told [the judge], and I want to repeat in public, that he [Aharon Barak] is my judicial hero. He is the judge or Justice in my lifetime whom [sic], I think, best represents and has best advanced the values of democracy and human rights, of the rule of law and of justice.”

However, according to Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, her model is an interventionist and judicial activist, one who considers legal interpretation to be fluid and “dynamic.” For Aharon Barak, the wording of a statute can take on “new meaning.” Posner writes:

“[o]ne of the most prominent of the aggressively interventionist foreign judges….[H]is book on judging is Exhibit A for why American judges should be wary about citing foreign judicial decisions…. Although Barak is familiar with the American legal system and supposes himself to be in some sort of sync with liberal American judges, he actually inhabits a completely and, to an American, weirdly different juristic universe.…”

Justice Richard Goldstone who was the chief prosecutor for criminal tribunals in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia concurs with Judge Posner and writes that, “[Aharon Barak] is unashamedly what, in U.S. terms, would be regarded as an ‘activist judge.’ ” Aharon Barak’s words confirm that a judge can practically generate a new law:

“The judge may give a statute a new meaning, a dynamic meaning, that seeks to bridge the gap between law and life’s changing reality.... The [wording of the] statute remains as it was, but its meaning changes, because the court has given it a new meaning....”

Elena Kagan’s praise of Barak needs to be investigated by the Senate. Is this the kind of U.S. Supreme Court Justice she would be?

If you can believe what Kagan says and writes, she would be an activist judge who thinks the Constitution has no fixed meaning and foreign laws should be given weight in determining what the U.S. Constitution means. This is not a nomination that bodes well for the Supreme Court, for the Constitution and for the liberties that Americans have enjoyed because of that Constitution.

Obama Administration Apology Tour Continues

2010-06-01T10:48:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago an Obama Administration official continued the Obama apology tour. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Michel Posner told Chinese officials that the enforcement of federal immigration laws in Arizona was racial discrimination or potential discrimination. He said: "We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.” Of course, China has a terrible human rights record

Assistant Secretary Posner was referring to the recently enacted Arizona law S.B. 1070, which required enforcement of federal law! The bill reads: “No official or agency of the this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may adopt a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.” He dismissed the law as an Arizona law fostering racial discrimination. In fact, the law reiterates and requires enforcement of federal law throughout the state of Arizona.

Besides Assistant Secretary Posner, other Obama Administration officials have spoken out against the Arizona law – much to everyone’s surprise, these high level officials have not read the law. Attorney General Eric Holder stated that the federal government might challenge the law, although he recently admitted during a Homeland Security Committee oversight hearing that he had not read the bill. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also acknowledged that she had not read the bill before she publicly expressed concerns about it.

The Arizona Legislature specifically states that racial discrimination cannot trigger investigations particularly in reference to employment, “The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.”

Is China a country the Obama Administration should be apologizing to for a duly passed law in one of our states? Just a quick look at China’s record shows that the Obama Administration is way off base yet again.

The Chinese government has forced women to be sterilized and abort babies they wanted to keep. Chinese inmates are executed when organs are needed for transplants. Men and women are imprisoned for their religious beliefs, and freedom of expression and assembly are severely limited. The list is unending.

The Obama Administration does no good for human rights in China by comparing the U.S. record to China’s abominable record. The Obama State Department apologizes for and confesses the imaginary crimes of our nation to a country whose record on human rights is pitiful.

The U..N Investigating U.S. Human Rights: Unbelievable But True

2010-05-17T14:11:00.000-07:00

First there was the Obama foreign apology tour. Now the Obama Administration thinks the U.N. should judge our nation's human rights here in the United States.

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton recently announced that the U.N. Human Rights Council would scrutinize the United States in its “Universal Periodic Review.” The Universal Periodic Review is an every four-year review of the human rights record of the U.N.’s 192 members. It is a mechanism to pressure countries publicly to stop their human rights abuses.

The Council’s purpose is to speak out against human rights atrocities. But as you might expect with the U.N., the Council is composed of states known for human rights abuses. These countries include Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba, Russia, Egypt, and Kyrgyzstan. Additionally, on May 13th, Libya and several other countries known for violating human rights were voted onto the 47- member state Human Rights Council. Through the universal periodic review, these nations will be empowered to criticize the U.S. and justify their own human rights violations.

U.S. silence is deafening in regard to the irony of Libya’s election. The U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, has refused to reveal whether the U.S. voted yeah or nay on Libya’s candidacy for a seat on the Human Rights Council. Libya ran for one of the four regional African seats on the Council. There was no other candidate in the region running for that seat. Although some 30 human rights organizations wrote the Ambassador opposing Libya’s candidacy, she did not search for a competing candidate.

The history of the Human Rights Council highlights the hypocrisy of the Council reviewing the U.S. human rights record. The Council was created in 2006 as a replacement for the now defunct U.N. Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). The UNCHR closed largely because member states were known for gross human rights violations. In particular, the Bush Administration effectively spoke out against Libya’s election to the chairmanship of the UNCHR. Libya’s recent election to the Human Rights Council may lead to the Council’s downfall.

Under the Bush Administration, the U.S. did not fund and refused to be a member of the Human Rights Council. The Obama Administration made joining the Council a foreign policy priority. Ambassador Rice stated that the U.S. hopes to influence the Council from within, rather than opposing the Council from “the sidelines.” Changing the Council from within is a tall order.

The universal periodic review may publicly pressure nations to respect human rights. However, granting nations known to abuse their citizens the right to scrutinize our human rights record is a travesty. The review gives China, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, and Libya, a platform to criticize the U.S. It also is a means for them to justify their own actions. The Obama Administration needs to revamp its foreign policy strategy.

DON’T BE FOOLED

2010-03-31T14:10:00.000-07:00

Today President Barrack Obama announced that his administration is opening up new areas for offshore drilling. Or did he?

Few would disagree, other than extreme environmentalists, that more domestic production of energy enhances American sovereignty. Opening more areas to drilling is a good thing.

And this is what President Obama said today, “today we’re announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration, but in ways that balance the need to harness domestic energy resources and the need to protect America’s natural resources. . . . . That's why my administration will consider potential areas for development in the mid and south Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, while studying and protecting sensitive areas in the Arctic. That’s why we’ll continue to support development of leased areas off the North Slope of Alaska, while protecting Alaska’s Bristol Bay.”

But the language is interesting, he talks of “considering” and “continuing to support development of leased areas off the North Slope, while protecting Alaska’s Bristol Bay.” What does this mean? For one thing it means that the Obama Administration is canceling leases in the Bristol Bay of Alaska. Additionally, it is reversing the opening up of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas in Alaska until scientists study these two areas longer. In addition, West Coast drilling would still be off limits.

And President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency tomorrow is announcing tough new mileage and emission standards for automobiles that will add an estimated$1300 cost to each new car. This is what the Obama Administration call a balanced approach: raising costs, closing off areas for development, and maybe opening other areas.

Hope and Change? No Same Old, Same Old

2009-09-25T11:12:00.000-07:00

President Obama's appearance at the United Nations gave him the chance to give yet another speech. This one continues his "apology" tour. He talks about how the U.S. is now a good country because his Administration has "paid our bills" (never mind that the U.S. under the previous Administration remained the largest source of funds for the U.N. of all its members). He also went on to say " we have rejoined the Human Rights Council" (even though it contains such human rights abusers as China, Cuba, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Federation, and Saudia Arabia -- to mention only a few). And then he goes on to say how the U.S. is now signing more U.N. agreements and signing on to more U.N. goals -- yet more attacks on American sovereignty.

In his speech, he again shows how his narcissism still runs rampant. For he said, "So for those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions that we have taken in just nine months. On my first day in office, I prohibited -- without exception or equivocation -- the use of torture . . . I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed . . .America will live its values, and we will lead by example."

In the relatively few words above President Obama shows:

a disregard for American security

more concern for foreign opinion about Guantanamo than about the need for Guantanamo to protect American citizens and others throughout the world from the threat these terrorists would provide if free

a naivete that large numbers at the U.N. will follow the U.S. if we "lead by example"; too many are only interested in their own personal interests and how the unsavory regimes of which they are a part will keep power and wring as much money as possible out of the U.N. and the United States.

The U.N. has shown its true colors too often. The Obama Administration may be truly color blind when it comes to the U.N.

Who is the US Representative to the UN and what is that person doing?

2009-08-04T11:52:00.000-07:00

Very few people even know who the US Representative to the UN is -- never mind knowing what that person is doing at the UN. Our current representative is no John Bolton who stood up for American sovereignty and for the United States.

The Obama Administration appointed Susan Rice (no relation to the former Secretary of State) to that post. She has received almost no publicity in the American media. But she is busy.

Just a few days ago she signed the "UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities." From the UN press release announcing this is the following: "the Convention’s Optional Protocol allows individuals to petition an international expert body with grievances.

By signing, and then ratifying the treaty, States commit themselves to enact laws and other measures to improve disability rights, as well as abolish discriminatory legislation, customs and practices."

As we have shown in prior posts, the Obama Administration has a very spotty record in supporting American sovereignty. Is this latest action of signing a UN Convention only yet one more way to get the UN involved in American domestic policy -- somewhere the UN and its members have no right to be?

Senator Tom Coburn on Judge Sotomayor

2009-07-23T13:45:00.000-07:00

U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) released the following statement today regarding Judge Sotomayor’s written responses to questions regarding the use of foreign law in American courts.

“While I admire Judge Sotomayor’s achievements, I’m troubled that she has reversed herself on the subject of using foreign law in court decisions and deliberations. Judge Sotomayor is now embracing the same attitude toward foreign law she articulated previously but rejected during her public hearings,” Dr. Coburn said.

Before she was nominated Judge Sotomayor said:

“I share more the ideas of Justice Ginsburg in thinking, … in believing that unless American courts are more open to discussing the ideas raised by foreign cases, and by international cases, that we are going to lose influence in the world. Justice Ginsburg has explained very recently . . . that foreign opinions . . . can add to the story of knowledge relevant to the solution of a question, and she’s right.”

During the hearing Judge Sotomayor said:

“I will not use foreign law to interpret the Constitution or American statutes. I will use American law, constitutional law to interpret those laws, except in the situations where American law directs a court.”

After the hearing Judge Sotomayor said:

“In limited circumstances, decisions of foreign courts can be a source of ideas informing our understanding of our own constitutional rights.”

“To the extent that American courts categorically refuse to consider the ideas expressed in the decisions of foreign courts, it may be that foreign courts will be less likely to look to American law as a source of ideas.”

“A Supreme Court justice has no authority to make judgments based on international law, much less world opinion. I have serious concerns with any judge who, in the back of her mind, is worried about offending the international community while making a decision about a case in the United States,” Dr. Coburn said.

“Judge Sotomayor’s written responses confirm many Americans’ worst fears that she views the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis of our rule of law, as an insufficient basis for deciding cases and would instead allow the broader arena of international commentary to influence her decisions,” Dr. Coburn said.

###

Obama's Continuing Attack on American Sovereignty

2009-07-07T14:07:00.000-07:00

President Obama continues his attack on American Sovereignty with his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.

First came the nomination of Elena Kagan to be Solicitor General of the United Sate. Ms. Kagan opposed ROTC and military recruiter access to Harvard University students when she was Dean of Harvard Law School -- a position that put her to the left of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. After the unanimous Supreme Court decision upholding the right of access as legislated by the Solomon amendment, she still sought ways to stop military recruiter access.

Next came the appointment of Harold Koh as Legal Advisor to the U.S. Department of State. He is a proponent of "transnational law" -- just look at a the blog entries below this to see his views.

Now the nomination of the Judge Sotomayor is being rushed through the Senate. Besides her questionable decisions on equality before the law for working men and women, she seems to think that so-called international law and the laws of other countries should influence how U.S. judges interpret our Constitution.

In the foreword to the 2007 book The International Lawyer, Judge Sotomayor wrote, "the question of how much we have to learn from foreign law and the international community when interpreting our Constitution is ... worth posing" as Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation has pointed out.

Full and Fair Debate Needed on Harold Koh Nomination

2009-06-23T14:28:00.000-07:00

Wednesday June 24 a vote will be held on cloture on the Harold Koh nomination to be the Legal Advisor for the U.S. Department of State. With no debate yet on his controversial nomination to this important post, questions abound on what Harold Koh would do regarding international treaties and law.

Below are Koh’s positions in his own words about where he stands on several controversial issues. These deserve full and fair debate.

Second Amendment and Gun Control
Called for a “Global gun control regime,” and said that, “supply-side control measures within the United States” are essential. Harold Koh, Fordham Law Review, Vol. 71 (May 2003)

U.S. as member of “axis of disobedience”
“Turning to the United States, the final member of the ‘axis of disobedience,’ our greatest surprise should be how quickly after September 11th we turned the story from the non-compliance of others with international law, to our own non-compliance.” Harold Koh, Berkeley Journal of International Law, Vol. 22:337 (2004)

Supports controversial CEDAW treaty that pushes for more abortions
“The United States can and should accept virtually all of CEDAW’s obligations and undertakings without qualification.” Harold Koh, Statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, June 13, 2002

Questions Importance of First Amendment for U.S.
America’s “distinctive rights culture,” which gives “First Amendment protections for speech and religion … far greater emphasis and judicial protection in America than in Europe or Asia.” America’s “exceptional free speech tradition can cause problems abroad,” and the way for the “Supreme Court [to] moderate these conflicts” is “by applying more consistently the transnationalist approach to judicial interpretation”
Harold Koh, “On American Exceptionalism,” 55 Stanford. Law Review 1479, 1483 & n. 14 (2003)

Pushes for a “Transnationalist” Approach to Law
“Some have asked me, ‘Is your notion of transnational legal process an academic theory? Is it an activist strategy? Or is it a blueprint for policy makes?’ Over time, my answer has become, ‘It is all three.’” Harold Koh, Berkeley Journal of International Law, Vol. 22:337 (2004)

Defeat Koh

2009-06-17T13:36:00.000-07:00

The nomination of Harold Koh to be the State Department Legal advisor should be defeated in order to prevent a further erosion of American sovereignty to transnationalism. Prof. Koh has clearly indicated in his body of work that his primary loyalty is to creating an international legal system that would subordinate both the American constitution and US legislative bodies to the legal whims of international legal organizations (such as the International Criminal Court), and international institutions (such as the United Nations). He would codify the notion that the United States can only act in its own national security interest with the prior approval of the UN. This is a dangerous and unjustifiable abandonment of American sovereignty.
Jeff Gayner, Americans for Sovereignty