'Tell Us It Ain’t Koh,' Mr. President!
The following information about Mr. Koh was obtained from listening to an American Family Radio (alternative media) program this afternoon.
The alleged President Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama nominated Harold Koh this morning to the top legal spot at the United States State Department.
This man is a controversial nominee. Why? Because
(1) He is a judicial trans-nationalist, who wants all distinctions between US and International law eliminated.
(2) He wants our Supreme Court to use European jurisprudence to interpret OUR Constitution.
(3) He views the US, which he once branded along with Iraq and North Korea as part of an axis of disobedience because of their flaunting of International Law.
(4) He is a staunch same-sex marriage proponent, which is in distinct opposition to the will of the majority of Americans as well as the US Constitution and God’s moral law.
He advocates the legalization of same-sex marriage. He wants to see the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” This would weaken our military.
(5) He favors Yale Law School’s ban on military recruiters (ROTC) because of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy.
(6) As Dean of Yale Law School, he was asked what was his most closely held legal position – first said homosexual ‘rights,’ then he said transgendered and lesbian ‘rights.’
(7) He favors the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Woman (CEDAW), which is a UN disaster. It calls for the decriminalization of prostitution. It opposes such anti-feminist symbols as Mother’s Day.
This man is a radical leftist just like the man who nominated him.
Eight foolish RINOs [including Judd, Voinovich, Lugar, Snowe, Martinez of FL, Hatch) voted this morning to invoke cloture to stop debate on this nomination. The vote was 65-31. Why? Were they afraid the radical positions of this man would come to light and embarrass the President? So, what? The President should be embarrassed. He is just giving more fodder for the upcoming Tea Parties . . .,
One litmus test that I have found to be very useful is to be very leery of anything emanating from the United Nations endorses or favors. If the U.N. is for something, that should send up caution flags. In this article we cover one issue where the goals and objectives of the corrupt United Nations meet or intersect with the goals and objective of radical feminism. Neither of this bodies of belief have the best interests of America in their agendas.
The Family Research Council calls the United Nation’s Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Woman (CEDAW) one of the most dangerous agreements to which the United States would entrap itself. Tony Perkins recently wrote, “Today, the United States is the only industrialized nation that has not ratified CEDAW. Why? Because this fine-sounding act is really designed to eliminate any concept of gender – whether by devaluing say-at-home moms or forcing countries to draft women into the military. And of course, CEDA pushes two of the Left’s other favorite issues, abortion on demand and same-sex “marriage.”
Wendy Wright concludes in an article titled “CEDAW: A Global Tool That Would Harm Women”, saying, “CEDAW is fundamentally flawed. No reservations (amendments) could protect our (American) laws and culture from its skewed belief that there is no difference between men and women. The United States should not give our prestige, nor subject our citizens to CEDAW.”
In Wrights article she also says, “Ratifying CEDAW would lend the Untied States’ prestige and credibility, not only to the treaty, but also to the CEDAW committee’s rulings. Here are snapshots of some of those rulings:
* Told China to decriminalize prostitution. * Criticized Mexico for a "lack of access … to easy and swift abortion.
* Criticized Ireland for the Catholic Church's influence of attitudes and state policy.
* Told Libya to re-interpret the Koran in the light of CEDAW.
* Derided Slovenia for having only 30 percent of children under age three in formal daycare (revealing the belief that children are better off being raised by strangers than mothers, and that women should not choose to stay at home with their kids).
* Told Romania and Austria to integrate gender studies in schools.
* Reprimanded Belarus for celebrating Mother's Day.
* Told Armenia to "combat the traditional stereotype of women in the noble role of mother."
* Reprimanded Hong Kong for exempting "'the affairs of religious denominations or orders' from the scope of the Convention.
* Criticized Croatia for "the refusal, by some hospitals, to provide abortions on the basis of conscientious objection of doctors. The Committee considers this to be an infringement of women's reproductive rights.
* Told numerous countries to mandate sex education and provide access to contraception.
* Told Vietnam to " take urgent and wide-ranging measures, including targeted educational programmes, the revision of curricula and textbooks, and mass media campaigns, to overcome traditional stereotypes regarding the role of women and men in the society.
* Told Mexico it "would welcome a more equitable redistribution of wealth among the population.
* Told Italy to " sensitize judges, lawyers and law enforcement personnel … to Italy's international obligations, in particular those outlined in the Convention.
* Praised Croatia " on the fact that the Convention … may be invoked before the courts by any citizen.
* Told numerous countries to implement the concept of comparable worth - that is, equal pay for unequal work, or wages to be determined by the government.
* Urged Belarus to reduce "protective standards which often have a discriminatory effect on women in general and pregnant women in particular.
* Told Kyrgyzstan "that lesbianism be reconceptualized as a sexual orientation.
“The foundation of a healthy society is strong families, individual morality and freedom. CEDAW and its Committee view all these as hindrances to women achieving equality…”
You get a sense of what CEDAW would mean to the United States by reading some of its rulings above. To me these ideas are anti-family, immoral and anti-American. We should urge our representatives to do everything within their power to oppose this vile and unnecessary agreement. Basically by ratifying such a horrible treaty we would be denigrating women, families, and our society.
