I don't think I buy into all of it, but some of it looks to be happening right in front of our eyes. Some of the things are so outlandish to believe that they could be happening and people won't believe it because they don't think a president of the united states would actually be up to these things.

http://bostonglobe.com/ideas/2012/07/21/obama-secret-agenda-revealed/HvRiJ1VX3FXSqe15gV1h9L/story.html

Anyone who believes that shit needs to get their head examined.

I Wear Pants;1231151 wrote:Anyone who believes that shit needs to get their head examined.

Lol +1

Yes, because he's a fucking politician, and they all do.

The moment any of that starts to happen ill go down swinging

bases_loaded;1231168 wrote:The moment any of that starts to happen ill go down swinging

that would make you a REAL tea bagger.

"From my cold dead hand will they have to remove my weapon"

.. Not My President ..

The author of this article has an agenda himself.....by bringing forth the ridiculous from the extremes he hopes to show Obama as a moderate, and a man of compromise.
Not so fast. Let's keep our eye on the ball. Big entitlement programs, trillion dollar deficits, mandates affecting religious beliefs, catering to the environmental lobby, pandering to his brand of 'women's issues', etc....are not 'moderate' traits. Let's call him what he is...and that is an unabashed, unapologetic Liberal.... no more no less.

Obama has no secret agenda, he's just an career empty suit.

Although he's truly living the American dream - a man with no productive talent whatsoever became a multi-millionaire and POTUS.

Devils Advocate;1231186 wrote:that would make you a REAL tea bagger.

A real American

gut;1231227 wrote:Obama has no secret agenda, he's just an career empty suit.

Although he's truly living the American dream - a man with no productive talent whatsoever became a multi-millionaire and POTUS.

mitt is the definitive empty suit.

isadore;1231275 wrote:mitt is the definitive empty suit.

Do you even know what an empty suit is?

gosh a ruddies an executive completely lacking in leadership qualities. a person who sways with the wind, standing for nothing but his own survival. otherwise known as a mitt.

Romney has far more leadership experience and track record than the President of the Unoccupied Suits

isadore;1231574 wrote:gosh a ruddies an executive completely lacking in leadership qualities.

LOL...'kay. :rolleyes:

fish82;1231677 wrote:LOL...'kay. :rolleyes:

like the mittster, a large stack of feckless flesh

Sure.


And the Masons run the Government, with Santa Clause as the Master......................

Nope. And I didn't believe Bush had a secret agenda either.
Come on folks.

Ptown- what about the UN treaty that Hillary is pushing that ostensibly renders our 2nd Amendment useless? Would Harry not bring it to a vote only to have it enacted because he failed to be an American? Whats your opinion?

Personally, if this goes down, Harry should hang for treason as he would have failed to uphold the Constitution. Maybe they could string up Holder while they are at it.

BGFalcons82;1231938 wrote:Ptown- what about the UN treaty that Hillary is pushing that ostensibly renders our 2nd Amendment useless? Would Harry not bring it to a vote only to have it enacted because he failed to be an American? Whats your opinion?

Personally, if this goes down, Harry should hang for treason as he would have failed to uphold the Constitution. Maybe they could string up Holder while they are at it.

Ehhh, not going to happen. It would never get through the Senate. And unless Harry knew he had 67, he would never bring it out of committee.
This treaty has slimmer chances than the two more important treaties the Administration wants. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and the Law of the Sea. Those two treaties have an uphill battle to get to 67. So, given that, this treaty would never happen.

And according to Snopes, it does not get rid of the Second Amendment. It mainly manages international arms trades, which the U.S. does not really follow as the largest arms exporter.

ccrunner609;1231987 wrote:you do realize that if a international treaty is not voted on by the senate that it is automatically ratified regardless of what our government does? That is the secret part. It is ratified regardless of what our senate does and the way that it is written it is in direct opposition to the 2nd admendment.
So Hiliary signs it (Obama is pushing her to do so), Reid is told to not bring it to a vote and a few months later, boom. Gun regulations via international treaty.

Uhh, that is not how international law works.
Go brush up on how the international treaty system and ratification works.
The Executive Branch cannot circumvent the Legislative Branch with international treaties. Hell, if that was the case, we would have joined the League of Nations.

If that was the case as well, why go through all the trouble the administration went through for New START and the Russians?

Furthermore, cite the portion of the treaty that specifically says what you say? Which Article?

ccrunner609;1232100 wrote:Here, **** is better with words then me.

[video=youtube;XZeJpXLsVCI][/video]

Ok. What a waste of 3:55 of my life.
1. He does not cite the specific Article or Section that states the fear of the committee or whatever that may trump the 2nd Amendment. With that, where is his proof? All he does he make broad statements. Please, he loses all credibility there.
2. Even if the President signs it, the U.S. does not have to abide by it. International Law is full of examples of countries that have signed treaties, but do not abide by them. Yes, the Vienna Convention says we should abide by it in the spirit of the law, but Congress can still trump that or the Courts can say we do not have to abide by it.
3. No way in hell the Senate takes this up. As stated, the Administration wants the CTBT banning nuclear tests, and the Law of the Sea (Which will expand our economic oil boundaries in the North and every branch of the military and the Coast Guard support).
Why would they waste the time and political capital for this thing, when those treaties are more important and are a haul anyways to get 67.
4. Even if the treaty is signed and ratified, and some grand UN Committee is formed, what power will they have and as Andrew Jackson famously said, with some minor changes, "The courts have made their rulings, now let them enforce it."

So, come back with a specific Article and part of the treaty that applies to your crazy theory and how that committee will take your guns. I'm all ears...

Ptown - I know you don't really care much for the conservative side of issues, so I understand why you tuned Morris out. It's a natural reaction. I tend to do the same thing whenever Debbie Wasserman Schulz talks her blathering nonsense.

In regards to your questions, first, he references his book as he only has less than 4 minutes in his video to make his point. If you want the details, buy the book! Second, he references the "Supremacy Clause" of the Constitution. I don't know where this is, but someone like majorspark can probably identift it in nanoseconds Third, Barry authorized a druglord gun program to show how badly we need gun control laws. What he failed to consider is that his guns are killing innocent people, including border agent Bryan Terry. Since that program failed, he's trying this Plan B. There is NO WAY he won't follow the UN's guidelines when it comes to controlling guns. He is a New World Order guy as well, so whatever the world wants from us, he'll gladly give it up.

I'm very interested in the language that says if the Senate doesn't vote on a treaty, then it automatically becomes "ratified". Is this true for any treaty, not just this pile of dung?

What??? A Dick Morris video and no strippers? No toe-licking? No singing "Dixie"? What is this world coming to?

BGFalcons82;1232273 wrote:Ptown - I know you don't really care much for the conservative side of issues, so I understand why you tuned Morris out. It's a natural reaction. I tend to do the same thing whenever Debbie Wasserman Schulz talks her blathering nonsense.

In regards to your questions, first, he references his book as he only has less than 4 minutes in his video to make his point. If you want the details, buy the book! Second, he references the "Supremacy Clause" of the Constitution. I don't know where this is, but someone like majorspark can probably identift it in nanoseconds Third, Barry authorized a druglord gun program to show how badly we need gun control laws. What he failed to consider is that his guns are killing innocent people, including border agent Bryan Terry. Since that program failed, he's trying this Plan B. There is NO WAY he won't follow the UN's guidelines when it comes to controlling guns. He is a New World Order guy as well, so whatever the world wants from us, he'll gladly give it up.

I'm very interested in the language that says if the Senate doesn't vote on a treaty, then it automatically becomes "ratified". Is this true for any treaty, not just this pile of dung?

Why buy the book, instead, look at the treaty text.
As to assuming this is his Plan B, any proof? Credible proof that links the two, or are you just assuming and taking the worst case to fit a model?

As to treaties and sitting, then automatically being ratified, I am not aware of any in recent memory, that includes New START, the CTBT, NAFTA, Law of the Sea, the two recent Terrorism treaties, etc. that has been ratified that way. If that is the case, hell, Presidents would love to do this.
Wilson would have done it with the Treaty of Versailles, Carter and SALT II, and Clinton with the CTBT.

stlouiedipalma;1232799 wrote:What??? A Dick Morris video and no strippers? No toe-licking? No singing "Dixie"? What is this world coming to?

What do you mean by this?