foreign monitors...

I found this perfectly readable in green and found your comments rude as reported.

 

nothing they do hampers our sovereignty. They just destroy our dignity.

 

There is a difference between having an alliance and having an alliance that is involved with the democratic process that occurs within our own country. The UN has no say, nor should they, about what goes on within this country. And they most certainly SHOULD NOT have a say in our elections.

 

This made me laugh...I think it should say "I want Bush to lose, but I don't want him to lose unfairly"

The way its worded, it sound similiar to "heads I win, tails you lose"

 

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/100804bushcontinues.htm

President Bush Continues To Surrender U.S. Sovereignty To International Entities

Chuck Baldwin | August 10 2004

Whatever their differences seem to be, both Democrat and Republican presidents seem to be agreed that America must surrender its national sovereignty and become part of an international, world government. Unfortunately, G.W. Bush is no exception.

President Bush's track record on world government issues is perhaps the most egregious of any president in modern memory. Even Bill Clinton could not match the internationalist propensities of G.W. Bush.

Most of us are already aware (or should be) of President Bush's desire to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. We listened as he told the American people that our invasion of Iraq was for the purpose of securing the "peace and credibility of the United Nations." We watched as he revoked former President Ronald Reagan's policy and brought the United States back under UNESCO. It is safe to say that G.W. Bush is the most pro-world government president America has ever had.

However, if you thought President Bush had done about all he could do to abandon America's cherished doctrines of national sovereignty and independence, you need to hold on to your hat.

CNS News reported on August 9 that the Bush State Department has invited the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which is based in Vienna, Austria, to monitor this year's U.S. presidential election. Such action was unthinkable, even unbearable, to our country's founders and should be similarly regarded by every lover of freedom in our country today!

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) rightly warned, "It's exactly the type of entanglement that results from our continued insistence on being a member of the U.N. and having an interventionist foreign policy."

Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, is equally outraged. He said, "[President] Bush continues to give conservatives the rhetoric of sovereignty, independence and strength of the United States, and he continues to give the [opposite] actions. It's just outrageous this administration would allow this to happen."

"Outrageous" is a good word for President Bush's decision to allow any international institution to serve as monitors over any U.S. election. The question begs to be asked, "What will Mr. Bush do if the OSCE decides something is amiss with our election process? Will he allow them to decide how we choose our civil magistrates? Will he allow them to veto or set aside the will of the American people? To what degree would this foreign entity be allowed to exert its will?"

Because of internationalist presidents such as G.W. Bush, the United States is already held hostage to a plethora of global institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the United Nations, NATO, the World Trade Organization, etc., ad infinitum.

In defending the State Department's decision to invite OSCE to supervise our presidential elections this year, Assistant Secretary of State Paul Kelly said, "To remain vibrant and strong, democracies must ensure that citizens have the ability to exercise their vote in free, fair and transparent elections."

According to CNS News, "The State Department official had no additional details on the size and the composition of the 'mission,' and he did not provide any information on what countries will provide the election monitors."

I must assume that Mr. Kelly does not believe that the American people are capable of providing free, fair and transparent elections on their own. I must also assume that Mr. Kelly and his fellow travelers at the State Department and in the White House do not believe that the United States is a sovereign, independent nation and does not need the help or especially the oversight of any international body!

It sure would be nice to have people in Washington, D.C., that, like Washington and Jefferson, really and truly despised entangling alliances with foreign nations! In order to find such people, however, it seems obvious that, with precious few exceptions, one must look someplace other than the Republican and Democratic parties.

For those who are interested, there is a political party that still believes in America's founding principles, including the principle of independence from entangling alliances with foreign nations. That party is the Constitution Party and Michael Peroutka is its presidential candidate this year. His web site is http://www.peroutka2004.com.

Anyone who truly values independence and freedom might want to take a hard look at the Constitution Party (web address: http://www.constitutionparty.com) and at Michael Peroutka's candidacy, because if we leave it to the Democrats and Republicans, there will very soon be very little freedom or independence left in this country.

 

Clearly, you have no idea what sovereignty is.

 

They are monitors.They observe. They, as far as everything i've read about them, have absolutely zero power.


I'm still waiting for you to find a part of the constitution that declares them unconstitutional, btw.

 

They threaten our sovereignty, hence the Constitution. How much more simple can I get?

Of course there is nothing in the Constitution that directly says that involving globalist organizations like the OSCE in our elections is unconstitutional. But if you had any idea, whatsoever, what the Constitution is all about, you wouldn't have such a hard time grasping this simple concept.

 

I can't see how it's constitutional for the administration to ask foreign monitors to examine this election, superceding state rights to how their own elections are run...

Don't some states even have laws concerning foreigners being allowed in the voting booths and such? I guess they're going to be granted amnesty or something...

 

normally you make excellent points PR, but the last few weeks you have gone into paranoid mode, take off your tin foil hat.

When and IF they start telling us what to do, i'll agree with you, but for now, they are doing nothing that harms our sovereignty, if you think so, please explain how.