Obama to Cede US Sovereignty in December

[gund]

Here is some actual information about the emergency Obama declared.

On October 24, 2009, President Obama signed a proclamation declaring the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic a National Emergency to facilitate our ability to respond to the pandemic by enabling – if warranted – the waiver of certain statutory Federal requirements for medical treatment facilities. In particular, this proclamation is aimed at providing HHS the ability to waive legal requirements that could otherwise limit the ability of our nation’s health care system to respond to the surge of patients with the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus.
Authority
Section 1135 of the Social Security Act [42 USC §1320b–5] permits the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive certain requirements for healthcare facilities in response to emergencies. Two conditions must be met for the Secretary to be able to issue such “1135 waivers”: first, the Secretary must have declared a Public Health Emergency; second, the President must have declared an emergency or major disaster either through a Stafford Act Declaration or National Emergencies Act Declaration. If these conditions are met, then the Secretary may waive or modify Federal requirements as listed in section 1135. After the Secretary invokes section 1135, healthcare facilities may petition for 1135 waivers in response to particular needs, and only within the geographic and temporal limits of the emergency declarations.

October 24, 2009 - President Obama Signs Emergency Declaration for H1N1 Flu

Here you can even read the one page declaration yourself and see how dangerous it is
Declaration of a National Emergency with Respect to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic | The White House

Definitely he's planning to take over the country any day now. The greenback will be utterly useless, I'll take them from you to use for heating.

Seriously, erosions of civil liberties and rights is a slow and gradual process. They are sneaky like that. You probably won't know it, your kids may.

 

[dburkhead]

You guys know the most damaging power grab was by the Bush white house? National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia That's right. Bush said he can take over the entire government in the event of an emergency. Until you show me Obama has done something or made a directive more abusive than that, I'm not going to be worried. Scaremongering and demogogery, is there anything else new?

There are several things you may want to consider.

First, do not mistake opposition to Obama as support for Bush. Likewise, do not make the mistake of thinking that Bush was a conservative. It isn't and he wasn't.

Second, you may want to read that article again. Even with Wikipedia's typical unreliability wrt politically hot topics, it doesn't say what you seem to think it says. In fact, the Wikipedia article contradicts itself in its first sentence: "'a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President,' will take the place of the nation's regular government, presumably without the oversight of Congress."

Here's a pop quiz: what body represents the legislative branch of the Federal Government?

While what Bush actually did in many cases was bad enough, that doesn't seem to stop the Left from both exaggerating what he did to the point of outright falsehood. The really extraordinary thing is the tendency to both demonize Bush for doing those things they claimed he did while, at the same time, using those claims as justification for doing the same things themselves.

Now, the thing about the Copenhagen Treaty that bothers me is the claim that a nation, once joining the treaty, cannot decide to leave the treaty without the permission of the "treaty government" or the other nations in the treaty (which amounts to the same thing). That, right there, is a critical, I would say the critical, loss of sovereignty.

 

[gund]

Now, the thing about the Copenhagen Treaty that bothers me is the claim that a nation, once joining the treaty, cannot decide to leave the treaty without the permission of the "treaty government" or the other nations in the treaty (which amounts to the same thing). That, right there, is a critical, I would say the critical, loss of sovereignty.

You mean like how North Korea and Iran cannot withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and make nuclear weapons, while Indian, Pakistan, and Israel are free to not sign the treaty and make nuclear weapons? I think North Korea withdrew, didn't help much though.

Guess what, the NPT allows nations to withdraw.

In international politics, the big man wins all the time. And the USA is the big man with a big stick. I'm not worried.

But sure go ahead and worry. If you are scared of this, there's nothing much that will change your mind.

Civil libertarians voted for Bush and he screwed them over.
Gun enthusiasts voted for Bush and nothing happened.
Religious conservatives voted for Bush and a few abstinence programs happened.
Fiscal conservatives voted for Bush and he screwed them over with the stimulus and the military spending.
The only people that came out ahead are those who work in the military-industrial complex.

Guess what, the same people are coming out ahead in the Obama administration. Everybody else, same story.

There are more important things to worry about than the copenhagen treaty which Obama hasn't even signed, and which will require congress to ratify.

I agree though, that Bush directive is pretty unimportant. I read the directive on the white house website and it sounds pretty mild to me.

 

[dburkhead]

You mean like how North Korea and Iran cannot withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and make nuclear weapons, while Indian, Pakistan, and Israel are free to not sign the treaty and make nuclear weapons? I think North Korea withdrew, didn't help much though.

You might want to take a look at the nuclear non-proliferation treaties, what they say, and who they are between. Again, I don't think they say what you seem to think they say.

In international politics, the big man wins all the time. And the USA is the big man with a big stick. I'm not worried.

I guess that's why the Sun still never sets on the British Empire. They were the "big man with a stick" once upon a time. Funny how they don't seem to be in that position any more.

But sure go ahead and worry. If you are scared of this, there's nothing much that will change your mind.

Water's still fine, right? A bit warmer than a little while ago, but still fine. No need to jump out of this nice warm pot, right?

Civil libertarians voted for Bush and he screwed them over.

Did you bother reading the first comment in my post? You clearly saw the post since you quoted it, but did you read it? If you had, you'd know that this is already answered.

Gun enthusiasts voted for Bush and nothing happened.

And, considering how things had been going under previous administrations "nothing" was a step up. Oh, well, "nothing" that is except little things like the AWB being allowed to sunset.

Religious conservatives voted for Bush and a few abstinence programs happened.

And your point of this one is?

Fiscal conservatives voted for Bush and he screwed them over with the stimulus and the military spending.

Actually Fiscal conservatives did not vote for Bush. They voted against Kerry (and previously against Gore). Let me repeat: opposition to Obama is not support for Bush. And Bush was never a conservative. He was just less of a flaming radical than either of his primary opponents in either election.

The only people that came out ahead are those who work in the military-industrial complex.

Thank you for that statement. When combined with your other statements on political topics it says a great deal about how much weight to give your suggestions. Be careful taking advice from ones opposition--they rarely have your best interests at heart.

Guess what, the same people are coming out ahead in the Obama administration. Everybody else, same story.

The old "everybody's the same" gambit. Usually used when one cannot defend a particular side, simply claim the other side is "just as bad. Pretty much a confession that the position being defended is, actually, undefendable.

There are more important things to worry about than the copenhagen treaty which Obama hasn't even signed, and which will require congress to ratify.

Funny, I always thought the time to head off trouble was before it happened. He hasn't signed it and the Senate hasn't ratified it. I'd like to keep it that way. But go ahead and mimic Alfred E. Newman. The water getting uncomfortably warm yet? (to mix a couple of metaphors)

I agree though, that Bush directive is pretty unimportant. I read the directive on the white house website and it sounds pretty mild to me.

And instead of citing that source, you cited the biased, self-contradictory, Wikipedia article. Interesting.

 

[SavageEagle]

You mean like how North Korea and Iran cannot withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and make nuclear weapons, while Indian, Pakistan, and Israel are free to not sign the treaty and make nuclear weapons? I think North Korea withdrew, didn't help much though.

Guess what, the NPT allows nations to withdraw. So does this treaty. By vote of ALL the other signing nations. Sure, we could just leave the treaty and not abide by it. Then they start putting embargo's on us. Stop exporting oil to us. I do believe they would gladly do what they can to hurt us.

In international politics, the big man wins all the time. And the USA is the big man with a big stick. I'm not worried. As David said, that doesn't mean a thing. The Greeks, the Romans, the British, see a pattern here?

But sure go ahead and worry. If you are scared of this, there's nothing much that will change your mind.

Civil libertarians voted for Bush and he screwed them over.
Gun enthusiasts voted for Bush and nothing happened.
Whoops, you weren't sleeping for 8 years were you? Sunset of the AWB, the conservative judges he appointed that gave Heller a chance, the vetoing of numerous bills that had anti-gun legislation. Nope, he didn't do anything for us.
No I'm not a Bush fan.
Religious conservatives voted for Bush and a few abstinence programs happened.
Fiscal conservatives voted for Bush and he screwed them over with the stimulus and the military spending.
The only people that came out ahead are those who work in the military-industrial complex.
And the Federal Government. Every ABC agency got a bigger budget and a longer leash. Don't forget a lot of it is the CONGRESS. But no one wants to talk about that....

Guess what, the same people are coming out ahead in the Obama administration. Everybody else, same story.

There are more important things to worry about than the copenhagen treaty which Obama hasn't even signed, and which will require congress to ratify. Like Healthcare? You think it's not gonna get signed anyway no matter what we do? Do you REALLY think we can stop ANYTHING they try to pass?

I agree though, that Bush directive is pretty unimportant. I read the directive on the white house website and it sounds pretty mild to me.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

The treaty and links to it have been quoted early in the thread I believe. I even quoted many questionable points in the first 10 pages.

The treaty doesn't come out and spell out a NWO, but it does open the door and is a major step for one. Mockton Clearly said so on Glenn Beck's program the other day. It's a severe threat to our sovereignty by telling us how and where to spend and send our money. It tells us how to run our industries and what is and is not allowed. How? By making us reduce our carbon emissions and telling us to shut down all our coal fired and gas powered power plants.

You have to see the inherent dangers here. If you cannot, I cannot help you.

No, I definitely agree with you, this is bad news regardless of whether it's truly an NWO or not...I'm just curious as to the degree to which we are goosemarching toward oblivion...whether we're in lockstep cadence or just ambling along.

Hell, any climate change bill, even one which DOESN'T establish a world-wide system of governance (and from what little I found on Wikileaks about it --- http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RS22899.txt ---, it seems more and more plausible by the day that this is PRECISELY what is hidden within) is basically Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, and other mostly-coal-producing-and-burning States subsidizing the East and West Coasts' energy production.

Regardless of whether 'global warming' is true or not (full disclosure, I do think it's real, but I don't think it is as a big a problem as is being stated/overstated by media pundits), I'm as much for leaving a clean planet to our grandkids as the next guy (or gal!), but not at the cost of ceding our sovereignty or for us to bare the cost of upgrading on our grandchildren's backs. I'm not about to let that happen. It's bad enough to mismanage our own funds, but to mismanage the future of this nation's youth? It's a travesty.

No, something is rotten in the State of Denmark ...and in these United States.

 

[gund]

You might want to take a look at the nuclear non-proliferation treaties, what they say, and who they are between. Again, I don't think they say what you seem to think they say.

This is article X, the only statement that deals with leaving the treaty.

Article X
1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

The nations are allowed to unilaterally withdraw. That's what I said.

I guess that's why the Sun still never sets on the British Empire. They were the "big man with a stick" once upon a time. Funny how they don't seem to be in that position any more.

Your analogy is to imply the USA will fail inevitably? Or that it is failing now and something has to be done to reverse it? Doesn't matter, if it is the first, I disagree, if it is the second, the analogy makes no sense.

Water's still fine, right? A bit warmer than a little while ago, but still fine. No need to jump out of this nice warm pot, right?

The discussion is whether the water is warmer. Supposed to show that it's warmer, not ask the question thinking it is rhetorical.

Did you bother reading the first comment in my post? You clearly saw the post since you quoted it, but did you read it? If you had, you'd know that this is already answered.

I didn't say this isn't unanswered. I brought it up to contrast the two governments and say I have seen worse in the last few years, so I'm not worried yet because Obama hasn't done anything worse. That's my opinion. You already think an unsigned treaty and a proposed healthcare bill is worse than what has already been signed by the previous admin. I think the Patriot act and detaining USA citizens indefinitely and ignoring habeus corpus is worse.

And, considering how things had been going under previous administrations "nothing" was a step up. Oh, well, "nothing" that is except little things like the AWB being allowed to sunset.

Letting a law sunset is a decision of congress.

Actually Fiscal conservatives did not vote for Bush. They voted against Kerry (and previously against Gore). Let me repeat: opposition to Obama is not support for Bush. And Bush was never a conservative. He was just less of a flaming radical than either of his primary opponents in either election.

I see.

Thank you for that statement. When combined with your other statements on political topics it says a great deal about how much weight to give your suggestions. Be careful taking advice from ones opposition--they rarely have your best interests at heart.

You went to read my other posts on this forum to build a profile of me...

The old "everybody's the same" gambit. Usually used when one cannot defend a particular side, simply claim the other side is "just as bad. Pretty much a confession that the position being defended is, actually, undefendable.

Or you know, maybe republicans and democrats do the exact same thing, they just serve different special interests. One panders to the religious votes among others, the other panders to the poor and the racial minorities among others. This has been pointed out by others before me. Both sides want bigger government and expansion of powers.

The republicans don't even bother pandering to the 2nd amendment advocates anymore. Did they make any promises in the recent elections to rescind any laws or make any pro-2nd amendment laws? No. It's a reliably safe bet they will get the votes, why bother. The democrats are too scared to do anything about the 2nd amendment, they know they would lose the next election if they do. In my mind, both sides are going to stay out of any 2nd amendment debate in the near future.

I'm a fiscal conservative with libertarian leanings. Less government, less police, less laws, less intrusion, less taxes. You can read that however you want.

Funny, I always thought the time to head off trouble was before it happened. He hasn't signed it and the Senate hasn't ratified it. I'd like to keep it that way. But go ahead and mimic Alfred E. Newman. The water getting uncomfortably warm yet? (to mix a couple of metaphors)

Nope.

And instead of citing that source, you cited the biased, self-contradictory, Wikipedia article. Interesting.

I went to read the directive after you commented on it. I admitted it was wrong, and you rag me on it.

I think I should control myself instead of responding in like. Just tiring to dissect every comment.

Good luck with educating the others about the dangers of future government actions. May it have positive effect on this nation.

 

[SavageEagle]

When will we learn that there's not a thing we can do about climate change? I mean we COULD... but that would be considered Genocide...

 

[gund]

So does this treaty. By vote of ALL the other signing nations. Sure, we could just leave the treaty and not abide by it. Then they start putting embargo's on us. Stop exporting oil to us. I do believe they would gladly do what they can to hurt us.

Thanks for not responding to every statement I made.

They could. But all signs point to they won't. The invasion of Iraq angered quite a few countries, there were no serious repercussions (you mentioned embargoes and oil). The USA economy is the world economy. One goes down, the other does too. They don't have the balls.

The NPT doesn't require a vote from all nations to withdraw. You can unilaterally withdraw. That doesn't actually mean anything in light of recent international events.

Whoops, you weren't sleeping for 8 years were you? Sunset of the AWB, the conservative judges he appointed that gave Heller a chance, the vetoing of numerous bills that had anti-gun legislation. Nope, he didn't do anything for us.
No I'm not a Bush fan.

Roberts and Alito before being appointed to the supreme court have zero rulings as judges that favor the 2nd amendment. They were conservative, but Bush didn't appoint them because of any 2nd amendment inclinations. To say he was responsible for Heller succeeding because of the two judges he appointed is a stretch. Anyway, the government's solicitor general in the case argued for something of a status quo, not such a far-reaching decision by the courts.

I'm pretty sure he didn't veto any anti-gun legislation. Could you please cite which anti-gun bills he vetoed so I can look it up?

List of United States presidential vetoes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a list of all his vetoes. There could be some anti-gun legislation in a bill he vetoed. Just looking at at the titles of the bills they are all not related to firearms or self-defense.

I agree with everything else you said.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

A national emergency is a national emergency any way you slice it and it gives the president the full powers of the national emergencies act.

 

[jsharmon7]

So does this treaty. By vote of ALL the other signing nations. Sure, we could just leave the treaty and not abide by it. Then they start putting embargo's on us. Stop exporting oil to us. I do believe they would gladly do what they can to hurt us.

Come on, SE, money talks. There is no way they would stop supplying oil to the largest consumer of crude oil in the world. They might hate us, but they aren't stupid.

Like Healthcare? You think it's not gonna get signed anyway no matter what we do? Do you REALLY think we can stop ANYTHING they try to pass?

Honestly, this SHOCKS me. Aren't you the one who organizes Tea Parties and OC walks? Aren't you the one who harps on others to "do something" when they don't agree with what the government is doing? By this statement, it's all a waste of time.

 

[SavageEagle]

Thanks for not responding to every statement I made.

They could. But all signs point to they won't. The invasion of Iraq angered quite a few countries, there were no serious repercussions (you mentioned embargoes and oil). The USA economy is the world economy. One goes down, the other does too. They don't have the balls.

The NPT doesn't require a vote from all nations to withdraw. You can unilaterally withdraw. That doesn't actually mean anything in light of recent international events.

Roberts and Alito before being appointed to the supreme court have zero rulings as judges that favor the 2nd amendment. They were conservative, but Bush didn't appoint them because of any 2nd amendment inclinations. To say he was responsible for Heller succeeding because of the two judges he appointed is a stretch. Anyway, the government's solicitor general in the case argued for something of a status quo, not such a far-reaching decision by the courts.

I'm pretty sure he didn't veto any anti-gun legislation. Could you please cite which anti-gun bills he vetoed so I can look it up?

List of United States presidential vetoes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a list of all his vetoes. There could be some anti-gun legislation in a bill he vetoed. Just looking at at the titles of the bills they are all not related to firearms or self-defense.

I agree with everything else you said.

Don't be so sure that there wouldn't be reprecussions if we signed then just withdrew. Our economy is big, but India, China, EU, they are all catching up to us. Never under or over estimate yourself or your enemies. Our economy is tanking, but that not the reason other economies are doing the same.

As for Roberts and Alito not being responsible for Heller... If EITHER one voted the other way, you would all of a sudden not had a right to bear arms. Is it REALLY that much of a stretch to realize that only if one other person had voted the other way we'd been screwed?

Anyway, I know Bush vetoed a couple bills that contained anti-2A language but I don't have the patience to look through 4 years of bills to find them. I do remember it happening though I just don't remember. I want to say one of them was a defense budget bill, but I don't remember.

I forgot to add, don't forget that Bush gave us John Bolton. Without him, our senate would have been considering many, many anti-gun treaties from the UN itself.

Come on, SE, money talks. There is no way they would stop supplying oil to the largest consumer of crude oil in the world. They might hate us, but they aren't stupid.

Honestly, this SHOCKS me. Aren't you the one who organizes Tea Parties and OC walks? Aren't you the one who harps on others to "do something" when they don't agree with what the government is doing? By this statement, it's all a waste of time.

If it would hurt us enough to get us to consider coming back to their would-be NWO, I think they'd try anything. I think it would be good for this Country as it might once again unite us and encourage us to make our own shtuffs, but don't think for one second they wouldn't do what they had to to get us in on their NWO. They NEED us to make it work and they know it.

And yes, I was one who helped with the Tea Parties and organized the OC Walk. I can harp on others all I want, it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of American's are lazy and complacent and won't lift a finger in the name of freedom. It was that way in the beginning and it's that way now. I am very proud of those who will stand up against tyranny. I just fear we are too few with the decks stacked against us.

If only 20% of America votes in the name of Freedom in an informed way, do you REALLY think we're going to elect a Constitutionally sound government? I have my serious doubts, and I'm not getting my hopes up. My faith in people is truly waivering. I'm not sure most people have what it takes to stand against tyranny.

We had a few thousand people the first Tea Party. Then maybe a couple thousand at the second. In an area populated with millions. (Not just in Indy, but all of Central Indiana) The OC walk had 37 people. 4 of which come from out of state. Which we all came from a board of more than 6000 members.

I really have my doubts that the people will have any influence on the direction of Washington in a peaceable way.

PROVE ME WRONG.

 

[jsharmon7]

Don't be so sure that there wouldn't be reprecussions if we signed then just withdrew. Our economy is big, but India, China, EU, they are all catching up to us. Never under or over estimate yourself or your enemies. Our economy is tanking, but that not the reason other economies are doing the same.

As for Roberts and Alito not being responsible for Heller... If EITHER one voted the other way, you would all of a sudden not had a right to bear arms. Is it REALLY that much of a stretch to realize that only if one other person had voted the other way we'd been screwed?

Anyway, I know Bush vetoed a couple bills that contained anti-2A language but I don't have the patience to look through 4 years of bills to find them. I do remember it happening though I just don't remember. I want to say one of them was a defense budget bill, but I don't remember.

I forgot to add, don't forget that Bush gave us John Bolton. Without him, our senate would have been considering many, many anti-gun treaties from the UN itself.



If it would hurt us enough to get us to consider coming back to their would-be NWO, I think they'd try anything. I think it would be good for this Country as it might once again unite us and encourage us to make our own shtuffs, but don't think for one second they wouldn't do what they had to to get us in on their NWO. They NEED us to make it work and they know it.

And yes, I was one who helped with the Tea Parties and organized the OC Walk. I can harp on others all I want, it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of American's are lazy and complacent and won't lift a finger in the name of freedom. It was that way in the beginning and it's that way now. I am very proud of those who will stand up against tyranny. I just fear we are too few with the decks stacked against us.

If only 20% of America votes in the name of Freedom in an informed way, do you REALLY think we're going to elect a Constitutionally sound government? I have my serious doubts, and I'm not getting my hopes up. My faith in people is truly waivering. I'm not sure most people have what it takes to stand against tyranny.

We had a few thousand people the first Tea Party. Then maybe a couple thousand at the second. In an area populated with millions. (Not just in Indy, but all of Central Indiana) The OC walk had 37 people. 4 of which come from out of state. Which we all came from a board of more than 6000 members.

I really have my doubts that the people will have any influence on the direction of Washington in a peaceable way.

PROVE ME WRONG.

Oh I'm not saying you're wrong here or that I disagree with you; that has nothing to do with my statement to you. What I'm saying is that I'm shocked that you, of all people, would come out and make that sort of statement. If you really believe this to be true, why do you make the efforts that you do? I understand your desire to say "hey at least I tried" but if you really think it's completely futile then it's just a waste of time even if that's your only motivation. I do think that we the people can make a difference peacefully by our vote every November. I just don't see it happening because, as you pointed out, people are too lazy and unwilling. I serve as an election worker every year and I can personally attest to the appalling voter turnout that we see. Again, I'm just shocked that you would make the outright admission that you don't think there is anything we, the people, can do even as you look ahead to planning another OC walk, Tea Party, etc.

 

[SavageEagle]

Oh I'm not saying you're wrong here or that I disagree with you; that has nothing to do with my statement to you. What I'm saying is that I'm shocked that you, of all people, would come out and make that sort of statement. If you really believe this to be true, why do you make the efforts that you do? I understand your desire to say "hey at least I tried" but if you really think it's completely futile then it's just a waste of time even if that's your only motivation. I do think that we the people can make a difference peacefully by our vote every November. I just don't see it happening because, as you pointed out, people are too lazy and unwilling. I serve as an election worker every year and I can personally attest to the appalling voter turnout that we see. Again, I'm just shocked that you would make the outright admission that you don't think there is anything we, the people, can do even as you look ahead to planning another OC walk, Tea Party, etc.

I know, and I hate to be so brutally honest, but I seriously don't see a peaceable way to change the course of Washington. The election outlook is very bleak, IMO, and I'm not planning for it to fall the way of freedom.

I do what I do to try as hard as I can to change that outlook. By doing the Tea Parties and the OC Walks, I have the chance to TRY and awaken people. It's not so much so I can say "Hey, I tried.". It's to wake people out of their slumber of ignorance and motivate them to make a change.

We saw the government two years ago promise change and offer us hope. My hope is that people now realize that the government can't give that to them and they have to do that on their own. I will continue to do things that awaken those not in hibernation. But my outlook on 2010/2012 is not very positive and I feel like I'm losing faith in people.

I don't want to feel like this. I want someone to prove me wrong.

 

[dburkhead]

Come on, SE, money talks. There is no way they would stop supplying oil to the largest consumer of crude oil in the world. They might hate us, but they aren't stupid.

That we could probably flex our economic and/or military muscles and get out of the treaty regardless of whether the other treaty members agreed or not is really beside the point. Making such an agreement in the first place is still unsupportable.

It's the functional equivalent of Congress passing laws that are unconstitutional with the "justification" that the courts can sort it out later.

Making such an agreement is giving up of sovereignty--even if some later administration may choose to grab that sovereignty back.

Honestly, this SHOCKS me. Aren't you the one who organizes Tea Parties and OC walks? Aren't you the one who harps on others to "do something" when they don't agree with what the government is doing? By this statement, it's all a waste of time.

I'm not Ryan, of course, but I can certainly see where he's coming from. I've made my predictions on 2010-2012 on this board. I'd like to think those predictions are wrong. I hope they are wrong. And I am trying my best to make sure they are wrong.

That I see some pretty bleak things on the political horizon does not mean that I don't try to stop them. After all, I could be wrong, in which case it would be very foolish not to make the effort.

 

[rambone]

That's right. Bush said he can take over the entire government in the event of an emergency. Until you show me Obama has done something or made a directive more abusive than that, I'm not going to be worried.

In international politics, the big man wins all the time. And the USA is the big man with a big stick. I'm not worried.

But sure go ahead and worry. If you are scared of this, there's nothing much that will change your mind.

I didn't say this isn't unanswered. I brought it up to contrast the two governments and say I have seen worse in the last few years, so I'm not worried yet because Obama hasn't done anything worse.

You already think an unsigned treaty and a proposed healthcare bill is worse than what has already been signed by the previous admin. I think the Patriot act and detaining USA citizens indefinitely and ignoring habeus corpus is worse.

Okay. Up to this point, I am sensing that you aren't worried at all about Obama, or anything he is doing, or the state of the nation (as long as it is not under GWB). I am guessing from your shielding of Obama that you voted for him.

I'm a fiscal conservative with libertarian leanings. Less government, less police, less laws, less intrusion, less taxes. You can read that however you want.

Then... this? Really??

You want less intrusion... do you realize the Obama & the democrats are on the verge of nationalizing our health care system, taking over 1/6 of the U.S. Economy, and inextricably altering the relationship between the individual and his Government? You understand that the Government is now in the business of giving away taxpayer money to companies and then taking them over... (a la Government Motors)?

You want less taxes... do you realize that Obama & the democrats are half-way to passing the "Cap & Trade" bill which will be the largest tax imposition in the history of the country? Have you not heard the recent rumblings of a national sales tax?

You want less laws... do you realize that Obama recently signed the "Hate Crimes" bill which basically creates a class of citizens that will be favored by law?

You want less Government... do you realize the size of the bureaucracy that will be created to oversee and control the American health care system, if the "reform" passes? Do you know that Obama expanded the powers of the FDA earlier this year? Do you know how many government jobs are being created, all at the expense of the economy? And if this treaty gets signed, we will be under the thumb of our own Government as well as the will of international governments!

You are a fiscal conservative... do you realize that Obama passed a record-setting spending bill ($787 Billion 'stimulus') in February? Do you understand that Obama's burning desire is to oversee the creation of the largest entitlement program of all time?

You have libertarian leanings... How can you look at this country, and keep insisting that there is nothing to worry about??

Are you an unshakable optimist, or is it a case of hope-nosis?