Obama to Implement Far Left Measures Before He Is Thrown Out of Office

Mr. Obama, all who surrounded him through his youth and all who surround him now, are dyed-in-the-wool and radical Progressives with a very different vision for the United States of America than that of our Founders and Framers. Pepper in a bit of Black Liberation Theology and Liberal self-loathing and you have a lethal potion suitable for snuffing out American exceptionalism.

Progressives like Mr. Obama are not satisfied that our Charters of Freedom, when protected and advanced as our Framers intended (safeguarding opportunity for all, making sure liberty and freedom are guarded and that the rights of the individual are secured so as to balance with the general welfare) work properly. They believe that the Constitution is a living thing that morphs with any particular historical situation; any societal crisis, and that a government run by “wise men”; by an elite class – under the guise of providing for the “general welfare” – should take an ever increasing role in “engineering” a “more perfect union.”

Because Progressives see themselves as not only more intelligent than the average American, but mandated, by virtue of this perceived superiority, I guarantee you that you will see Mr. Obama and his crew moving on several controversial measures; measures that are detrimental to the United States, to the Constitution and to sovereignty.

Should Mr. Obama find his back to the wall and inevitable defeat at his political door, he will advance more “executive” moves like the ipso facto amnesty we saw on June 15th, 2012. We will see him advance:

▪ The Law of the Sea Treaty: As put succinctly by Julie Borowski, “Under this treaty, the UN would have control over 71 percent of the Earth’s surface. This would be a huge step towards global governance...President Ronald Reagan rejected LOST back in 1982, stating it would grant the UN the power to tax US companies and redistribute wealth from developed to undeveloped nations. For the first time in history, the UN would have the authority to collect taxes from US citizens. The thought of global taxation should send goose bumps down the spine of every American.”

▪ The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: As pointed out by Jackie Ammons, of Global Governance Watch, “The oversight responsibilities [of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child] fall to the United Nations as a whole, not necessarily to the individual countries that ratified the CRC. In an ideal situation, a country’s courts would use the CRC as guidance in its own rulings. But the CRC mandates more than guidance. If the United States ratified the CRC, it would give UN international courts the power to bypass US local, state, and federal courts and even the Supreme Court. Giving up the power of self-governance for the sake of an unclear and sometimes contradictory document is by no means a good decision for the US, for ratifying the CRC could make the US a target of UN sanctions.”

▪ Acquiescence to the International Criminal Court: Marion Smith of The Heritage Foundation rightfully points out, “The most significant objection to the ICC...is one of principle. The spirit and the text of the Rome Statute, the ICC's founding treaty, foster an ever-reaching, ever-presumptuous global court. There's little respect for the local rule of law - even though that's historically where justice is usually realized, when self-governing people constitute a legitimate, accountable government and judicial system. Although Americans support justice, the United States shouldn't support the ICC because of the grave risk to American self-government.”

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2012/06/18/salvato-obama%E2%80%99s-move-signals-a-presidency%E2%80%99s-end/?subscriber=1