Posted on 10/27/2009 1:43:04 PM PDT by thouworm
Having won the highest office in the land by saying things that pleased the necessary groups, now he has set off to please the so-called international community -- and particularly those foreign leaders who disdain America and what we represent.
(snip)
Obama clearly sees American power, in and of itself, as evil. We have seen this attitude displayed in his countless apologies for so called American transgressions over the years before the Obama Presidency. Obama is trying to force America into an unprecedented, massive makeover to please the international bureaucrats whose approval and acclaim he so desperately craves.
(snip)
Obama will begin with treaties designed to achieve his vision of a world without nuclear weapons. But that is just the beginning. Efforts will begin to bind America to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (setting guidelines for countries' use of the world's oceans, including economic activities and the protection of maritime resources). This will hurt our nation's ability to mine the world's seas for oil and gas, and other resources.
Instead of capitalizing on America's technological strength in these areas (some of it created with our dollars) to tap these resources for our benefit, America will be subject to the dictates of U.N. bureaucrats regarding how these resources can be developed.
Our national security and economic security depends on our access to strategic raw materials, and we will face overseers in the form of U.N.-style bureaucrats. We know how friendly they are to America.
But wait, there's more: treaties subjecting us to the desires of climate change advocates will follow. There was a reason Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol but never dared to submit it to the Senate for approval. He knew it would fail. But that was then; this is now.
Gun control treaties, perhaps under the guise of small arms trade treaties, will certainly be in Obama's queue.
Once in place, treaties will lock America in. They are rarely broken, and countries, including America, rarely withdraw from them. Even if America later were able to withdraw from treaties, permanent harm already will have occurred.
Expect Obama and his minions to attempt to Rahm through these types of treaties in the Senate.
These international treaties will have domestic consequences that could be massive. But we should know by now that radical change in America is what Barack Obama desires the most. If he can get the world community on his side, he will be that much closer to his, and their own, goals.
In the United States, the oath of office for the President of the United States is specified in the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1):
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
For other officials, including members of Congress, it specifies they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." At the start of each new U.S. Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, those newly elected or re-elected Congressmen - the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate - must recite an oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Like they care about those oaths.
Can we get an annulment?
It doesn’t matter if they care... or if they were not sincere in taking them...they are legally binding.
Thank you. Fits perfectly here. Lord Monckton’s recent speech in Minnosota on the scam of Global Warming and the stripping away of US sovereignity is required viewing for every citizen. Just a bonus: He is an excellent, witty speaker.
The sovereignty of our nation is IN the people,
we are a government OF the people.
To surrender any, ANY sovereignty to a foreign entity
is to put us in the position of our founders, who
found a foreign despot reigning over them.
Like them, as Free Men we have no choice
but to do as they did and throw off the shackles
of unwanted bondage to a foreign power.
This would of course put Obama and his minions
and supporters in the position of Torys and traitors
to a free cause.
t.
Guard with jealous attention the public the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
- Patrick Henry
The “administration” of virtually every major environmental law on the books routinely violates the principles of separation of powers, enumerated powers, equal protection, taking without compensation, unlawful search and seizure, protection against self incrimination, due process, and the assumption of innocence…
(snip)
Virtually every major Federal environmental law cites treaty law as its source of authority, simply because extending Federal police power within the States exceeds the enumerated powers the Federal government was granted in the Constitution.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Much, MUCH more food for thought here:
Patrick Henry “Ratified”: The Treaty Power, It’s Perils and Portents
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2371062/posts
Too late - the relationship has been consummated. We’ve already been screwed...
on Beck tomorrow
Re: Grounds for Impeachment:
While it may be argued that some articles of impeachment have charged conduct that constituted crime and thus that criminality is an essential ingredient, or that some have charged conduct that was not criminal and thus that criminality is not essential, the fact remains that in the English practice and in several of the American impeachments the criminality issue was not raised at all. The emphasis has been on the significant effects of the conduct -- undermining the integrity of office, disregard of constitutional duties and oath of office, arrogation of power, abuse of the governmental process, adverse impact on the system of government. Clearly, these effects can be brought about in ways not anticipated by the criminal law. Criminal standards and criminal courts were established to control individual conduct. Impeachment was evolved by Parliament to cope with both the inadequacy of criminal standards and the impotence of courts to deal with the conduct of great public figures. It would be anomalous if the framers, having barred criminal sanctions from the impeachment remedy and limited it to removal and possible disqualification from office, intended to restrict the grounds for impeachment to conduct that was criminal.
The issue of criminality in foisting an unconstitutional treaty was raised in the Virginia Ratifying Convention. There is an article on the topic containing the apprpriate quotes posted here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.