Obama’s Orwellian Double-Speak: I’ve Made the US ‘Safer, Stronger and More Respected in the World’

/41 Comments/in , , /by

At yesterday’s nomination of Senator John Kerry as the United States’ next Secretary of State, Obama made the ridiculous statement that he’d made the US “safer, stronger and more respected in the world.”

How any American could possibly believe this crazy talk is beyond me.

Anyone who spends more than a minute or two each day reviewing the news can see that Obama’s entire Middle East policy has completely unraveled, leaving the world deeply destabilized.

Obama thinks things are safer? How about Iran’s ever-advancing nuclear program, with its weapons manufacturing now buried so deep underground that it’s immune from our bombs. Iran has been so emboldened by Obama that, according to Hillary Clinton, the Persians are now spreading terrorism to our next door neighbor, Mexico, and creating new alliances with drug cartels.

And respect? Is that how our ambassador in Benghazi was treated?

Things aren’t much better in Iraq. There, fatwas have issued, encouraging the killing of Christians. Much of the vibrant Christian Iraqi community has fled the country. Similarly, in Syria, US-backed rebels are suspected of using the cover of civil war to murder minority Christians. Minority religious groups are literally under the gun in Egypt now, too.

Obama’s fingerprints are all over this growing Egyptian problem, where we exchanged one pro-American dictator for an anti-American, anti-Semitic dictator. According to an Egyptian opposition leader with whom I spoke with this week, the Obama administration actually pressured the Egyptian military to “fix” the vote to ensure that the Muslim Brotherhood presidential candidate, Mohammed Morsi, won.

Now that Obama helped this radical into office, President Morsi has attempted to seize broad, unconstitutional powers. His supporters have used torture, rape and sexual assault to stifle dissent. And the media refuses to provide fair coverage.

The globalist Henry Kissinger seems to recognize where Obama is headed with these pro-Muslim Brotherhood policies, suggesting that Israel will cease to exist in ten years.

It can’t help that Syria has likely gained ballistic missiles as a result of our meddling there.

How about China, thumbing its nose at the US and threatening our Japanese ally over its long held control of several remote islands in the Pacific Ocean? And this is not the only place in the Pacific where the Chinese are flexing their muscle and threatening massive global disorder.

There’s no doubt that Obama’s full-body embrace with the Muslim Brotherhood has been one of the most catastrophic foreign policy blunders of recent history. That, combined with Obama’s coddling of Chavez, refusal to stand up to China, passivity to Russian aggression (submarines off the US coast, bombers near Alaska airspace), social experimentation in the US military, and other apparent missteps, make it clear that Obama has not given us a safer world. His actions have encouraged derision, instability, and a far more insecure future.

“Kill Those F***ing Yankees” Rapper to Perform For Obama’s Christmas Bash; WhiteHouse.gov Scrubs Petition to Rescind Invite

/29 Comments/in , , /by

In yet another apparent White House misstep, a popular but virulently anti-American South Korean rapper is slated to perform for Obama’s “Christmas in Washington” special on December 21.

The worldwide phenomena Psy, whose “Gangman Style” YouTube video has generated almost one billion views – possibly the most popular YouTube video of all time – sung these lyrics at a concert in 2004:

Kill those f***ing Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captives
Kill those f***ing Yankees who ordered them to torture
Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers
Kill them all slowly and painfully

A couple of years before singing these outrageous lyrics, Psy (whose real name is Park Jae-sang), destroyed a model of a US Bradley Fighting Vehicle on stage during a performance. This was purportedly in reaction to the deaths of two teenagers who were accidentally struck by an American armored vehicle while maneuvering in South Korea.

Of course eight years ago, Psy was virtually unknown internationally. Even since his “Gangman Style” video exploded across the globe a few months ago, there was little media focus on his virulent anti-American past. That is, until the media became aware that he was slated to perform for Obama’s Christmas in Washington event later this month.

Given his international stardom and growing wealth from his increasingly American following, Psy went into damage control yesterday, issuing a belated apology through MTV.

The White House seems to be following suit, going as far as to remove the White House.gov petition that called on Obama to disinvite Psy. That petition (“Rescind Invite of Gangnam Style Rapper Psy to Perform for Pres. Obama Christmas Party Over Troop Killing Song”), was taken off the White House site earlier today with no explanation other than it was “removed from the site under our Moderation Policy because it is in violation of our Terms of Participation”:

Although Obama has debased the Office of the Presidency at least as much as the philanderer and perjurer-in-chief Bill Clinton, he has a historic opportunity, almost two weeks before his Christmas in Washington special, to demonstrate his loyalty to the American combat soldier and patriotism by boycotting the event.

But I’m not holding my breath over this one. If Obama’s and his generals‘ willingness to sacrifice US soldiers’ lives over political correctness is any guide, you can pretty much guarantee the President won’t skip a beat over a Christmas performance of a rapper who wants to “Kill those f***ing Yankees.”

Alaska Plunging Full Speed Ahead Toward Internationalism (With the Help of its Political Establishment)

/16 Comments/in , , /by

As we’ve reported over the last several months, almost the entirety of Alaska’s political establishment, including Governor Parnell, Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell, Senators Murkowski and Begich, and virtually the entirety of the state legislature, support adoption of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). This internationalist scheme to extend UN jurisdiction over two thirds of the earth’s surface should make any Constitution-loving Alaskan’s blood boil. To make matters worse, the political leadership attempts to justify LOST with the pathetic excuse that it would be “good for Alaska business.”

We’ll break down that Benedict Arnold-like excuse for selling sovereignty down the UN drain in a future article. But for now, it’s time to focus on another imminent threat to our national integrity: the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

This treaty, criticized by Restoring Liberty in earlier posts here and here, also has support among Alaska’s political class. In fact, it is openly supported by Alaska Governor Parnell’s Council on Disabilities and Special Education:

Most Alaskans should be scratching their heads over this new effort to subjugate Alaska to the whimsical dictates of the United Nations.

Here’s what’s wrong with the treaty. In an article entitled “Back Door Globalism,” Senators DeMint and Inhofe criticize the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities warning that it “calls for government agents to supersede the authority of parents of disabled children and even covers abortion.”

ParentalRights.org further explains that the treaty “poses a serious threat to the right of parents with disabled children to make decisions on behalf of those children regarding their education, medical care, and other areas of life. By introducing the “best interest of the child” principle as a government obligation (Article 7.2), the CRPD places bureaucrats in the position to make the ultimate decisions regarding each child.”

Homeschool advocate HSLDA also sees real danger in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, claiming that it is a backdoor means of requiring compliance with the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, a treaty that “enshrines abortion rights, homosexual rights, and demands the complete disarmament of all people.”

HSLDA also suggests that the treaty will mandate national spending priorities, require US funding for poorer countries’ disability programs, and require all persons to have handicap accessible residences. Also cited are infringement on autonomy of homeschooling by requiring government-directed disability programs to be administered, banning of corporal punishment, and other government-mandated intrusions into the family and home.

From the perspective of a states rights advocate, the treaty is very threatening. All American law on disabilities will be required to conform to the dictates and standards of the United Nations treaty. Obviously, this is a terrible infringement on a state’s right to legislate in this area. Under the Constitution, the federal government has no enumerated power giving it such authority. But now, under the treaty, the United States will be under one international standard – enforced by the federal government – further displacing state sovereignty.

In short, no Constitution-honoring political leader should offer even tacit support to this treaty. They must be held accountable.

Russia’s Pravda Declares “Communism Won in America with Obama; US Suffering Has Only Begun”

/301 Comments/in , /by

In an extraordinary column last week, Russia’s de facto government press arm declared that the era of “Miss American Pie” was over in the U.S. Citing Obama’s reelection, Pravda stated that the “Communists have won in America…”

Why? Because the US is “an illiterate society” that continues to buy off on Obama’s “lies of less taxes while he raises them.” The US educational system is also held responsible, with Pravda stating that it was “conquered by the Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist presidents.”

As you might have gathered, Pravda’s hit on Obama as a communist isn’t a glancing blow. It seems to be the overriding theme of the article:

He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama’s fools and Stalin’s fools share the same drink of illusion.

Pravda also criticizes the growing American attack on religious freedom, saying that “Christianity in the U.S. is under attack as it was during the early period of the Soviet Union.”

The Russian article concludes with a frightening warning to Americans:

Russia lost its’ civil war with the Reds and millions suffered torture and death for almost 75 years under the tyranny of the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Russians survived with a new and stronger faith in God and ever growing Christian Church. The question is how long will the once “Land of the Free” remain the United Socialist States of America? Their suffering has only begun.

There’s no doubt that everything is not right in Russia. Nevertheless, it’s extraordinary that our formerly communist neighbor is now chiding the United States for moving in the same fatal direction of the former Soviet Union.

Secession, States Rights, and Constitutional Conservatives

/30 Comments/in , , /by

Since the election last week, there has been a lot of handwringing among conservatives. Many believe that the United States has descended into a new phase of dependency, where too many citizens and crony corporatists are wedded to DC largesse. Some think this and the cultural decline is irreversible, that America is headed for the abyss.

So how do they react to what they perceive as the “new normal”? Increasing numbers of news reports suggest that at least a few disgruntled Americans see the dissolution of the United States as a viable option. The word “secession” is cropping up in the blogosphere like never before.

Consistent with this, most Restoring Liberty readers have likely seen at least one or two articles on the White House citizen petitions relating to secession. You may have also seen Ron Paul’s recent comments on the subject. Even Justice Scalia has weighed in on the topic.

Given the history of the Alaska Independence Party (we actually had a governor elected from the AIP ticket), you probably won’t be surprised to hear that Alaska hasn’t been immune to this. Several days ago, there was an attempt to pull me directly into a resurgent secessionist debate in Alaska. Emails began to circulate including one suggesting that “the only alternative for the survival of any form of government that was intended by our founding fathers is secession from the union and a declaration of independence of Alaska.”

I fundamentally disagree with this approach. As I noted last week in my post-election breakdown, our country still has hope.

Admittedly, we have widely divergent views on the role and scope of government. I am equally certain that we are becoming increasingly divided on many cultural issues.

These divides were reflected by the startling 40% swing between a number of states in votes for Romney as opposed to Obama (e.g., Utah 73% Romney, Hawaii 70% Obama, Wyoming 69% Romney, Vermont 67% Obama, etc.). Some believe this degree of polarization hasn’t been seen since the Civil War.

Many of our differences seem insurmountable.

But within the context of the state’s rights model – directly patterned off of what the Founders originally intended – these intractable differences can reside quite well together, albeit in different states.

The Founders intended that the states retain a great deal of autonomy. The central government was severely limited, granted only those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

By legal malfeasance, we’ve now ginned up a myriad of powers that the drafters never intended the Constitution to confer upon our national government. That has straight-jacketed the states into a homogenous mass of laws and regulations that were never intended. Rather, the states were intended to be the ultimate legal arbiter in most areas.

As we continue to spend trillions we don’t have, DC will inevitably lose financial power. The country will inevitably face serious economic pain. And the nation will inevitably look for solutions from outside of the narrow parameters set and enforced by the Establishment.

The solution of getting back to an honest interpretation and application of the Constitution with respect to the respective powers of the federal and state governments will allow our increasingly diverse peoples in this country to apply their expectations of government at the state level.

Liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, the religious, and the secularists can all embrace this approach. Fight your fights in the state of your choice. Set your own education policy. Establish your own regulatory schemes. Permit natural resource extraction as you see fit, all without interference from the feds. Abandon the sinking ship of DC dominance.

So if you are an advocate for secession, please reconsider and redirect your energies toward a real solution that will restore liberty and can accommodate the “new normal” of the United States.

Video: “If We Stay Together They Cannot Defeat Us”

/28 Comments/in , , , /by

Have conservatives failed because we have not been compassionate enough, we’ve been too hard core? On abortion and the traditional family, too uncompromising? On the fiscal side, too stingy? This is a growing theme among the RINO establishment.

Absolutely not! We didn’t fail because weren’t compassionate or soft enough. We failed because we offered no real choice to the US electorate.

So how do you motivate the base with a candidate who fails to fight and offer sufficient contrast to the electorate? Obviously, when there’s not enough difference, they stay home just as I predicted earlier this year during an interview with John King. Turn out is not just a function of GOTV, it’s a natural response to an inspiring, principled leader. And a leader who has solutions sufficiently different from the status quo.

So what kind of differences? How about getting back to the constitutional role of states:

This is not an easy fight; it will take extraordinary sacrifice and servant leadership. But if you love your country and wish a secure future for your children, you can’t give up.

And keep faith – there are millions of Americans whose first allegiance is to the Constitution. If we stay together, they cannot defeat us.

Culture in Flames: States Allow Men to Expose Themselves to Girls in Public Bathrooms

/64 Comments/in , , /by

I know that many conservatives don’t like talking about the politics of sex and how our country has now normalized perversion. But it’s precisely due to this passivity that we’re now at a point in many states where a man, calling himself “transgendered,” can legally walk into a girls’ locker room, strip down, and lay out spread eagle for everyone to see.

Yes, it really happened in the state of Washington. That state, as well as 15 others plus the District of Columbia, prohibit “discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression.”

So what exactly does that mean? If the state has a public facility, it can’t prohibit access based upon one’s declaration that he is a “woman trapped in a man’s body” or vice-versa.

The insanity of this is obvious to any common-sensed American. And if you have any doubt, what happened last month in Olympia, Washington, should make that insanity crystal clear.

Evergreen State College has a swimming pool that it shares with several secondary schools in the Olympia area. Of course, in addition to a pool, the college also has a women’s locker room. A man named Colleen Francis (pictured above), who claims he is “transgendered,” stripped naked, laid out in the sauna, and according to Fox News, “exposed his genitals on several occasions.”

After several high school girls in the women’s locker room saw him, they complained.

Nevertheless, given Washington law that “requires equal access to state facilities regardless of gender identity,” it appears that Francis’s naked display to juvenile girls was legally protected.

So what’s the solution? The minor girls are now using a smaller locker room at the pool while Mr. Francis may continue to expose himself to the adult female patrons in the larger facility.

This is flat out CRAZY. And frankly, it hits close to home. I fly through the Seattle Airport, not infrequently, with my beautiful daughters and wife. They use the women’s public restroom that the State of Washington says Mr. Francis must have equal access to. So now, I get to cross my fingers hoping that some “transgendered” man won’t be lurking in the female restroom, waiting to (legally) expose himself to my young girls.

But why should I be surprised at this world-upside-down? My GOP-led state just allowed Alaskans to choose what sex they are on their driver’s licenses . . .

Obama’s TARP Regulator: “Offered the Bullet or the Bribe, the Gold or the Lead” (+video)

/9 Comments/in , , /by

In an extraordinary interview with Bill Moyers, TARP regulator and former federal prosecutor Neil Barofsky made some startling accusations. He not only accused the Obama Administration of attempting to bribe him into silence, but he also stated that he was threatened with harm if he didn’t cooperate.

The heat was on Mr. Barofsky because of his “relentless” criticism of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and other officials. As the top TARP regulator, he attempted to keep the program independent, a struggle that earned him powerful enemies. He is a lifelong Democrat and was an Obama donor in 2008.

His criticism of the Obama Administration has intensified since his resignation last year. During his interview with Moyers, he agreed that the words “incestuous orgy” were not too strong to describe the relationship between Obama Administration officials and the Wall Street figures they were regulating:

BILL MOYERS: I thought, at the time, this was an incestuous orgy going on there, between inside players at Washington and inside players at Wall Street. Is that too strong?

NEIL BAROFSKY: It’s probably not too strong. It’s the fact that their ideology matches up. And look, one of the reasons why their ideology matches up is they all come from the same small handful of institutions. And the people I was dealing with on a daily basis came from the same financial institutions that helped cause the financial crisis and were the most generous recipients of bailouts, Goldman Sachs, Bear Sterns, which, of course, had been adopted by J.P. Morgan Chase. Goldman Sachs, Goldman Sachs, it seemed like every time I turned around, I bumped into someone from Goldman Sachs.

Mr. Barofsky also claimed that he was told to “keep [his] tone down . . . point blank by [the] Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.” He said the conversation continued:

And he said to me, he said, “Neil, you’re a smart guy. You’re a young guy. You’re a talented guy. You got your whole future in front of you. You’ve got a young family that’s starting out. But you’re doing yourself real harm. And the reason why you’re doing yourself real harm is the harsh tone that I had towards the government as well as to Wall Street, based on what I was seeing down in Washington.” And he told me that if I wanted to get a job out on the Street afterwards, it was going to really be hard for me.

Mr. Barofsky responded that

I wasn’t really interested in that. And he said, “Well, maybe a judgeship. Maybe an appointment from the Obama administration for a federal judgeship.” And I said, “Well, again, that would be great. But I don’t really think that’s going to happen with my criticisms.” And he said it didn’t have to be that way. “If all you do is soften your tone, be a little bit more upbeat, all this stuff can happen for you.”

And that’s what I meant by playing ball. I was essentially told, play ball, soften your tone, and all of these good things can happen to you. But if you stay harsh that was going to cause me real harm in those words.

You’ve got to give Bill Moyers credit for where he headed next:

BILL MOYERS: What happens to a political society, to a democracy, when we stifle or bribe or shoot the sheriff?

NEIL BAROFSKY: When I had my incident with the assistant secretary that my deputy, who had come down from– who’s another former federal prosecutor, who did narcotics work, said to me, Kevin Puvalowski. And he said to me, “Neil, you were just offered the bullet or the bribe, the gold or the lead.”

And what he was referring to was a society just like that, which was Colombia, back in the day when Pablo Escobar and the drug kingpins really controlled society. And what he was referring to is that basically to corrupt society Escobar would go to a magistrate or a police officer, police chief, a politician, and say, “You have two choices. You can either take this giant pile of money and do my bidding. Or you can get the lead, a bullet in your head.”

The transcript of the exchange follows. Here’s the video of the interview:

Transcript:

BILL MOYERS: At a conference a week or so ago, here in New York, you said playing ball for Wall Street has become a normal way of life, despite the panic of 2008. What does it mean, “playing ball for Wall Street”?

NEIL BAROFSKY: Well, what I saw when I was in Washington was this real pressure on myself, on other regulators to essentially keep their tone down. And I was told point blank by Assistant Secretary of the Treasury that, this is about in 2010.

And he said to me, he said, “Neil, you’re a smart guy. You’re a young guy. You’re a talented guy. You got your whole future in front of you. You’ve got a young family that’s starting out. But you’re doing yourself real harm.” And the reason why you’re doing yourself real harm is the harsh tone that I had towards the government as well as to Wall Street, based on what I was seeing down in Washington. And he told me that if I wanted to get a job out on the Street afterwards, it was going to really be hard for me.

BILL MOYERS: You mean on Wall Street?

NEIL BAROFSKY: Yes. And I explained to him that I wasn’t really interested in that. And he said, “Well, maybe a judgeship. Maybe an appointment from the Obama administration for a federal judgeship.” And I said, “Well, again, that would be great. But I don’t really think that’s going to happen with my criticisms.” And he said it didn’t have to be that way. “If all you do is soften your tone, be a little bit more upbeat, all this stuff can happen for you.”

And that’s what I meant by playing ball. I was essentially told, play ball, soften your tone, and all of these good things can happen to you. But if you stay harsh that was going to cause me real harm in those words.

BILL MOYERS: What made you able to say no to the temptation?

NEIL BAROFSKY: Well, I think part of it is the only job I ever wanted was to be a federal prosecutor.

BILL MOYERS: Send bad guys to jail?

NEIL BAROFSKY: It doesn’t get much better than that. Really interesting, complicated work, and wear the white hat. So I didn’t have those incentives that I think that were presented. And I think, look, you know, being trained in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, I was trained to be a government employee and to take my oath of office very seriously.

But I wasn’t really interested in their reindeer games. And I felt a real obligation and sense of duty to fulfill the oath that I took in Secretary Paulson’s office on December 15th, 2008 to do the job that I was sent down there to do. But I wasn’t really tempted with a big job on Wall Street. And frankly, if it meant getting a judgeship, compromising the job that I needed to do and was supposed to do, it just wasn’t interesting to me.

But look, let me be very clear. I also have the fallback of I was a trial lawyer. I prosecuted a lot of big cases. And I knew that whatever happened, I could always go back and get a good job in New York, working at a law firm or doing legal work. So it gave me a degree of financial freedom even though I basically spent most of my career as a government employee and I didn’t have money. I didn’t necessarily need to please anyone to be able to go back and still be able to feed my family.

BILL MOYERS: What happens to a political society, to a democracy, when we stifle or bribe or shoot the sheriff?

NEIL BAROFSKY: When I had my incident with the assistant secretary that my deputy, who had come down from– who’s another former federal prosecutor, who did narcotics work, said to me, Kevin Puvalowski. And he said to me, “Neil, you were just offered the bullet or the bribe, the gold or the lead.”

And what he was referring to was a society just like that, which was Colombia, back in the day when Pablo Escobar and the drug kingpins really controlled society. And what he was referring to is that basically to corrupt society Escobar would go to a magistrate or a police officer, police chief, a politician, and say, “You have two choices. You can either take this giant pile of money and do my bidding. Or you can get the lead, a bullet in your head.”

And Kevin was joking that I just received the Washington white collar equivalent of the gold or the lead. And it was funny, at the time, but that’s kind of what happens in a society where the rewards and incentives are, again, nobody’s getting shot in the head thank goodness. But it’s a breakdown of the system.

And in some ways, it creates this false illusion that there are people out there looking out for the interest of taxpayers, the checks and balances that are built into the system are operational, when in fact they’re not. And what you’re going to see and what we are seeing is it’ll be a breakdown of those governmental institutions. And you’ll see governments that continue to have policies that feed the interests of — and I don’t want to get clichéd, but the one percent or the .1 percent — to the detriment of everyone else.

Emails Leaked Yesterday Directly Contradict Obama’s Repeated Claim that Solar Funding Had “Nothing To Do With Politics”

/4 Comments/in , , /by

Yesterday, Restoring Liberty posted an interview between Obama and reporter Kyle Clark, where the President was asked a series of challenging questions — something he’s unaccustomed to from the press.

One of Mr. Clark’s questions involved the controversy over the multiple failed loans to “green” energy industries, such as solar. In response, Obama stated, “And these are decisions, by the way, that are made by the Department of Energy, they have nothing to do with politics.” This statement was consistent with what he and his administration have said before on the subject, that all green funding was based on merits, not political cronyism.

In a series of emails leaked to CompleteColorado.com yesterday, Obama’s claim that politics had “nothing to do” with green energy loans was directly contradicted:

In addition to the foregoing email showing that the White House was pushing to move Abound Solar forward – by applying pressure directly on the Department of Energy – an earlier email, also leaked to CompleteColorado.com, confirmed that the Department of Energy was operating under significant pressure to get the Abound Solar deal done:

Americans should be outraged over this latest White House deception. But, as much as the administration has been lying recently, who knows whether anyone will really even notice.

Outrage: Obama Admin. Says Texans Can’t Arrest UN Observers Even if They Violate Texas Law

/459 Comments/in , , /by

In a development that should outrage every red-blooded, patriotic American, the Obama Administration announced that international observers in the United States cannot be arrested by state law enforcement even if the United Nations representatives violate state law.

As we publicized earlier this week, “United Nations-affiliated election monitors from Europe and central Asia will be at polling places around the U.S. looking for voter suppression activities by conservative groups.” [Click on this “Limited Election Observation Mission to the United States of America” list to see where the international observers will be deploying in your state.]

Unlike Alaska’s current passivity, Texas confronted this offensive intrusion by international observers with a warning from its Attorney General’s office: “[G]roups and individuals from outside the United States do not have jurisdiction to interfere with Texas elections.” The Attorney General himself also threatened that,

individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas. This State has robust election laws that were carefully crafted to protect the integrity of our election system. All persons—including persons connected with OSCE—are required to comply with these laws.

Elections and election observation are regulated by state law. The Texas Election Code governs anyone who participates in Texas elections—including representatives of the OSCE. The OSCE’s representatives are not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place. It may be a criminal offense for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance. Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE’s representatives to criminal prosecution for violating state law.

Of course, the internationalist leaders of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the United Nations have no appreciation for the concept of state sovereignty. Like most European socialists, they see national governments as supreme, free to dictate any directive to individual states. If they know anything about the US Constitution, they likely consider it hostile to their internationalist aims.

Consistent with this mentality, Ambassador Janez Lenarčič, the Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the UN affiliated group sending election observers throughout the United States, stated that the “threat of criminal sanctions against OSCE/ODIHR observers is unacceptable. The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections.”

According to the Washington Examiner, the Obama Administration jumped into the fray on the side of the United Nations over Texas:

International election observers planning to visit Texas polling places have “full immunity” from being arrested in the United States, the State Department said when discussing a letter from the Texas Attorney General.

We as a nation had better wake up, and soon. Internationalism is moving in at hyper-speed under the banners of both political parties. And it is not moving us anywhere close to where our Founders intended the nation to be. Rather, it’s consolidating power at the top, in direct competition with individual freedom.

And remember this: forces of internationalism hate the United States Constitution. Although activist justices and lawless political leaders have done their best to sanitize it of any original intent, the US Constitution still stands as the foremost barrier to the ultimate goal of an international, socialist form of government.

We must rally around the Constitution and demand that our leaders do the same!