Here’s a plateful of mental food for thought on a variety of important subjects.
Remember President Obama’s trip to Copenhagen last year? Not the failed Chicago Olympics bid, but the Climate Change Conference where he attempted to place America under a cooperative international climate treaty. Now, the President has turned his attention to other avenues of global entente, and the frustrated momentum of the climate treaty has been replaced with a move towards closer cooperation with the International Criminal Court. Committing the U.S. to international accords that threaten to undermine our nation’s sovereignty appears to be a temptation the current administration cannot resist. The ICC is just another example of this infatuation with global governance.
This is a huge deal. To subjugate American interests to international interests is the kiss of death for our nation’s freedom and security. Some nations hate us outright; many others would simply join the typical-human-nature response of enjoying seeing the big kid on the block taken down; what few allies we really have left have been alienated by Obama. Do we really think it’s wise to allow America’s policies and interests to be dictated by anyone but America? Absolutely insane, and horrendously dangerous.
Perhaps most telling is the conclusion of this article:
It is highly ironic that the Obama Administration is warming up to the ICC, a court that does not guarantee American due process rights to American citizens, while at the same time insisting that terrorist suspects should have access to American civil courts, Miranda rights, and the right to trial by jury.
Irony is too tame a word; I’d call it a betrayal of the American people. Nothing good will come of this move toward globalism. Well, nothing good for America, that is.
While Iran’s ballistic missile program continues to advance, a long-range nuclear missile might not be the biggest threat Iran presents to the United States. Iran could place a short-range ballistic missile on one of the thousands of commercial freighters sailing in the Pacific and detonate a warhead high above U.S. territory that could take down 75 percent of our nation’s electrical grid. As Heritage fellow Baker Spring explains such a Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack would “cause a cascade of failures throughout the broader infrastructure, including banking systems, energy systems, transportation systems, food production and delivery systems, water systems, emergency services, and–perhaps most damaging–cyberspace. Effectively, the U.S. would be thrown back to the pre-industrial age following a widespread EMP attack.”
Iran could also choose to give a nuke to one of their terrorist friends like bin Laden or Hamas, who would be happy to deliver it. We’ve talked about this before on 2cents. To me, this is probably the most frightening potential attack because it would be so easy to carry out. If we are successfully attacked again — God forbid! — I think this would be the method. Congress formed a commission to study it, and they have made recommendations for several years…but Obama is now ignoring their recommendations!
I truly mean it when I say that the single greatest danger facing America today is our very own President.
Amend it, baby!
RedState has the dish on a proposed Constitutional amendment that would be very, very beneficial to the nation:
…three conservatives in the House, Congressmen Jeb Hensarling (TX), Mike Pence (IN), and John Campbell (CA) introduced a constitutional amendment today to control spending by limiting it to one-fifth of the economy. The Spending Limit Amendment would keep spending as a percentage of GDP at the historical average since World War II, as it is set to more than double in the years ahead. There is an in-depth look here. (big PDF file)
The idea is to force a debate on the size and scope of the federal government now and gain a political will for a national budget of sorts. As they explained on C-SPAN yesterday morning, after years of battling against spending against both Republicans and Democrats, and offering specific proposals and budgets, they believe it is important to give the public a goal and to define what is fiscally sustainable, and what is not, and then get political buy-in. If Republicans manage to win back control of Congress, a proposal like this will give us a yardstick by which to keep their budgets accountable and ensure that they don’t sell us down the river again.
Did you know that a Balanced Budget Amendment is already in effect? Yeah, pretty crazy, huh? The GOP Congress and Bill Clinton signed it into law in the mid-1990s and actually adhered to it for a few years…until it became more convenient to ignore it. If I understand it correctly, the idea with this new amendment is to focus not on the deficit but on the level of spending directly. Check it out, and think seriously about calling your Rep to ask them to support it.
Even if this doesn’t pan out, it’s a move in the right direction, and we as responsible American citizens should demand precisely these sorts of things from our elected representatives. It’s our nation, and we want to hand it down to future generations better than we received it; solving our long-term economic problem is one of the best ways to do that.
Related: Stop the Spending Now
There’s my two cents.