1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

MUST READ!!! Obama to sign away U.S. soveriegnty

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by recurvyarcher, Oct 26, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. recurvyarcher

    recurvyarcher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,450
    http://fightinwordsusa.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/obama-poised-to-cede-us-soverignty-claims-british-lord/

    The URL is too long to fit into the above URL box. So you won't be able to just click and go there, you will have to copy and paste.

    In December, when Obama signs the climate change treaty, he will also be signing a document that creates a new form of world government, and the U.S. will be required to redistribute its wealth and disseminate its technology in order to pay retribution. THIS IS WHAT I READ...YOU SHOULD READ IT, TOO.
     
  2. Charles.F.Phillips

    Charles.F.Phillips TS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    330
    Here ya go - tinyurl.com will shrink any hyperlink down to size:

    http://tinyurl.com/yjfhhvx

    R/s,<br />
    Charlie

    "The Dude Abides..."
     
  3. recurvyarcher

    recurvyarcher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,450
    Thanks, much better!
     
  4. jimrich60

    jimrich60 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Latest words are that Obamanation will not be going to Copenhagen in December, so he won't be signing anything away yet. At any rate, the so-called treaty is not agreed to even by the Europeans and the UN yet, and will likely not be agreed to any time soon. So nothing to sign or agree to, even if he wants to. In any case, whatever he wanted to sign, if he could, would still have to be ratified by the U.S. Senate even if Obamanation did sign something. Not law until then. Just like when Clinton signed the Kyoto Treaty, but the Senate let him know they would not ratify it, so he did not even send it to them for a vote.


    Jim R
     
  5. recurvyarcher

    recurvyarcher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,450
    "But I will say one thing; they know, in the White House, that they won’t be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to ratify a treaty of this kind. However, what they’ve worked out is this – and they actually let it slip during the election campaign, which is how I know about it. They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple majority of both houses. That they can do."

    Copied directly from the article. It's possible. It is also possible that he will be there in December. Check the link.

    Would you rather be complacent or vigilent?
     
  6. daddiooo

    daddiooo TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,004
    Location:
    GEORGIA
    With all that the axis of idiots and Obama are doing "vigilent" is the only thing we can be.
     
  7. jimrich60

    jimrich60 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    All of these things are of concern of course, but what I focus on are those things that are actually ocurring, such as so-called health reform, cap and trade, so-called fairness doctrines, attempts to shut down criticism (Fox news, etc) failures to deal with threats like Iran, dithering on Afghanistan, and such things, rather than some future "maybes" , which simply distract from the real on-going threats that are happening right now.

    As for ratification by "simple majority of Senate and House", there is no provision in the Constitution for this. Ratification of a treaty can only be, and must be, by 2/3 majority in the Senate. Any other process or vote is, by definition, unconstitutional and non-binding.

    Jim R
     
  8. recurvyarcher

    recurvyarcher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,450
    Cap and Trade is a part of this. And I wouldn't ignore anything at all. That's how something can easily get slipped through before you know it. EVERY issue is important, and requires us to keep vigilent.

    That's an old tactic, to bombard people with so much that they give up, or lose track.

    Warnings came before the election, and people discounted them then...see where we are now?
     
  9. jimrich60

    jimrich60 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Being "vigilant" is fine, but awareness is not going to change anything. Only actions are going to help at this point. How many have contributed to the real conservative in the New York 23rd-Hoffman? (I have) How many have contributed or acted for Harry Reids conservative opponent in Nevada (Tarkanian) Again, I have. How many are helping any real conservative candidates (not just their locals) with donations, volunteerism, or whatever (as opposed to just the labeled R or D) for the 2010 elections. How many have written/emailed/faxed or otherwise contacted, not just their own, but other members of Congress to object to Obamacare, Cap and Crap, or other legislation?
    How many have written or otherwise demanded the so-called leaders of the GOP quit being RINOs? Just being vigilant, unless we act in all legal ways now ,is not going to do anything to stop the drive to the left. All the polls show that a vast majority disapprove of Congress, but year after year, the vast majority get reelected. It seems that while we don't like "Congress" most seem to think "their guy (or gal) is ok" as long as that congrress person brings home the bacon locally. When are we going to start voting in the National interest (as we demand Congress do) and not just in our local interests? Voting for personal or local gain (who brings the most "pork" to our state, or region) is how we got to this state of affairs in the first place. Unless we, the citizens and voters, start voting what (and who) is best for the country and not just ourselves, we will not get better. If we truly want better representatives, it has to begin with us.

    Jim R
     
  10. recurvyarcher

    recurvyarcher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,450
    Jim Rich, please don't think that you are the ONLY one on ts.com who is politically active . There are some of us on here who do a lot of those things, and some more that you didn't mention. Do you attend and speak at congressional hearings? I have done that very recently. Do you interact on a face-to-face basis with senators and congressmen in the DC area? I do that, too.

    All said, your post is a good one for those who are inactive...if they don't get involved, our whole country is going to be lost, FAST! Don't let the put-downs and smoke-and-mirrors of the left get you discouraged. Fight for what you love.

    I have some very close friends who are liberals and are shooters who frequent this site. I risk their precious friendships by posting what I believe to be important. I'll take that risk, because I feel it is necessary at this time.
     
  11. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    curvy,,,,YOU can always make new friends, but we may not have a country if we don't keep the TRUTH in front of everybody's face,,,,it is just too easy to become complacent....
     
  12. Charles.F.Phillips

    Charles.F.Phillips TS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    330
    Jim R,

    Has anyone submitted a bill for the "Fairness Doctrine" to be revived?

    R/s,<br />
    Charlie

    "The Dude Abides..."
     
  13. jimrich60

    jimrich60 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Recurvy

    No intent to paint myself as the only one active politically. Many are, but unfortunately, many are not even minimally engaged. My point was for those who are not and what it will mean if they do not start thinking (and acting) country first soon. I spent some dozen years in D.C. but have now retired to Wisconsin, so no longer have the opportunity (or was it more distasteful chore?) to speak directly to many there. Glad that some like you still have the chance to speak out though.

    For Tinman

    What has the "Feral Reserve" got to do with it? Also:

    Constitution of the United States
    Article II
    Section 2
    [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur......

    Jim R
     
  14. recurvyarcher

    recurvyarcher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,450
    Agreed...now all of you, let's get down to business! Call, march, write letters/emails to your colleagues, make a lot of noise. Send whatever donations that you can, volunteer to make phone calls, VOTE!!!

    If you are well-spoken and reasonable, put together a presentation and volunteer to be a guest speaker at your clubs, your associations, and your schools. Talk with the events coordinators at the retirement homes, the senior citizen's centers, scout gatherings, etc. keep the dialogue open with young people that you know.

    If nothing else, start reading and educate yourself on every issue that you can.
     
  15. jimrich60

    jimrich60 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Charlie

    There have been a couple of attempts to revive the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" but so far none of them have made it out of committee (and not likely to directly at this point). Instead the FCC "czar" is writing a new series of directives quietly to create a system of "local diversity" rules and regulations (which do not need Congressional approval) which will, in essence achieve much the same results. Don't think they have been formally published as of yet though. Similarly, "diversity" rules are being considered for ruling the internet. By these things being done through the czars rules and regs, they avoid having Congress have to vote on such. Sort of "stealth" fairness doctrines for now.

    tinman

    The Federal Reserve System which was, as you note, created by Congress in 1913, regulates the U.S. money supply and banking system. It is not exactly a government agency, but it is not a private agency either. Hard to figure it exactly what it does now, or who it really works for. Guess the President since he appoints the head, with Senate approval. But it was created through normal Congressional action. That is in no way related to, or done the same as treaties where approval is specifically regulated by the Constitution.

    Jim R
     
  16. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    Confident as I am in Curvy's extensive and powerful network of Congressional contacts...truth is, Obama's EPA already has the authority to regulate CO2, and need not wait for Congress or any other body to do so. Obama has got both ends covered, legislative or non-legislative. The American Executive Branch can bend you over and ream you in ways that no European Bureaucrat with bad teeth could ever dream of.


    The Supreme Court fixed our asses but good. Whether he signs that Skoal-can piece of shit or not, you ain't getting any new coal-fired power plants, and that's that. Might as well hang onto your liberal friends, Curvy, 'cause there's nothing left to argue about. Hell, I'll let you borrow a couple of mine.


    Rolling brownouts, here we come. Heck, didn't we all wish we lived in California, anyway?
     
  17. recurvyarcher

    recurvyarcher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,450
    You missed the point of the first post. It's about what's buried in the treaty...loss of sovreignty and reparation paid to other nations.
     
  18. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    Whatever it is, I don't like it - but it can't do anything to us that our twenty quadrillion dollar trade deficit with hostile nations isn't already slowly doing, anyway.


    I sure ain't sitting home on election day...but the fat lady is running scales in the background, I'm afeered.
     
  19. recurvyarcher

    recurvyarcher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,450
    No, please...continue. It's interesting.
     
  20. jimrich60

    jimrich60 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    tinman

    The Federal Reserve Act (after the House and Senate conference report) was passed by both the Senate and the House on 23 Dec 1913, after each house had passed separate slightly different bills earlier in the month. The vote in the House was 298 yeas, 60 nays and 76 non-voting. The Senate passed the Act 43 to 25. (fewer states then of course). President Wilson then signed the Act. Now known as part of United States Code , Chapter 3. The bills were created largely in reaction to the financial panic of 1907. There is a Board of Governors, appointed by the President, and 12 Federal Reserve Banks, scattered throughout the country. The Federal Reserve does not replace any branch or responsibility of government (whether Congress or the Executive) but is given duties and authorities some might say are outside the constitutional authority of the government. It did not really give away any government authority so much as it created a whole new set of authorities. As I said, it is not exactly a government agency, but again not a private agency either. It regulates money flow, oversees banking regulations and operations in one sense, and does have major impact on various fiscal management policies in the U.S. Like any beauracracy, it has obviously grown in size, power, and authority over the years. In my view, it was one of the first of the major liberal institutions created (by that early left liberal Woodrow Wilson), passed primarily by a Democrat controlled Congress, and has been running U.S. monetary policies ever since.

    Jim R
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.