THE PARTS TO THE PUZZLE JUST SEEM TO FIT TOGETHER

Remember earlier this year, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused President Trump of exaggerating problems at the border to stoke fear among Americans of a flooding through the southern gates as Muslims, Mexicans, and South Americans made living conditions untenable at the border; demanding sanctuary, demanding fair and equal treatment based upon citizen’s rights as American citizens?  The government shut down as Democrats refused to go along with our President’s request for more barriers and enforcement at the southern border to defend the Democrat’s stance that the crisis was exaggerated and made up to promote the conservative agenda.

Just some quick facts (and one speculation).

Ilhan Omar committed fraud against the IRS and refuses to pay court assigned penalties.

Ilhan Omar was married to her brother while simultaneously married to another man.

Ilhan Omar supports a society that will kill you for having an extra marital affair but Omar chose to have an adulterous relationship with Tim Mynett, a married man, causing Mynett’s wife Dr. Beth Mynett to file for divorce on or about 7 April 2019 taking their thirteen ear old child and dissolving their marriage.

Ilhan Omar’s campaign fund spent about two hundred thirty thousand dollars for fundraising and travel expenses for Mynett and his company during Omar’s campaign.  And if that is so, and if they were at that time having an adulterous relationship, I speculate if any of that two hundred thirty thousand dollars went towards the paramours trysts?  (Merely speculation conjured by a cynical mind).

Ilhan Omar’s husband, Ahmed Hirsi, has as recently as 3 September 2019 demanded a divorce from the freshman representative.

Now the Democrats have taken a reversal in their earlier decision this year-2019- wherein President Trump declared a crisis at our southern border and the Democrats poo-pooed the Presidents demands as an exaggerated problem and a made-up crisis.  Now, at the end of August 2019, Omar demands the United Nations take over handling our crisis at the southern border and resolve our migrant crisis.

On about 19 June 2018 the United States withdrew from the United Nations National Human Rights Council with criticisms of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.  On that day the United States joined North Korea, Iran, and Eritrea as the only countries to refuse to participate in the council’s meetings and deliberations.

During April 2019, President Trump vowed to unsign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) which would effectively withdraw the United States from the treaty?  The President went on to sign a formal letter in witness of all in attendance requesting the Senate to halt their ratification process and return the treaty to the Oval Office where President Trump would dispose of the treaty.

From July 2016 through June 2017 the United States paid twenty-eight point six percent of the United Nation’s budget for peacekeeping.

Peacekeeping, as defined by the United Nations, is a way to help countries that have been torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace?  United Nations peacekeepers monitor peace processes that arise in countries during post-conflict situations to assist former combatants implement peace agreements entered into by the United Nations on behalf of the beleaguered pre combatant countries.

The United Nation’s charter articulates a commitment to uphold human rights of citizens.  Do you remember back just four short paragraphs I told you that President Trump withdrew from the United Nation’s Human Rights Council?  Why do you think that was?  It was because the United States did not agree with the treatment the United Nations allows Israel to deal to the Palestinians.  Do you think this act of defiance would go unsanctioned should the United Nations be allowed to occupy our military, judicial, and law enforcement activities?  Can you imagine just how fast our United States would be stripped of its constitutional laws and constitutional guarantees?

Words that scare me include the Charter of the United Nations gives its Security Council power and responsibility to take collective action to maintain international peace and security.  For this reason, the international community usually looks to the Security Council to authorize peacekeeping operations.  Most of these operations are established and implemented by the United Nations itself with troops serving under United Nation’s operational command.  In other cases, where direct UN involvement is not considered appropriate or feasible, the Council authorize regional organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Economic Community of West African States or coalitions of willing countries to implement certain peacekeeping or peace enforcement functions.  In modern times, peacekeeping operations have evolved into many different functions, including diplomatic relations with other countries, international bodies of justice (such as the International Criminal Court), and eliminating problems such as landmines that can lead to new incidents of fighting.

When the United Nations is invited (and they require an invite) it generally comes with the acknowledgment that we could not handle our own situations so it is up to the United Nation to resolve our issues for us.  It generally means the United Nations is there to be in charge of change and not necessarily with our approval.  The implication is that the United Nations comes to enforce international law; not constitutional law.  There are many implications with employing international law instead of constitutional law.  One may include that the United Nations is an Intergovernmental Agency that enforces international law because of its intergovernmental status.  Another implication one can assume is that since constitutional law did not resolve a particular situation and international law completely eradicated the incident, now international law replaces constitutional law.  It is our constitution that guarantees our inalienable rights guaranteed to citizens of the United States.  International Law has no such guarantees.  Once International Law replaces Constitutional Law, the implication is there are no rights as citizens of the United States and the United States loses its sovereignty.  Once our sovereignty is lost we become citizens of the world with only one source of law to enforce the will of all people.

Is it possible this one diabolical person could so easily and singlehandedly wipe out and destroy our inalienable rights as guaranteed by the constitution of the United States?

Just one definition before I go.  Inalienable right refers to rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else, especially a natural right such as the right to own property.  These rights cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime.