- He sat in a Black Liberation Theology church with Michelle (and his children) listening to Reverend Wright for 20 years.
- He started his political career in the living room of one of the founders of the Weather Underground who was responsible for domestic terrorism, and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
- He knocked his political opponents off the ballot in order to win.
- His wife said during the 2008 primary campaign, “For the first time in my life, I am proud of my country.”
- He spoke about the new world order while giving a campaign speech to Germans.
- He spoke about “fundamentally transforming” America during the campaign.
- His first signed executive order as president sealed his records from previous presidents.
- He has retained the law firm of Perkins Coie to keep his records sealed; paying well over $1 million to do so.
- His fourth executive order signed on 1.22.09 designated the closure of Gitmo.
- He takes over the banks.
- He takes over the car companies.
- He starts laying the ground work for seizure of non-bank financial companies now known as financial regulatory reform.
- He starts appointing more than thirty czars to run the country with no congressional oversight.
- He and his wife start living life like the last Czar and Czarina of all the Russias while Americans go hungry.
- He apologized for America on three different continents during the European Apology Tour.
- He jumps to conclusions about the white Cambridge police officer.
- The global justice initiative is established: “The “global justice” initiative starts out with the premise that virtually all suspects will end up in a U.S. or foreign court of law.”
- In speaking to the muslim world, he threw America, Israel and Women under the bus, and not necessarily in that order.
- He is nominated for a Nobel Peace prize after only 12 days in office, and wins for what? Promises?
- He has soldiers reading miranda rights to detainees in Afghanistan.
- He dithers on making a decision on Afghanistan and leaves current American troops sitting ducks.
- He allows his AG to make the call to bring the Gitmo terrorists to New York for a civilian trial with the rights of American citizens.
- He urges delay into the investigation of the Ft. Hood terrorist shootings.
- He bows again to the Japanese Emperor
- He bows again to the Chinese Premier and the Chinese President
- He outspends previous presidents in his first year.
- He backs the Global Warming/Climate Change LIE, with emission reductions.
- His administration sees no benefit in him attending Copenhagen if there is nothing to “sign”.
- Now he IS going to Copenhagen, (before more of the world learns of the global warming lie).
- He will cede American Sovereignty with his signature.
I could go on and on and on….
….and now for something totally within the realm of this swine who appears to be, (by his actions), anti-American, anti-free enterprise, anti-Israel, pro-muslim…
The International Criminal Court claims jurisdiction over U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.
By DANIEL SCHWAMMENTHAL
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed “great regret” in August that the U.S. is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has fueled speculation that the Obama administration may reverse another Bush policy and sign up for what could lead to the trial of Americans for war crimes in The Hague. (emphasis mine)
The ICC’s chief prosecutor, though, has no intention of waiting for Washington to submit to the court’s authority. Luis Moreno Ocampo says he already has jurisdiction—at least with respect to Afghanistan.
Because Kabul in 2003 ratified the Rome Statute—the ICC’s founding treaty—all soldiers on Afghan territory, even those from nontreaty countries, fall under the ICC’s oversight, Mr. Ocampo told me. And the chief prosecutor says he is already conducting a “preliminary examination” into whether NATO troops, including American soldiers, fighting the Taliban may have to be put in the dock.
“We have to check if crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide have been committed in Afghanistan,” Mr. Ocampo told me. “There are serious allegations against the Taliban and al Qaeda and serious allegations about warlords, even against some who are connected with members of the government.” Taking up his inquiry of Allied soldiers, he added, “there are different reports about problems with bombings and there are also allegations about torture.”
It was clear who the targets of these particular inquiries are but the chief prosecutor shied away from spelling it out.Asked repeatedly whether the examination of bombings and torture allegations refers to NATO and U.S. soldiers, Mr. Ocampo finally stated that “we are investigating whoever commits war crimes, including the group you mentioned.”
The fact that he avoided a straightforward “I am looking into possible war crimes committed by American soldiers” showed that Mr. Ocampo is aware of the enormity of crossing this legal and political bridge. Appointed in 2003 for a nine-year period, the 57-year-old Argentinian has—so far—established a record of cautious jurisprudence.
“Normally,” he said (another pause) “we select situations which are grave, for instance when I choose. . . .” Mr. Ocampo didn’t finish the sentence, sighed and began afresh: “Both [scenarios] are right. Normally, we open investigations in the worst situation in the world and in some cases [countries] we investigate the worst situation.”
This is an expansive and controversial interpretation of the court’s mandate, one that may put an end to the debate about whether former President George W. Bush, fearing just such judicial activism, was justified in unsigning the Rome Statute his predecessor, Bill Clinton, had endorsed. Although the prosecutor’s preliminary examination may not result in a formal investigation of Americans, the mere potential of a legal confrontation between the court in The Hague and Washington should be disconcerting to the White House, not to mention to all Americans.
In any event, the ICC’s very existence is already changing the way Western nations fights wars. Mr. Ocampo recounted how a legal adviser to NATO told him that troops these days are trained to realize that, in case of transgressions, they could be arrested and brought to the ICC on war crimes charges with the help of evidence provided by NATO itself.
“That is the new world,” Mr. Ocampo said proudly. I asked the obvious follow-up. “If this is the ‘new world,’ why do you bother collecting information about NATO and U.S. troops in Afghanistan?” Why, in other words, when his task is to end the impunity for the worst war crimes, does he spend his limited resources on the most advanced democracies in the world—which operate under strict rules of engagement, have their own chain-of-command investigations and swift prosecution of criminals? Mr. Ocampo got slightly irritated.
“You are suggesting that we are a court only for the Third World. That’s what the Arab world said about Bashir, that we are using double standards,” he explained. “I said no, I prosecute whoever is in my jurisdiction. I cannot allow that we are a court just for the Third World. If the First World commits crimes, they have to investigate, if they don’t, I shall investigate. That’s the rule and we have one rule for everyone.”
Mr. Ocampo—who has a photo of himself with the head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, on his windowsill—could have pointed out to his Arab interlocutors that the real double standard was their own complaining about alleged Western aggression against Muslims while they protect Sudan’s Bashir, the greatest butcher of Muslims in modern history. The fact that Mr. Ocampo mentioned the Sudanese perpetrator of genocide in the same breath with alleged crimes of NATO soldiers shed light on what the International Criminal Court may have in store for the U.S. in the future.
The trillion dollar question being, “How do we boot Obama and his cronies out of the White House before he does anymore damage?”, because impeachment is not currently possible with the House and Senate being controlled by the democrats.