Where is the Constitution? ~ By Henry Lamb

The meeting in Paris on March 19, attended by Hillary Clinton and representatives from other nations, was a group of "state actors issuing guidance and control mechanisms" that resulted in the bombing of a sovereign nation – using U.S. military assets without congressional approval. This action is global governance in action. Global governance must be rejected and national sovereignty reaffirmed as the only authority that governs the citizens of the United States.

If Barrack Hussein Obama cannot accept this concept, then he must be impeached. If there are too many progressive globalists still in Congress to accomplish this feat, then they too must be replaced with candidates who not only swear to "... preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" but who pledge to obey it in every law and action.

The election in November 2010 was a good start toward restoring the Constitution. The election in 2012 will determine whether we do, in fact, respect and restore the Constitution or continue down Obama's road toward global governance.

I happened to find this column by Henry Lamb from early last week, written in addition to his normal Weekend column on WorldNetDaily.com. It is pretty easy to tell that Henry was worked up in this commentary, which explains his motivation to go above and beyond his normal weekly fulfillment of a column for WND.

So, what is it that had Henry so ruffled? When you read this column, you will surely understand, but I'll go ahead and summarize it here for you: 1) Obama committed U.S. armed forces into hostile action without consulting Congress, 2) which violates the War Powers Act, and worse yet, 3) "Obama disregarded the Constitution while submitting to the United Nations Security Council, and engaging the U.S. military" in Libya, 4) without even a whimper from leftist protesters.

In other words, "Obama's action is not simply endorsement of global governance; it is submission to it." Henry goes on to say the following, and he is absolutely right:

Every representative and senator should be deluged with phone calls from constituents demanding that the president be, at least, reprimanded for his behavior – and possibly impeached.

Where is the Constitution?

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

March 21, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

President Obama swore an oath to "... preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." He should have sworn to obey it.

Congress, alone, has the power to declare war, and to make all the laws necessary to engage in military conflict. The War Powers Act defines precisely what is required of the president before military action may commence.

Obama launched 118 missiles and dropped 40 bombs on Libya without a thought about Congress or the Constitution.

He was quite concerned, however, about the United Nations. He hardly noticed the attacks on protesters until the United Nations Security Council approved a resolution authorizing the use of force against the Libyan government. Within hours after U.N. approval, the U.S. military was engaged – without the knowledge or approval of Congress.

This event is proof-positive evidence of two staggering realities: Obama refuses to accept the limitations on government, and particularly on his office, imposed by the Constitution, and Obama considers the United Nations to be a higher authority than Congress.

This event should be grounds for severe congressional censure, if not impeachment.

When President Bush bombed Iraq, he had congressional approval. Nevertheless, the left went berserk in protest, claiming that "Bush lied; people died." In response to a question from a Boston Globe reporter, Obama said: "As president, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law" (Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007).

Obviously, Obama lied; people died. Where are the leftist protesters?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

What a concept: Lawmakers supporting sovereignty ~ By Oliver North

By Oliver North Posted: June 26, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 WASHINGTON – My old American Heritage Dictionary defines "sovereignty" as "complete independence and self-government." Our Declaration of Independence affirms, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." In January 2000, Jesse Helms, the legendary U.S. senator from North Carolina, succinctly summed up the meaning of these words for the United Nations Security Council by explaining that "nations derive their sovereignty – their legitimacy – from the consent of the governed." The ayatollahs brutally crushing dissent in Iran consider this linkage – sovereignty, legitimacy and the consent of the governed – to be as repugnant as a ham sandwich. Regrettably, these concepts do not appear to be grasped at the Obama White House, either. Thankfully, there are some in Washington who do understand. Nearly a year ago, Freedom Alliance, the Center for Security Policy and The Heritage Foundation began urging members of Congress to convene a body to focus on issues of American sovereignty. On Wednesday, Reps. Doug Lamborn, Thad McCotter and Scott Garrett announced the formation of the Congressional Sovereignty Caucus – an entity dedicated to preserving U.S. sovereignty. More than 30 other members of the House of Representatives already have enrolled. U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint became the first member of the "world's greatest deliberative body" to join. They have their work cut out for them. Yesterday, less than 24 hours after members of the Congressional Sovereignty Caucus met with supporters at the Capitol Visitor Center, the U.S. Senate confirmed the appointment of Harold Koh, formerly the dean of Yale Law School, as the legal adviser for the State Department. The 62-35 vote means that Koh is now in a position to negotiate treaties, affect international law and influence U.S. foreign policy. That's not good news. Koh is a self-described "transnationalist," who "believes in and promotes the blending of international and domestic law." According to Koh, "U.S. courts can and should use their interpretive powers to promote the development of a global legal system." In short, he is a proponent of ensuring that citizens of the United States are in "obedience with international law." Unfortunately, the legal adviser's appointment is just the tip of the iceberg in the Obama administration. Mr. Obama's nominee to become associate justice of the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, has spoken favorably about foreign law influencing U.S. legal decisions. In April, she argued, "To the extent that we have freedom of ideas, international law and foreign law will be very important in the discussion of how to think about the unsettled issues in our legal system." This kind of "thinking" is now endemic among Washington's political elite. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has asserted that the U.S. must "modernize and revitalize" international organizations and create new global governing institutions. Sen. John Kerry, now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, urged that U.S. defense policy should pass a "global test" before being implemented. And while campaigning for president, our apologizer in chief declared in Berlin that he is a "citizen of the world."[CONTINUE READING]