Skip to content

Harold Koh Possibly the Last Stepping Stone Towards Taking Away YOUR GUNS

June 24, 2009

What a nightmare.  Obama proves (again) how little he cares for America in his nomination of Harold Koh…

Live Free or Die Hard

The Constitution of the United States of America.

Bill of Rights

Article [II.]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Vote Coming to Confirm Anti-gun Radical
— “Guns Kill Civil Society,” says State Department Nominee

If you want to be in the global environment, you have to play by the global rules,” Koh told a Cleveland audience.

Koh’s positions treat our constitutional law as if it were a mere local ordinance on the greater world stage. This is of particular concern to gun owners at a time when the U.S. Congress is under pressure from President Obama to ratify an international gun control treaty with countries in the western hemisphere.  That treaty, known by its Spanish acronym CIFTA, would likely serve as a forerunner to a more extensive United Nations initiative, the “Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its Aspects.”

In a paper entitled “A world drowning in guns,” Koh maintains that a civil society cannot exist with broad gun ownership: “Guns kill civil society,” he said.

Harold Koh Is Too Dangerous for America – Phyllis Schlafly

Does Barack Obama really want to make Americans subject to foreign law and courts? That is the question senators should ask when they vote on his nomination of Harold Hongju Koh, former dean of the Yale Law School, to be the top lawyer at the State Department.

Koh is encumbered by a long paper trail that proves he is eager to use foreign and international law to interpret American law. He calls himself a transnationalist, which means wanting U.S. courts to “domesticate” foreign and international law — i.e., integrate it into U.S. domestic law binding on U.S. citizens.

Koh wants to put the United States under a global legal system that would diminish our “distinctive rights culture,” such as our broad speech and religion rights, due process and trial by jury. Koh complains that our First Amendment gives “protections for speech and religion … far greater emphasis and judicial protection in America than in Europe or Asia.”

Yes, our Constitution does give individuals more rights and freedom than any other country, and we Americans like those rights and freedoms. But Koh thinks we should bow to foreign rules and court decisions, and to United Nations treaties whether or not we have ratified them.

The State Department’s chief lawyer is not just any lawyer. He becomes the voice of the United States on international legal issues, such as the negotiation and U.S. interpretation of treaties and U.N. pronouncements […]

“Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) speaks out against President Obama’s nominee to be legal counsel for the State Department, Harold Koh. ”

Embedded video

Link @YouTube

Who is Harold Koh?
Harold Koh is the former Dean of Yale Law School. He was nominated by Barack Obama on March 23 to serve in the position of Legal Advisor to the State Department.

Why is the position of legal advisor to the State Department important?
The Legal Adviser position is, due to its international scope, unlike other legal positions in the federal government. He “furnishes advice on all legal issues, domestic and international, arising in the course of the Department’s work” including “formulating and implementing the foreign policies of the United States, and promoting the development of international law and its institutions as a fundamental element of those policies.”

If confirmed, Koh will travel worldwide for the next four years to “negotiate, draft and interpret international agreements involving … peace initiatives, arms control discussions … and private law conventions on subjects such as judicial cooperation and recognition of foreign judgments.” He would also represent the U.S. at treaty negotiations and international legal conferences, and will be involved in drafting U.N. Security Council resolutions.

…..

Why are some people concerned about this nomination?
Here are a few representative legal opinions held by Koh regarding international law:

That the congressionally authorized 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq “violate[d] international law” because the U.S. had not received “explicit United Nations authorization” (“A Better Way To Deal With Iraq,” Hartford Courant, October 20, 2002);

That pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations the decisions of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, trump the legal rulings and decisions of domestic state criminal courts (Brief of Former United States Diplomats as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner Jose Ernesto Medellin, Case No. 06-984 in the U.S. Supreme Court, Medellin v. The State of Texas, June 28, 2007);

That the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court should “tip more decisively toward a transnationalist jurisprudence” (“On American Exceptionalism,” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 55, No. 5, p. 1525, May 2003);

That the U.S. should ratify the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child regardless of the implications for American sovereignty and federalism (Change for America; A Progressive Blueprint for the 44th President, p. 497, New York, 2009); and,

That America is such a major violator of international law that it belongs in an “axis of disobedience” with nations such as North Korea and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (“Transnational Legal Process After September 11th,” Berkeley Journal of International Law, Vol. 22, p. 337, 2004).

Foreign Policy

Wed, 06/24/2009

UPDATE: “Cloture passed on a 65-31 vote,” a Congressional source relays at 11:30am. “There was applause in the Senate gallery after the vote was announced. Republicans are threatening to exercise their right to use all 30 hours of floor debate before permitting a final vote, so Koh may not be formally confirmed until tomorrow.”

Republican roll call. Those who voted today in favor of Koh

Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Susan Collins of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Mel Martinez of Florida, Olympia Snowe of Maine and George Voinovich of Ohio.

Outraged as I am? Then speak up while you still can!

It is your voice, USE IT!

Burn the phone lines tomorrow! Melt them!

Obama chose precisely the man he needed to come on board.

Obama and the Attempt to Destroy the Second Amendment

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama must demonstrate executive experience, but he remains strangely silent about his eight years (1994-2002) as a director of the Joyce Foundation, a billion dollar tax-exempt organization. He has one obvious reason: during his time as director, Joyce Foundation spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun organizations.

There is another, less known, reason.

During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.
Read the rest >>>

Also see at Gun Owners of America:

Ted Kennedy Bill Could Send Your Gun Info Into A Massive Federal Database
— And you could be forced to spend $13,000 of your own money toward this effort!

The experts agree…

Hitler

Castro

Qaddafi

Stalin

Idi Amin

Mao tse-Tung

Pol Pot

Kim Jong-II

Gun control works!

Think about it!

Look at Iran for God’s sake.

Free people have a right to bear arms. The oppressed enslaved under tyrants and dictators do NOT.

Full text of the  international gun control treaty (CIFTA)

Related:
Obama: “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

Professor Sics Campus Police on Student Applying His 1st Amendment Rights to Speak on 2nd Amendment

Advertisements
One Comment
  1. June 28, 2009 2:50 pm

    But this man is truly dangerous. How on earth those Reps voted for him? 😦
    I’m writing something about him. I’m leaving you a link here that you’re going to be interested in:
    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/30/the-most-perilous-legal-pick/

    JUDGES should interpret the Constitution according to other nations’ legal “norms.” Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts. The United States constitutes an “axis of disobedience” along with North Korea and Saddam-era Iraq.

    🙄 What were they thinking?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: