Here is some of the change we can believe in. Incidentally, I agree. Obama is bringing change. He is filling the cabinet with radical socialists, communists, marxists, and sundry left-wing political hacks, trying to destroy this country before the next elections.
Rosa Brooks is now an advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy at the Pentagon. In short, she is an advisor on national security. So, let’s take a look at some of the change Chairman maObama brought us.
- ~ Brooks was an op/ed columnist for the L.A. Times (there’s a non-partisan rag)
- ~ Frequent guest on MSNBC–especially Rachael “the man” Maddow
- ~ A board member of the radical left wing group Amnesty International
- ~ Counsel to the president of George Soros’s (head of the radical left wing MoveOn.org) Open Society Institute (another leftist group which according to the website wants to “assure greater fairness in . . . economic systems” read that redistribution of wealth globally)
- ~ Member of the World Economic Forum’s global agenda council. This is a globalist group, which besides wanting an international tax and an international media outlet like CNN said in their 2009 agenda:
The implications of institutions of global governance can be heavy for sovereign
states. As current global governance problems come from market failures, sovereign
failures and intergovernmental failures that cross boundaries, sacrificing sovereignty
for greater gain may become an option. This principle is unthinkable now. But ask
yourself one simple question: why is the trade world functioning and the financial
world failing? Simple. The financial world has no global rules. The trade world has
global rules which override our sovereignty. So if we can do it in trade, why not accept binding rules in other areas?
Apparently, Ms. Brooks is a progressive populist and proponent of a global government. Here are a couple of quotes from her work Failed States, or the State as Failure? published by University of Chicago Law Review 2005:
If the state is the best mode of social organization, it is logical to seek an international order that provides for all humans what a successful nation-state can theoretically provide for its own citizens.
While questions can always be raised about the most efficient level on which various governance decisions should be made, n75 there is no defensible reason for wishing to preserve the socially constructed difference that is used to justify nation-states [editor's note: nation-state means a country like the United States]. The largest modern state today (China) has a population that approaches the size of the entire world’s population in 1900. n76 If a modern state can be as large as China (1.3 billion) or India (1.1 billion) and not be automatically suspect because of its scale, why should we not want a global state in which we can all participate and from which we can all benefit? n77 The current system of states is arbitrary and irrational; n78 a world where the Solomon Islands and China are formal equals seems hardly worth preserving — especially when we know that in practice states are very far from being equals, and that the state-centered international legal order serves mainly to preserve the power and privilege of those in successful states at the expense of everyone else. n79
If, despite its flaws, the state is the best form of social organization we’ve got, it is also logical to sympathize with the transparently normative goals of traditional international law scholarship, n80 which tended to assume that more international law is always better than less, and that international structures capable of limiting and transcending state power (through coercion if necessary) are generally good.
This woman who hates the United States–not as a country, but solely because of its existence as an irrational entity that maintains its power by abusing little countries–is an advisor on defense policy? All I can say is “God help up survive the next four years.”