August 30, 2010What do Henry Kissinger (a Republican), Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George Soros, and Barack Obama have in common?
Each has stated that they believe the way of the future is 'world governance' under some unnamed 'global authority,' which one can only assume is the United Nations.
For at least 2 decades the U.S. has gradually handed over bits and pieces of its national sovereignty to the United Nations by signing certain 'treaties' that allow international law to trump our own Constitution.
The latest example of this insidious growing cancer is the Obama Administration's report to the U.N. concerning 'human rights violations' by the state of Arizona.
According to a state department document, the Administration has requested that Arizona's new immigration law be placed 'under review' by the United Nations.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer immediately condemned the report and asked that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remove the request from the document.
The request is merely the latest in a series of eyebrow-raising statements and actions on the part of the Obama Administration concerning the Arizona law. Earlier an Administration official complained to the Chinese Communists about the law.
This is in addition to the Obama Administration's unprecedented decision to sue one of our own states over a law that mirrors federal law. The nation of Mexico has been allowed by the court in this case to file a brief in support of the Administration against Arizona.
3 key observations are essential to understanding the threat to U.S. sovereignty in these actions.
First, the U.N. has absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever over a sovereign state within the United States of America. And, given the fact that nations with horrific human rights violations such as Cuba, North Korea, Communist China, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and many others are allowed to sit on human rights panels at the U.N., the fact that Arizona would even be mentioned is a sick farce.
Second, a foreign nation has no business being allowed to file a brief in a U.S. court of law against one of our own states. No one except for the most ardent, incorrigible globalist in favor of 'world governance' under the U.N. would even consider such an outrage.
Third, an honest, thorough examination of federal immigration law, as compared to the Arizona law, is critical. When placed side-by-side there is little difference except for the wording. The meaning is the same. The only difference is that the Arizona law gives the state the authority to ENFORCE federal law in the absence of federal enforcement.
Thus, is the Administration saying, in essence, that U.S. law itself is a 'human rights violation?'
The only difference between the federal government and the state government of Arizona is that the feds are not following the law. Had they been doing so, the Arizona law would have never even been considered.
With the vast majority of American citizens standing firm in support of Arizona's proactive stance in dealing with the lawless assault from the southern border, the Administration's disdain for U.S. sovereignty only confirms in the minds of voters that the U.S. government is presently dominated by extremists who believe that our own Constitution and laws must have the 'oversight' of a 'global authority.'
