Monday, March 30, 2009

"...and domestic."

And, people are wondering why there's been such a run on guns and ammunition as of late.


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.

Those are the views of the man on track to become one of the US government's top lawyers: Harold Koh.

President Obama has nominated Koh -- until last week the dean of Yale Law School -- to be the State Department's legal adviser. In that job, Koh would forge a wide range of international agreements on issues from trade to arms control, and help represent our country in such places as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.

What could possibly go wrong?

UPDATE: I've been looking for more information on this Harlod Koh guy to see what he's really about. The quip about Sharia law in the NY Post article there seems ot be a bit of hyperbole (hence, the use of the word "could") thrown in by Ms. Clyne for dramatic effect.

I did find this clip from a speech of his back ion 2007 where he spoke about applying international legal standards and conventions to the review of American laws in determining their suitability and Constitutionality.

I find his logic (for lack of a better word) lacking.

And dangerous.

You cannot interpret American law, using as a yardstick the laws of countries that refuse to recognize and respect individual rights and liberty to the extent that our country does [read: is supposed to].

Equating the legitimacy and moral value of the laws of the most free nation on earth with those of nations run by oppressive tyrants is lunacy. It's like saying that hanging people for being gay isn't "wrong", per se, it's just different.

It's taking the position that since most country's have stripped their citizenry of basic human rights and freedom, then we need to do the same so that we can achieve social equality.

If we had wanted to be just like everybody else, we would have let the British ride unmolested to Concord to seize the cannons and powder stored there.

UPDATE II: Here's another "Koh-dak moment" for you.

YouTube: Part of a global video advocacy campaign to help end the crisis in Darfur.

What can we do in Darfur? It seems that no one has a solution.

I beg to differ.

Let me suggest four steps - which we will call "The Four P's".

First, we need a peace process.

Got that one covered too.

Second, we need to get "peacekeepers" into Darfur.

Also known as Blue-Helmeted Embezzlement, Graft, Corruption, and Child Endangerment Specialists.

Strike two, pal.

Third, while this is happening, we need to protect people. We need to protect refugees who are crossing borders, and we need to protect the thousands of internally displaced who are being thrown from their homes.

Op. cit.

And, finally, we need to punish the perpetrators.

Must I continue to repeat myself?

I'm no expert in the field, but even I can see that Koh's entire "plan" is horseshit, given that the success of Step 1 is contingent upon getting reasonable behavior from the irrational and responsible deeds from the hell-bent and reckless.