What the American elite and ruling class fears more than an end to deficit spending and a return to the gold standard, is that the United States return to an isolationist foreign policy.
Although the “globalist” precedent-setting and poll boosting that is the underlying purpose of Obama’s Libyan action has been mentioned elsewhere by the likes of Limbaugh and Mark Levin, the legal aspects of his action bear analysis because Obama has said some extraordinary things which suggest he feels he has no need couch the globalist nature of U.S. military action in the language of national defense nor “national interest.”
As he said in a speech given in El Salvador, “we have confidence that we are not going in alone, and it is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally. ”
But despite the protestations of his conservative critics, the use of the American military for international, United Nations sanctioned warfare has been the law of the land since 1949. In that year Congress passed the United Nations Participation Act, which grants the President the authority to send American forces into combat merely in support of peacemaking missions approved by the United Nations. The UNPA allows the President to do this without obtaining the authority of Congress beforehand.
Section 6 of the UNPA states: “The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter (UN Charter).” To date, the courts have upheld this under the dictates of customary treaty law, where treaties supersede domestic law-yes, even the U.S. Constitution.
In light of this old law and the decades-long globalist orientation of the U.S. military, the question of constitutional war powers appears to be moot. The more important and poignant question should be “When were we asked to make it so?”
Perhaps the answer to that was given by the court historian of the liberal regime, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., in a 1995 symposium on American isolationism (for them a chronic problem). Notice in what he says that the isolationists tendencies of the people were suspect, so it is implied the question never would be directly put to the people. It would be engineered out of them. Do you expect anything less my dear readers? He said:
For President Roosevelt the great objective in 1943–1945, besides winning the war, was to tie the United States into a postwar structure of peace. The memory, still so vivid, of the repudiation of the League two short decades before was not encouraging. Isolationism had been the American norm for a century and a half; internationalism was only a two-year Wilsonian aberration. No one could assume that isolationism would simply wither away. It had, Roosevelt felt, to be brought to a definite end by binding American commitments to an international order. And he felt additionally that as many of these commitments as possible should be made while the war was still on, before peace could return the nation to its old isolationist habits. F.D.R. said privately, “Anybody who thinks that isolationism is dead in this country is crazy. As soon as this war is over, it may well be stronger than ever.”
So, while the war was still on, Roosevelt organized international meetings at Bretton Woods, Dumbarton Oaks, San Francisco and elsewhere to involve the United States in the international machinery that would deal with postwar questions. In particular, in the words of the diplomat Charles E. Bohlen, who served as White House liaison to the State Department, F.D.R. saw the United Nations as “the only device that could keep the United States from slipping back into isolationism.” And, as Winston Churchill said on his return from the Yalta Conference, this new international organization must “not shrink from establishing its will against the evildoer or evil planner in good time and by force of arms.” Once again, the ultimate guarantee of peace, the ultimate test of collective security and world law lay in military enforcement.
That the American people do not understand that their military is the spearhead of global governance and the United Nations is nothing new.
That they believe their law is purely derived from the U.S. Constitution and not from international legal institutions is nothing new either.
In a country that continues to celebrate a war (WW2) that had as its most important outcomes the enslavement of 1/3 of humanity under the iron heel of International Communism and the establishment of global governance by its “most popular” president, is it any wonder?
When the American people wake up and begin to understand that their corrupt elite has been using their blood, labor and treasure to subvert America and end its sovereignty in the name of the New World Order, I certainly hope there will be hell to pay.
I would not expect anything less.
(Hold on, it’s coming. Hold on, it’s almost here.)
According to a Harris poll released on March 5, Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s far-right National Front, would come in first if the first round of Presidential elections were held this year. That puts her ahead of both President Sarkozy and Socialist Party leader Martine Aubry.
Marine Le Pen is the daughter of controversial founder of the National Front, Jean-Marie Le Pen. She has also taken controversial positions on the European Union, immigration and other social issues.
Here is a video of Le Pen. Notice her startling analysis of the the European Union and the Euro. The comparison of the EU to a “dead star” is classic.
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras – A Supreme Court judge cleared Honduras’ military commanders Tuesday in the coup that toppled Manuel Zelaya, and hours later lawmakers approved amnesty for the ousted leader and all those involved in his removal.
The two measures — combined with Wednesday’s inauguration of a new president, conservative rancher Porfirio Lobo — appeared to spell the last chapter in the bitter political dispute that led to Honduras’ international isolation.
Supreme Court President Jorge Rivera ruled the country’s top generals did not abuse their power in ordering soldiers to escort Zelaya out of the country at gunpoint June 28.
“Prosecutors failed to prove the military chiefs acted with malice,” he said in a statement.
The prosecution’s case did not question Zelaya’s ouster itself — only whether the six members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff went too far in flying him to Costa Rica after he was arrested by soldiers in a dispute over a constitutional referendum.
Those charged included the head of the armed forces, Gen. Romeo Vasquez, and five other top-ranking officers, including the air force chief, Gen. Javier Prince, and the navy commander, Gen. Juan Pablo Rodriguez. The abuse of power charge carries a sentence of three to six years in prison.
Rivera said in his ruling that the commanders were justified in sending Zelaya into exile because their actions were aimed at preserving peace in Honduras and they did not intend to cause the leftist president any harm.
Late Tuesday, Congress approved an amnesty for all those involved in the coup as well as for pending charges against Zelaya.
The body voted along party lines, with Zelaya’s Liberal Party abstaining and Lobo’s National Party voting in favor.
The amnesty, expected to take effect Wednesday, freed the military and other forces of any legal responsibility in the coup, and absolved Zelaya of charges of treason and abuse of power stemming from his campaign to change the constitution, despite the fact that the Supreme Court had ruled his plans for a referendum illegal.
Zelaya sneaked back into the country in September to reclaim the presidency and finish out his term, but has been holed up in the Brazilian Embassy since then, facing the threat of arrest if he leaves.
A deal has been brokered for Zelaya’s safe passage into exile Wednesday, the day Lobo is sworn in.
With the threat of arrest eliminated by the amnesty, Zelaya could apparently leave the embassy at will Wednesday.
But Honduran chief prosecutor Luis Alberto Rubi said Saturday that he was investigating Zelaya for allegedly embezzling at least $1.5 million in government funds. Such a charge would apparently not be covered by the amnesty.
Zelaya is scheduled to travel to the Dominican Republic as a private citizen Wednesday under an accord signed by Lobo and Dominican President Leonel Fernandez.
Lobo said he would accompany Fernandez to the embassy when Zelaya exits the diplomatic mission. “Can you imagine starting a term with a president locked up in an embassy … that is not fair for a president,” Lobo said.
Lobo said at a news conference Tuesday that he believes the United States will re-establish normal relations with Honduras as soon as he is sworn into office and that he is confident other countries will soon follow suit.
“With the United States, starting tomorrow everything will be normalized … they are going to state that to me officially tomorrow, when I am president,” Lobo said.
The U.S. Embassy in Honduras had no immediate comment on that claim.
Only the presidents of three other countries are scheduled to attend the inauguration: Taiwan, Panama and the Dominican Republic.
This is a Big Deal Folks! Scientist from IPCC Admits Faulty Glacier Data was Used “Purely to put Pressure on Political Leaders.”
As CPN reported in this article way back in early December, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 Fourth Assessment report (the report), which won the Nobel Prize along with Al Gore, contained a glaring mistake about the “catastrophic melting” of Himalayan glaciers. The report declared that there was a high probability that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, and would drastically decrease the water supply for hundreds of millions of people.
Last week, the IPCC was finally forced to withdraw this assessment as it has been admitted it was based solely on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.
Dr. Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author for the report’s Asia section, said that they depended on these recycled interviews and did not conduct any peer-review of the science before it was put into final report.
In an interview with the UK Daily Mail today, Dr. Lal has also admitted that the information was put into the report for purely political reasons. The faulty and alarmist prediction about the melting glaciers was put in, he said, because “it related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.”
The reason is clear. Far from being just a simple scientific mistake in a large report, the Himalayan glaciers have long been a central icon in global warming campaigners’ propoganda. Everything that polar bears have been to western environmental campaigners, the Himalayas has been to eastern and Asian advocates of limits of greenhouse gases. The loss of water resources for millions of people in Central Asia has been a central alarmist narrative. Thus, it is obvious that it became very important for the true believers to concoct an extremist narrative about the Himalayan glaciers and put it inside the IPCC Fourth Assessment, despite evidence to the contrary.
Because of these revelations, which are a violation of the IPCC’s supposedly stringent scientific procedural rules, there have been increasing calls for the head of the IPCC, Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, to resign. Pachauri has acknowledged that the section on glaciers is faulty and has admitted that there are probably more errors in that section of the IPCC’s 2007 report.
This is a drastic and embarrassing reversal for Dr. Pachauri, who was drawn into a personal row with the Indian government when their leading climate scientists released a report questioning the IPCC’s Himalayan glacier results last November. At the time, Pachouri dismissed India’s report and referred to it as “voodoo science” and “school-boy science.” Pachauri and the IPCC subsequently slammed the report by geologist V.K. Raina that concluded glaciers were not retreating abnormally. Raina has asked for an apology and has said that the IPCC should dump their report.
(An interesting side note: CPN reported on this story over one month ago, as there was an article in the BBC about it. Dr. Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, has claimed he first heard about the errors 10 days ago. See what enlightening reading CPN can be!)
Besides that, the scientist who was the original source of the glacier data, Syed Hasnain, was also mute about the error, even though he recognized the error in 2008 after he read the entire Nobel Prize-winning report. Hasnain was employed at the The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi at the time, a company also headed by Dr. Pachauri of the IPCC. Some have speculated that Hasnain’s silence was attributable to his employment with TERI:
Hasnain has denied this and claims he was working on his own projects at TERI. He said:
I was keeping quiet as I was working here. My job is not to point out mistakes. And you know the might of the IPCC. What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?
Yea, how about those scientists? Maybe the acknowledged “might” of the IPCC had something to do with their silence-they wouldn’t want to be smeared as “deniers” now, would they? They could have lost their grants and could have had their professional integrity brought into question, eh?
Pursuing this further, Christopher Booker of the London Telegraph has been documenting the rapidly expanding global business ties that Dr. Pachauri, “the world’s leading climate official,” has been establishing since becoming the head of the IPCC in 2002. Booker has revealed not only the windfall in grants and carbon credits that is heading to TERI, but he has also documented the score of positions that Pachauri holds with institutions that are positioned to benefit from the vast worldwide industry based on measures to halt climate change. Booker says that given Pachauri’s initially virulent renunciations of India’s report and his later apology:
Even more damaging now, however, will be the revelation that the source of that offending prediction was the man whom Dr Pachauri himself has been employing for two years as the head of his glaciology unit at TERI – and that TERI has won a share in two major research contracts based on a scare over the melting of Himalayan glaciers prominently promoted by the IPCC, using words drawn directly from Dr Hasnain.
As critics of global warming have been saying for years now, the advocates of climate change and strict restrictions on carbon production are politicians more than they are scientists. With these new revelations and those of the released e-mails from the CRU last year, this is, at last, pretty clear. But, have no doubt, the climate politicians will go on arguing for their cause, and outside of the blogosphere you can rest assured that the LAME will keep it under raps as long as they can.
Complaint Filed With ICC Against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Rice, Gonzales for Crimes Against Humanity
A law professor at the Illinois College of Law has filed a formal complaint with the International Criminal Court against members of the Bush Administration for Crimes against Humanity with the International Criminal Court.
His complaint asserts that the practice of ” extraordinary rendition” which continues to be a policy in the Obama Adminstration, is a ” criminal policy and practice which are both ‘widespread’ and ‘systematic’ within the meaning of Rome Statute article 7(1). Therefore the Accused have committed numerous ‘Crimes against Humanity’ in flagrant and repeated and longstanding violation of Rome Statute articles 5(1)(b), 7(1)(a), 7(1)(e), 7(1)(f), 7(1)(g), 7(1)(h), 7(1)(i), and 7(1)(k). Furthermore, the Accused’s Rome Statute Crimes Against Humanity of enforced disappearances of persons constitutes ongoing criminal activity that continues even as of today.”
The complaint also asserts that even though the U.S. has not ratified the Rome Statute establishing the ICC, the acts committed by Bush et. al. were committed within states who are members and thus, within the jurisdiction of the ICC.
And, may I add, that if an investigation is done and an arrest warrant is issued, Bush et. al. will not be immune from arrest. They will be subject to arrest by any state that has the guts to do so based on universal jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction is a principle in international law whereby states claim criminal jurisdiction over persons whose alleged crimes were committed outside the boundaries of the prosecuting state, regardless of nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting country. The state backs its claim on the grounds that the crime committed is considered a crime against all, which any state is authorized to punish, as it is too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage.
There are many countries, even within Europe, that would want to bring Bush et. al. up on charges for Crimes Against Humanity. All the people named in the complaint will have to watch where they travel if arrest warrants are eventually issued by the ICC.
I have no doubt that Obama and the American Left will not defend against these charges. So, what will happen? It remains to be seen, but if arrest warrants are issued, a decision must be made somewhere down the line whether to attack the charges lest they hang out there in perpetuity.
There is evidence that Bush et. al. could beat these charges, as recently, in Lithuania, a controversy has erupted over whether the CIA prisons actually held prisoners or not. This is the kind of evidence that would make it possible to exonerate the U.S. on its “rendition” policy in court.
I wonder how this would play out if Condoleeza Rice became the next President of the United States?
She would be my pick as of now, anyway.
This is not the most important thing going on today but the story highlights the audacity of EU political cronies. It also gives me the chance to post photos of Elena Udrea, a pretty good-looking political hack. Aren’t you glad that CPN spans the globe looking for the most interesting stories of the day!
22.12.2009 @ 17:40 CET
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – A glamourous former advisor to the Romanian president has been nominated as minister for regional development, in charge of billions of euros in EU aid to a country struggling with corruption and maladministration.
In a skyrocketing career, the 36-year-old Elena Udrea is currently minister of tourism in a caretaker government led by Romania’s Emil Boc.
Elena Udrea (c) has courted attention in Romanian media for her looks (Photo: elenaudrea.ro)
Following Mr Boc’s upcoming re-appointment as prime minister, Ms Udrea is to add the regional development portfolio to her tourism job, putting her in control of €3.7 billion from the EU budget for 2007 to 2013, for the sake of improving housing, infrastructure and tourism.
Seen as a protégé of Romanian President Traian Basescu, Ms Udrea was the subject of a parliamentary inquiry in September, which recommended opening a criminal investigation into the way she had used public money to fund media campaigns.
Ms Udrea says the inquiry was politically-driven in order to damage Ms Basescu’s re-election effort, while her office points out that the accusations were too weak to merit criminal charges.
The media inquiry is not the first time that the minister has been in the spotlight for corruption allegations, however.
Ms Udrea, who has posed for glossy lifestyle magazines in her underwear, is married to a Bucharest businessman who used to run a parking-lot monopoly in the city. She was appointed as Mr Basescu’s special advisor soon after he was elected president in late 2004, but resigned from the post in November 2005 amid accusations of cronyism concerning her husband’s business associates.
Her 2005 downfall was accelerated by a series of gaffes: On one occasion, during a TV show, she said that Norway was a presidential republic and a member of the EU.
Ms Udrea’s appointment as minister in charge of EU regional funds has outraged a number of Romanian commentators and political rivals.
Mr Basescu is putting back “the same discredited ministers in key positions,” Social Democrat leader Mircea Geoana, who narrowly lost the recent general elections, said on Monday (21 December).
Alina Mungiu-Pippidi, an analyst with the Berlin-based Hertie School of Governance, told EUobserver: “To entrust Ms Udrea with the bulk of EU funds is simply scandalous … The Romanian media repeatedly reported the very favorable public contracts her husband’s company received in the last years and her privileged access to the president have made her a hugely controversial character.”
Dan Tapalaga, a Bucharest-based journalist, criticised Ms Udrea’s lack of technical expertise in dealing with her new role.
“Romania cannot afford to experiment with novices in key positions, we need someone who is an expert in local and regional governance, who knows what EU funds are about. Especially since Romania has been failing to implement a functional regional policy for years,” he said.
Ms Udrea’s office rejected claims that she lacks qualifications for the regional funding job, arguing that, as a minister for tourism, she was also responsible for overseeing EU-funded programs.
Commenting on the 2005 cronyism allegations, one of her staff told this website that: “Ms Udrea resigned four years ago from her duties as presidential advisor precisely in order to clarify this problem. This topic is no longer an issue.”
The EU commission said it does not comment on individual appointments, but noted that Brussels has a “shared responsibility” with Romanian authorities to ensure that EU funds are spent correctly.
“The primary responsibility for selecting which projects can benefit from EU funding lies with member states. They have to demonstrate that each individual project meets all eligibilty requirements. If they fail to do this, the commission can suspend payments or demand re-payment of funding which has been wrongly claimed,” Dennis Abbott, the spokesman for the regional policy commissioner, told EUobserver.
All projects which receive EU money must fully comply with community law in terms of transparent tender and public procurement rules, he added.
The EU commission has also launched a special monitoring mechanism on judicial reform and combatting of high-level corruption in Romania following its accession in 2007. The mechanism, which also applies to Bulgaria, was recently extended for an unlimited period of time.
Look for more and more articles like this in the future.
The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic says.
J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.
He is astonished they “misread 2350 as 2035”. The authors deny the claims.
Leading glaciologists say the report has caused confusion and “a catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology”.
The Himalayas hold the planet’s largest body of ice outside the polar caps – an estimated 12,000 cubic kilometres of water.
They feed many of the world’s great rivers – the Ganges, the Indus, the Brahmaputra – on which hundreds of millions of people depend.
In its 2007 report, the Nobel Prize-winning Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said: “Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.
It is not plausible that Himalayan glaciers are disappearing completely within the next few decades
World Glacier Monitoring Service
“Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2035,” the report said.
It suggested three quarters of a billion people who depend on glacier melt for water supplies in Asia could be affected.
But Professor Cogley has found a 1996 document by a leading hydrologist, VM Kotlyakov, that mentions 2350 as the year by which there will be massive and precipitate melting of glaciers.
“The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates – its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350,” Mr Kotlyakov’s report said.
Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and “misread 2350 as 2035”.
“I do suggest that the glaciological community might consider advising the IPCC about ways to avoid such egregious errors as the 2035 versus 2350 confusion in the future,” says Mr Cogley.
He said the error might also have its origins in a 1999 news report on retreating glaciers in the New Scientist magazine.
The article quoted Syed I Hasnain, the then chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice’s (ICSI) Working group on Himalayan glaciology, as saying that most glaciers in the Himalayan region “will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming”.
Scientists say Himalayan glaciers need more study
When asked how this “error” could have happened, RK Pachauri, the Indian scientist who heads the IPCC, said: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”
The IPCC relied on three documents to arrive at 2035 as the “outer year” for shrinkage of glaciers.
They are: a 2005 World Wide Fund for Nature report on glaciers; a 1996 Unesco document on hydrology; and a 1999 news report in New Scientist.
Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing.
Murari Lal, a climate expert who was one of the leading authors of the 2007 IPCC report, denied it had its facts wrong about melting Himalayan glaciers.
But he admitted the report relied on non-peer reviewed – or ‘unpublished’ – documents when assessing the status of the glaciers.
Recently India’s Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh released a study on Himalayan glaciers that suggested that they may be not melting as much due to global warming as it is widely feared.
He accused the IPCC of being “alarmist”.
India says the rate of retreat in many glaciers has decreased in recent years
Mr Pachauri dismissed the study as “voodoo science” and said the IPCC was a “sober body” whose work was verified by governments.
But in a joint statement some the world’s leading glaciologists who are also participants to the IPCC have said: “This catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology… has caused much confusion that could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication, including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work, been respected.”
Michael Zemp from the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich also said the IPCC statement on Himalayan glaciers had caused “some major confusion in the media”.
“Under strict consideration of the IPCC rules, it should actually not have been published as it is not based on a sound scientific reference.
“From a present state of knowledge it is not plausible that Himalayan glaciers are disappearing completely within the next few decades. I do not know of any scientific study that does support a complete vanishing of glaciers in the Himalayas within this century.”
Pallava Bagla is science editor for New Delhi Television (NDTV) and author of Destination Moon – India’s quest for Moon, Mars and Beyond.