The United Nations is sending observers at the request of the NAACP and other civil rights groups to monitor US elections. I reported the names of the observers here.
Texas has warned the UN observers that if they set foot inside the polls, they will be arrested. It is a crime for someone to enter a Texas polling place without authorization.
One of the two UN observers in Texas is Conny Jensen.
Jensen is an active in the Danish Socialdemocraterne. This is the socialist party in Denmark. So the UN is sending a Danish socialist to monitor elections in Texas. Let’s hope Jensen keeps the number to a bailbondsman handy.
Conny Jensen
Perhaps other PJ readers can crowd source the backgrounds of the other UN observers and post below in the comments.
What’s a Danish socialist, does that mean we all have a right to a morning Danish paid for by the government? I could go for something like that.
Not sure if this is the same person but there is an Isabel Lopez Manchon (listed on .pdf as an observer in Georgia) on Twitter with handle @bearosche and she seems to talk politics (used Google translator).
Couldn’t find anything else except that the OSCE has an article on its website today that says:
““The threat of criminal sanctions against OSCE/ODIHR observers is unacceptable,” Lenarčič said. “The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections.”
They’ve cpmplained to Hillary Clinton but doesn’t common sense (for an American, anyway) dictate the States have authority over election law rather than the Federal Government?
If someone wanted to say a ratified treaty could trump some laws they *might* get away with it on election of Senators and Representatives, because there is an escape clause for Congress there, where Congress can change those laws (Art. I, Section I). On the other hand, the Senate is not the Congress, it is the Senate–the House does not ratify treaties. Thus, merely ratifying a treaty does not automatically mean *Congress* has acted on something, it means the Senate has. And if you start letting one house be the entire Congress, why not start letting parts of one house be considered the entire Congress? Why not just one man? Why not just go by the unilateral word of the Speaker, or the Senate Majority leader? Where would it end?
Also, there is no such escape clause for Congress on selection of electors for President. It is all the states as far as manner of selection, though Congress may set the time. Thus, I see no way the Constitution could ever be construed so as to say any treaty could be viewed as trumping state authority on Presidential elections, and honestly think it wouldn’t hold water for other elections either.
I also argue that absent going through the amendment ratification process via the states or convention, no treaty can change the Constitution. 2/3 of the Senate is simply too small of a number to overcome the moral authority of the requirement for 2/3 of both Congressional houses and 3/4 of the states. Thus, no treaty can change the Constitution itself. Treaties must conform to the Constitution, not the other way around.
Finally, I will argue that if Congress wants a treaty to trump a state election law (when Congress has the power to do so), it needs to be done so explicitly. They are big-boy legislators–they could do it if they wanted to. If they don’t, then the intent is probably not there snd should not be read in.
If Congress has not made a law allowing this, then it is illegal. And if they have made a law allowing this, then they need to be executed for treason. I don’t recall the American people saying that they approve of allowing foreigners to monitor our elections.
I have read the response by the OSCE to Texas. If a nation had uttered them, I would ask if it was their way of saying their diplomat was asking for his passport, and ours should to–because further relations between the two nations would have just been made impossible.
For the sovereign people of the United States are under zero obligations to the OSCE in regards to much of anything. Certainly not our elections. And statements that we do owe them some “obligation” are statements that we are in fact not an indpendent state. But we are. Therefore…
Come and take it. Europe has zero chance of imposing its will on the United States. It should best not try.
Basically, it is unacceptable to have foreigners observing our elections unless they are here to learn. OSCE is apparently not here for that purpose. Theregore, regardless of being here since 2002, they must depart.
This is a causus belli. We won’t do anything, of course, but to have the OSCE “double-checking” our elections is an insult to the nation that created the modern constitutional Republic (while the mother nations of the OSCE were monarchies and dictatorships), and a nation that is culturally far more egalitarian than those of our friends in Europe. A pox upon the OSCE’s house, and the NAACP as well.
And I don’t even want to hear about segregation. Americans took care of that problem, not Europeans.
Hell, as Germany shows, we took care of some of Europe’s issues with democracy too. And then stood steadfast on its defense against the Communists while France did whatever it did during the Cold War.
Just so the diplomats understand–the OSCE is not asking for access. It is not hoping for an invitation to observe. It is demanding to observe, as if by manorial right.
Go. To. Hell.
“Europe has zero chance of imposing its will on the United States. It should best not try.”
Have you read the recent articles on how the Obama campaign has deliberately been making it incredibly easy for foreign donors to contribute to his campaign? That nobody’s even made a pretense at stopping them? How many European socialists do you think donated to Obama’s campaign while sniggering at the thought of Americans paying $8/gal for gas, higher taxes, a weakened military, and all the other socialist goodies a second Obama term entails?
… … “Let’s hope Jensen keeps the number to a bailbondsman handy.”
A better idea:
Ms. Jensen, I can direct you to a pasture in the outskirts of Dallas where lives a prime specimen of a Texas Longhorn bull.
How would you like to get closer to nature? Jean-Jacques Rousseau recommended it. I would so love to facilitate your enlightening experience.
Oh, and did I mention “horny”? … Truly ma’am, a glowing recommendation! … A rural fling to make you the envy of the parlors of sophisticated Europe, not to mention the plate-glass-window-advertised whorehouse district of Amsterdam.
So who is the US going to send to Chicago?
Or Philly, for that matter?
So the UN sent a Danish socialist to monitor the election in Texas so I can only assume that they will send a Polish conservative to Ohio or Pennsylvania. I mean they’re totally unbiased, right?
Now boys, let’s not get our dander up…what happened to that world-famous Texas hospitality?
Have Jerry Jones buy her a stetson and a pair of Tony Llama boots, then take this dame as a VIP guest to his sky-box to watch the Cowboys lose, ply her with free Texas-sized drinks and a big ol’ Texas sized grilled steak.
Then she can go nightclubbing with the Cowboys players,(or maybe the Cowboys’ cheerleaders…she looks like she might prefer the company of hens to roosters).
I reckon that she’ll have a Texas-sized hangover that will last into Wednesday…so if she sleeps through the Election, well, that’s just too danged bad, ma’am.
You Texicans are plumb falling off your game!
This is the one of the reps they sent to Florida;
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Pallieres_Eric_1300193258.aspx
It has been a while since I worked an election but I believe that Texas state law allows a candidate in a race or the party to designate election monitors at polling places. If Ms.Jensen gets an official letter from the Democratic Party of the county in which she wishes to observe an election or from a candidate who is on the ballot in that precinct, she would be in compliance with Texas election law. If she shows up with nothing but her UN credentials it is the responsibility of the Election Judge for that precinct to tell her to leave of face arrest.
I don’t know if the Texas law has any provision requiring a poll watcher to be a citizen of the United States or of Texas. I believe that a poll watcher has to present credentials on election day before the polls open at 7:00 AM. I also believe that a poll watcher can only be admitted to one polling place (other than the one where they vote) on election day.
If you have never been a poll watcher, I recommend the experience. Contact your local Republican Party organization and tell them that you would like to volunteer for ballot security. Take a vacation day and do your bit for your country. The Democrats are less likely to do their normal shenanigans when there are outside observers.
Under Texas law, a poll watcher has to be registered to vote in Texas, so I don’t see any of these tranzis getting in as poll watchers, even if a candidate or party wants to appoint them as such.
You’ve got the wrong Conny Jensen though…
Wow if she is not the quinessential international school marm, then I don’t know who is. Watch out Texas, she has a ruler and she will be standing guard ready to rap your naughty knuckles.
This is nothing but a big show put on by the UN and the various civil rights agitator groups. The UN doesn’t have anything close to the number of “observers” needed to monitor an election in a country the size of ours. They’re sending two observers to Texas for cripes sake. Two. There are over 8500 precincts in Texas. So where are these clowns planning to set up shop do you suppose?