Obama: A sudden catastrophe ~ By Ellis Washington

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Ellis Washington Posted: December 26, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009

If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity. ~ Daniel Webster

During this Christmas season, America should be reminded that President Barack Obama has perpetrated more vicious attacks against the Christian faith than any other president in the history of America. Therefore, I ask: Is Obama's ascendancy a sudden catastrophe? Even many of Obama's most ardent supporters agree that his first year in office has been a catastrophe:

• Increasing the national debt from $10 trillion in eight years under GWB to over $14 trillion;

• Nationalizing private corporations like GM, Chrysler, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;

• Bowing before murderous dictator nations like Saudi Arabia and China;

• Undeservedly receiving the Nobel Peace Prize after only two weeks in office, and;

• Appointing the basest of men (and women) to Cabinet-level positions and as czars to propagate the most anti-constitutional and hurtful policies against America.

One of America's greatest statesmen, Daniel Webster, a congressman, a senator and the secretary of state under three different presidents, said almost 200 years ago, "If there is anything in my thoughts or style to commend, the credit is due to my parents for instilling in me an early love of the Scriptures." Webster warned us that a "sudden catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity" if we didn't "abide by the principles taught in the Bible." Even America 150 years ago, during her most wicked and notorious period of slavery, does not compare with where we are today with abortion on demand, with the corpses of 50 million innocent babies we collectively killed, without even a tombstone memorial. How dare we send a charge to former generations for their sins of slavery, lynchings, de jure and de facto discrimination – with our hands stained with the blood of the innocents by our willful acquiesce to this savagery? Daniel Webster continued his prophetic warnings to this generation, saying:

There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. … [T]hat in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing.

Is President Obama our "public servant" or are We the People his slaves? I believe that the Obama administration and his puppet masters, like billionaire George Soros, the unions, the Hollywood movie moguls, militant gay and feminist activists, as well as legal organizations like the ACLU and the American Trial Lawyers Association, have nothing but utter disdain for the Constitution and the inalienable rights of the people founded under Natural Law. How did we get here so fast? In 1980 candidate Reagan failed to pick a bona fide conservative as vice president, which led to Bush 41 becoming a one-term irrelevancy in 1992. This opened the door to the moral degenerate and demagogue Bill Clinton. Bush 43 won two terms faking as a Ronald Reagan conservative and spending like a drunken Democrat. READ FULL STORY >

The tyranny of transnationalism ~ By Ellis Washington

By Ellis Washington Posted: July 11, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009

Once we sign our rights over to international law, the Constitution is officially dead. – Glenn Beck

I am rare among law academics in that I consider international law to be essentially a legal fiction. For the sake of argument assume that my thesis is correct. This enigma then begs the question: How can international law, which by definition is made up of the laws of many sovereign nations, be applicable to all nations on an equal basis? Answer: It can't. Modern international law had its origins concurrent with the inauguration of the United Nations at the San Francisco Conference (April, 1945) and its first international trial, the Nuremberg Trials (1945-48). Since the end of World War II international law has evolved to create and integrate other aspects of law, namely transnational law which in essence is a form of supranational law, which contends that laws of nation states are held inapplicable when conflicting with a supranational legal system. On March 29th, the Obama Administration nominated Harold Koh (on leave as the Dean of Yale Law School), as the senior legal advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. On June 25, 2009, Koh was confirmed by the Senate in a 62-35 vote. Koh is one of the foremost experts in the field of transnational law and has written extensively on this subject both in books and in law journals. While his nomination has been generally supported in the Senate and by most law academics, Koh's nomination did have some criticism from some conservative commentators for his views on international law and its use in American legal analysis and jurisprudence. Surprisingly, other conservatives such as former Bush 41 Solicitor General, Ted Olsen, former Whitewater Special Counsel, Kenneth Starr and even generally conservative publications such as Forbes Magazine, have all supported Koh's nomination. In a recent article, a student-editor at Pepperdine said of Obama's nominee: "Koh has defined his academic career by arguing for the mandatory authority of international law in domestic realm of American jurisprudence." Koh's arguments for "transnational jurisprudence" as being essential to maintaining a well ordered international legal system is compelling. Koh's contention that "concepts like liberty, equality and privacy are not exclusively American constitutional ideas but, rather, part and parcel of the global human rights movement," is in line with the conventional thinking of the legal community. Unfortunately, Koh's legal theories are from a decidedly secular humanist and positive law worldview which glorifies the power of the State, versus a natural law worldview that integrates law and morality by placing moral law above the State not below it. Conservatives on the Supreme Court, particularly Thomas and Scalia, have criticized transnational jurisprudence as not being amenable with legitimate judicial precedent as Koh maintains, but argue that citing foreign decisions as legal precedents threatens American sovereignty. Other commentators like Forbes and the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, have contended that the "use of such nonbinding sources to bolster legal arguments is a central and uncontroversial tenet of the American judicial process." While Koh's transnational jurisprudence is interesting, what does American constitutional history have to say about it? According to an exhaustive study by Lutz and Hyneman that took them over 10 years to bring together, they amassed over 15,000 items, including 2,200 books, newspaper articles, pamphlets and monographs of political materials written between 1760-1805. The three most quoted legal philosophers by the Constitution's framers were:

Baron Charles Montesquieu, "The Spirit of the Laws" (1748); Sir William Blackstone, "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (1765-69); John Locke, "Two Treatises of Government" (1689)

All three men were Natural Law philosophers to the core and their ideas thoroughly influenced America's Founding Fathers. The only other source quoted more than these three political philosophers was the Bible which, according to the Lutz/Hyneman study, accounted for 96 percent of the ideas that formed America's republic. [CONTINUE READING]