Posted on 08/10/2008 8:13:47 PM PDT by davidosborne
bttt
And we need to rub their noses in it, until they quit getting themselves infected.
SHamnesty International and “International Court” are nothing more than the legal wing of Al Queda and should be dealt with as such.
I wish to God that was true, but it isn't. The American people as a whole are not one-world globalists, but way too many of our elected officials and non-elected judges and Justices are.
It's inevitable that the US will eventually either fade out of importance in the world picture, or more likely, become part of a Euro-American joint government of some sort. It has to come to that at some point in time according to bible prophecy, and the revived old Roman Empire portion is already in place in the guise of the European Union.
It's all foretold in the Creator's Book, and God has never yet been wrong and never will be because He sees human history from it's beginning throughout it's never ending future. It doesn't make any difference whether anyone believes this or not, because it's gonna be that way even if nobody believes it will.
“F*** the International Court.”
Amen! And then execute that SOB a second time for good measure.
I guess that means Texas will be pulling out of the United Nations then....
Always nice to hear some good news.
I know what you are saying and I can’t argue with you. But I don’t have to like it.
Screw this one world b.s.
For ultimate proof of that observe Al Franken; hear his statements and watch his actions. It's inescapable, he's sick, just like Rhoades, Garafalo, and so many others.
bump
bump
For many FReepers this will go without saying, and in most cases I feel as if I am "preaching to the choir" ---- The main issue here is of such great significance when one tries to contemplete the role of the so-called "INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE" ---
I am not so much opposed to the existence of such a court so long as their role is limited in scope and jurisdiction... as many of you know the court only has jurisdication is such cases in which the PARTIES to such a case have AGREED to allow the court to hear the case ---
This is in GREAT contrast to the manner in which our U.S. Supreme Court functions --- in the United States an APPEAL can be made to the U.S. Supreme Court by either party in a given case -- in a criminal case this would naturally be the "losing" party seeking to have a lower court ruling overturned, or in most cases a specifc part of a case which the petitioner believes may be relevent --- and that such a decision normally results in the case being REMANDED BACK to the lower court with specific instructions...
I find if very interesting that in this case the INTERNATIONAL COURT assumed jurisdication over a case which was being handled under the laws of Texas in a clear attempt to undermine the SOVERIGNTY of the State of Texas ---- EVEN AFTER the U.S. President clearly stated that the ICJ has no controlling legal authority to issue such an order -----
What am I missing here folks...?? ...and why is this NOT HUGE NEWS !! --- someone please help me understand?
The FR forum was on top of the world court back when it was first called the ICC [international criminal court]. One thing you'll learn about being a conservative is that we are all swamped with leftist-generated problems. That's the broad picture.
Just stop and think for a moment: we have an energy problem, a brave House rebellion being ignored, out-of-control spending, a modern day abortion Holocaust, Georgia, the moral DEvolution of our family values, attacks on religion, nanny-state laws, KELO, activist judges— and I'm just getting warmed up. Imagine being a talk radio host. People want to hear you talk about the latest ‘pebble in the shoe’ like John Edwards. [As for the leftist media, the answer of why they duck this issue is obvious.]
Now— back to the World Court. There was a time, not long ago, when half our justices believed that treaties trump our Constitutional rights. That's the root danger. Thee UN was a time bomb conceived by the Soviet spy, Algar Hiss—the UN’s founder. [And btw, McCain wants to temporize that danger with a new alliance— the League of Democracies, which I believe was first conceived here on the FR.]
Conservatives can't stand the ICC aka World Criminal Court. But you do have a few nimrods among us who want Clinton arrested by the World Court— as if they would. Leftist kamizars are largely safe from that body. Yes, you are darn straight that the world court is an important issue. We dodged a bullet when the Supreme Court upheld the right of states to trump treaties when they conflict with our bill of rights. Thank God many conservatives insisted Bush choose serious justices. Thank God Bush listened. But we still have three dissents.
It would be good for each FReeper to choose a pet issue/project that few are paying enough attention to, to create link pages on it. For a long time, my pet issue was the Ron Brown Crash. [Prior to that it was the war against Kyoto.] Others chose the strange death of Betty Currie's brother. Some chose Tainted Blood. But the World Court could be a much greater problem than any of them. An early source on this issue would be Cliff Kincaid.
Thank you for the thoughtful response, another “issue” I would love to see reported is the “Able Danger” operation by the DIA -— PRE 911 -— completely ignored by Jamie Gorelick / 911 OMMISSION report <-— Yes I did mean OMMISSION — NO COMMISSION -— but that is another story for another day -— I hit that topic hard when Rep. Curt Weldon tried to draw attention to the issue — but sadly he was ignored by the massess -—
David
I remember Weldon talking to Savage. Curt Weldon is a patriot.
BTTT
Mrs. Pelosi, have you no shame? Have you no decency?
The answer to both these questions is no.
I think we need a clarification of our positions on international institutions. We look like fools when we demand that all others abide by these institutions and then ignore them ourselves.
For a long time our nation has been cautious of "foreign entanglements", but let's not fool ourselves; that isn't true any more.
Thank you for your reply.... it is not an issue of “ignoring” them but rather understanding their purpose.. The ICJ was never intended to “trump” U.S. Law — yet so many folk out there want it to do just that.... 2nd, the ICJ only has jurisdiction in cases where ALL parties in the case agree and “submit” to it’s “authority” —— what part of THIS am I missing my FRiend?
David
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.