Barack Obama has bowed before the UN over Arizona immigration law

By Nile Gardiner   August 31st, 2010

Obama has kowtowed to the UN (Photo: Reuters)

There can be few sights more humiliating for the American people than that of a US president kowtowing to a foreign leader or to supranational institutions. Continental Europeans are used to this sort of thing after decades of dominance by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, and have grudgingly accepted over time the gradual and undemocratic erosion of their freedoms. But most Americans fiercely defend their national sovereignty, and find the idea of giving international organisations a say over their laws and lives completely unacceptable.

The Obama administration however has submitted a report to the UN Commissioner on Human Rights, South African judge Navanethem Pillay, which makes direct reference to a popular Arizona immigration law aimed at tackling illegal immigration, which is fiercely opposed by the White House, and is the subject of legal action by the Justice Department. The report references

A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, (which) has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.

The highly controversial reference to the Arizona law serves only one purpose – to gain UN and international support for the Obama administration’s position in the face of mounting opposition from Arizona legislators and a majority of the American people. A recent Rasmussen poll showed 61 percent of Americans backing Arizona-style laws for their own states, and just 28 percent supporting a Justice Department challenge .

By doing so, Obama officials undoubtedly hope to stir up international condemnation of the Arizona policy in advance of the UN General Assembly meetings in September, which they believe will increase pressure on Arizona to back down. It is a highly cynical move that speaks volumes about the Obama team’s willingness to undercut American sovereignty and popular will on the world stage.

This approach has rightly been strongly condemned by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who described the Arizona reference in the government report as “downright offensive”, and called on it to be removed. The State Department has just announced that it will stand by its decision to include Arizona in its UN submission, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly in favour of it.

It is important to note that the Obama administration’s report to the United Nations will go before the UN Human Rights Council, which includes in its current membership some of the world’s worst human rights abusers. The likes of China, Cuba, Libya, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, will have a right to pass judgment over the Arizona immigration law, a humiliation for a great superpower before some of the most brutal regimes on the face of the earth.

Over the course of the last 19 months, Barack Obama has bowed before Emperors and Kings, and apologised for his country on numerous occasions, from Cairo to Strasbourg. By deliberately placing the immigration policy of a US state before the Human Rights Council, he is now bowing before the United Nations, and undercutting the sovereignty of his own nation. This is not leadership but a surrender of US interests before a declining world body that is a hotbed of anti-Americanism, and a bully pulpit for many of the world’s most odious tyrants. It is also yet another example of an imperial-style presidency that is increasingly out of touch with the American people and public opinion.

Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator. He appears frequently on American and British television and radio, including Fox News Channel, CNN, BBC, Sky News, and NPR.

The President’s Tax Returns

I will congratulate the president; this return compares favorably with some of his returns from previous years, which demonstrated him to be, frankly, a pretty stingy individual.  That said, I’d hardly gush with the praise heaped on him in this article, which says he was “very generous, giving $329,100 to 40 different charities.” On an income of $5.5 million?  Seriously?  They’re impressed by that?  I suppose that compared with a lot of Americans, it’s not terribly bad, but if you read the article and do the math, it indicates that after taxes, the Prez and First Lady still had nearly $4 million left over—which means that after they gave, they still had a cool $3.6 million.  Yawn.  Not terribly impressive on the old giving scale; if I made that much jack and gave less than a million, I’d be embarrassed, frankly, and I don’t say that to toot my own horn; sheesh, shouldn’t something in that ballpark that just be par for the course, particularly for a professing Christian?  Not even a hard call.

But alas, that liberal paragon Joe Biden, on a salary of over $330K, forked over less than 5 large to charity.  Sorry, but that’s just downright stingy.  Not that that keeps people like Mr. Biden from supporting tax increases so that our money is forcibly confiscated by Washington in order to support whatever “beneficial social program” the liberals deem necessary.  This reminds me of the old adage that there’s nothing particularly virtuous about being willing to try to do good with other people’s money—not that that’s ever stopped a liberal politician, mind you…

Chicago Does Socialism

As Hanson rightly points out, we might forgive an instance of statism here or there, a power grab or an unwise decision with adverse consequences, a diplomatic faux pas or a dubious association.  But when all things are taken together, a pretty clear portrait emerges, summed up in Hanson’s closing argument:

In any isolated circumstance, we are willing to give the president of the United States a pass on a particular disturbing decision. But after 14 months of them, the Obama particulars add up to a remaking of America that is now clear and consistent: Grow government; redistribute income; establish permanent political constituencies of dependents; increase entitlements; hike taxes; demonize “them” while deifying their supposed victims; seek global neutrality abroad; and always play fast and loose with the truth.

“We proved that this government, a government of the people and by the people, still works for the people.”

Yes, he actually said that.  Presumably, with a straight face.

George Orwell would be proud.