| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > Losing Our Sovereignty? |
| Posted by: stevenpd 03-Dec-2009, 12:43 PM | ||||||
| Instead of hijacking another thread I thought I would start this one. Just to recap. As is usual with the current administration, just another attempt of an end-run around the Constitution, the following bolsters the thought of losing sovereignty without any checks and balances afforded by the Constitution. Here is a letter from Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) to the President about Copenhagen.
http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/stevengroves.cfmhttp://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/01/senator-webb-to-obama-on-copenhagen-don%E2%80%99t-do-anything-congress-can%E2%80%99t-do/ Further, here is an article about just such an issue. http://http:/http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/sr0072.cfm/
Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/sr0072.cfm Steven Groves:
As these things develop and are brought out to see the light of day, it makes one wonder about the current administration. Does Obama and his cronies actually have the interests of the United States in mind or do they see America as something to destroy in the name power acquisition? Those that see the government as the be-all, end-all solution to America's problems, actually think they can trust such an administration? Would you not consistently apply the situation across the board? Where there is smoke, odds are pretty good that there is a fire burning somewhere. |
| Posted by: Patch 03-Dec-2009, 04:29 PM |
| Admittedly obama attended muslim schools in his youth and he has shown absolutely no patriotism as an American. McCain displayed a "birth certificate" when questioned. Obama has only produced only a "certificate of live birth" (my niece born in China has one of those). We can look at him and deduce that he was not still born. I am hearing a name tossed about as to who is the real leader of the country and that is frightening. There is no way to verify that information though. A narcissist with power usually makes snap decisions as they feel they are the "one" and any decision is final The procrastinating could be an indication that he must wait for his marching orders. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: wdorholt 04-Dec-2009, 02:11 AM | ||
I am interested to know why you think Obama is not patriotic, what that has to do with his attending a muslim elementary school, and why you can't get past that bizarre "birther" nonsense after all this time. It seems that lately, Obama has been criticized for taking too long to make decisions, but now he makes snap decisions? Or he is not a narcissist? And now we have a shadow President? You are a smart guy Patch, so I figure you must have some reason I'm missing for these comments. Enlighten me. If you are just having a bad "patch" and everything looks out of sorts, I can understand that as a reason. It happens. I do think it is important that any treaties we decide to enter into are scrutinized carefully and that we protect the principles of our constitution, so Senator Webb and Steve Grove's concerns are important. |
| Posted by: Patch 04-Dec-2009, 08:23 AM |
| The glaring example of his lack of patriotism is his "crotch salute" which he performs when others are placing their hand over their heart or saluting to honor our flag. He stands with both hands firmly in his crotch. As to a shadow president, that is coming from people working in DC. I do not consider myself overly smart, just well connected politically and other wise. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Camac 04-Dec-2009, 09:31 AM |
| Patch; You talk about losing your sovereignty. Come live up here and see what it's like to be constantly fighting off the subtle enchroachments of the US against us. You own or controll most of our industry. NAFTA is 95% in your favour especially when it comes to natural resources. We are bombarded daily by American T.V. and movies. We have a right wing government lead by a known Yankeephile with roots in a province that is 60% or more American expats. Although I am 100% against Quebec Seperatism there are time my Friend when I fully understand them. Camac. |
| Posted by: Patch 04-Dec-2009, 09:53 AM |
| Camac NAFTA was signed by both countries and was supposed to be for the mutual benefit of both. We loose to Mexico and probably gain from Canada. For us it is still a net loss. NAFTA was a good idea in theory (as drafted by politicians) but in reality it sucks. I can not address your elected officials as your system put them in place. I know how ours got there and it was not as many liberals think. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Camac 04-Dec-2009, 11:12 AM |
| Patch; A lot of things that are in NAFTA were not told to the Canadian People, such as our fresh water fall under the agreement. The soft wood lumber issue is an opened wound that is festering and "Buy American" does an end run around NAFTA. As to our leaders. Well they got elected on 35% (a Minority) of the vote and mainly because the Liberals were caught in a number of scandal involving money and Quebec. In Canada we do not vote a government in we vote them out. Camac. |
| Posted by: Patch 04-Dec-2009, 01:57 PM |
| I have been an opponent of NAFTA since it's inception. I do not believe that business or govt can be relied upon to act responsibly so the treaty would only be for their benefit. What has transpired since proves my concerns to be valid. I believe that individual trade treaties are best and each country can negotiate what they feel is important to them. It reminds me of a diversity class I attended many years ago. A man of color presented the class and he opened with the story that as a child Johnson and Johnson had a major advertising blitz promoting their new "flesh toned" band aids. This was a radical departure from the gauze pad on white adhesive tape that was a band aid until that point in time. After much cajoling his mother bougtht them for him. He was terribly disappointed when he found they "were not flesh toned for him!" It just proves that no one thing including a treaty fits everyone. From your posts I see that you have strong feelings about your country and it's heritage. I feel the same about mine and I am not sure how we will fix the situation we have gotten ourselves into. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: wdorholt 06-Dec-2009, 02:48 AM | ||
Are you referring to the fact that he bowed to the Saudi King and the Japanese Emperor? Surely you have heard that Bush bowed to the Pope, Nixon bowed to the Japanese Emperor and to Mao, Eisenhower bowed to President DeGaulle. There is nothing written anywhere about not being allowed to bow, in fact it is part of protocol. Bush kissed and held hands with the Saudi King. Does that trouble you? I still think you are smart! |
| Posted by: Patch 06-Dec-2009, 05:21 AM |
| If you check my very old posts, you will find I did not like bush either. I said nothing about bowing though since you went there, why did he NOT bow to the British Queen? Re: the crotch salute, as a very young boy my parents taught me that it was socially unacceptable to to publicly hold that portion of my anatomy. I taught my children those same social skills and the teaching has now reached my grandchildren and in a year or so even a great grandchild. I fear that there are many more skills which every American should know that obama failed to learn. The man is seriously flawed! A year ago I gave him the benefit of the doubt in that he might be the person to see that people had food and heat. He failed to live up to any of the "benefit", confirmed every "doubt" and more. I know people who have NO heat and we are down to 15 degrees tonight. Our CAC has no money and local churches and some private citizens are doing what we can to make up for the administration's failure. Can you believe, there is not an obama supporter in the group? I guess they are waiting for him to do something. Hell is likely to freeze over first. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Camac 06-Dec-2009, 09:32 AM |
| wdorholt; The proper protocol or etiquette when meeting Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is for men to bow their heads biefly and women to make a shallow curtsie. When in conversation with her she is addressed as Ma'am. One does not touch the Queen except when shaking her hand. From the news clip I watched of the Obama's meeting her neither of them followed this protocol except to shake her hand and say Your Majesty. Camac. |
| Posted by: Patch 06-Dec-2009, 11:32 AM |
| My friends in the UK have little use for obama after the chintzy gifts he gave the queen and other slights.. I can affirm that they do refer to him as a "dangerous wanker." I feel he should have treated the Queen as he did other Monarchs. Were he just a "wanker" we could handle it as we have had those before. "Dangerous" is a whole other issue. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: stevenpd 06-Dec-2009, 04:27 PM | ||
The term, "inept" comes to mind here. |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 06-Dec-2009, 08:08 PM |
| So does the term "Dipstick". |
| Posted by: CelticSpecter 06-Dec-2009, 09:07 PM |
So does "schmuck!" Obama is such an idiot. |
| Posted by: ladywolf 08-Dec-2009, 10:41 AM |
| Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty in Copenhagen, Claims British Lord Monckton The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change. A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention. Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording: At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it. I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement. How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it. [laughter] And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it. So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not. But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it. So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow: Sail on, O Ship of State! Sail on, O Union, strong and great! Humanity with all its fears, With all the hopes of future years, Is hanging breathless on thy fate! |
| Posted by: Camac 09-Dec-2009, 09:36 AM |
| If I might' Add to the fact that Monkton is English and a Thatcherite ( and we all know that she thought she was god incarnate) Conservative and is so far to the Right that if he trips on his shoelace he'd be a Facists. He even admits that since taking up the Global Warming issue he has become very wealthy I for one wouldn't believe any of the rubbish that he spouts. He also is a fear mongerer. I don't know a damn thing about the science behind all this falderal, I don't know if its a man made problem or if its is cyclical. What I do know is the climate is changing. Here in Ontario we just had the first snowless November since records started being kept. I know the Arctic ice sheet is retreating, I know we have hat the hottest summer on record and I know that when we do have storms they are pretty bad. I also know that pumping all those greenhouse gases and pollution into the atmosphere and inviroment isn't helping the situation. It does seem somewhat logical that we do something about it. As to giving up sovereignty I doubt that will happen. The planet is not ready for a world government and it won't come about because of some treaty signed in Denmark. Who the hell is going to enforce it. We can't even agree to get rid of the radical muslims so how are we going to agree to a world government. NATO is a joke and the U.N. hides its head in the sand when ever there is a major crisis. Camac. PS. He is a Viscount, the second lowest peerage just above a Baron and he inherited the title from his Father. He ran for a seat in the House of Lords and lost. |
| Posted by: Patch 09-Dec-2009, 11:06 AM |
| Camac; In part I agree with you but for several points. Never underestimate the devious mind of obama as he is a power hungry narcissist with a basket of other flaws. He is as dangerous to you as to us. Climate change has been the norm for this planet since the beginning of known time. Other than astronomical disasters the mammals, reptiles, birds, insects and water creatures have all survived with few exceptions. We humans survived at least one major ice age and global warming with nothing but our feet to move us to more hospitable climes. Fossils of creatures that lived in the sea are found far inland where it is hard to imagine that seas ever existed. All that ice had to raise the level of our seas when it melted. I believe there is a specific amount of water here and has been since the beginning of time. At times it has been liquid and at times solid. It can be in our atmosphere as humidity and clouds or in rivers lakes and oceans or it can be under ground. It can all be accounted for at any given time. Global warming would likely make it easier for developing countries to feed themselves. This year we are dealing with an unusual "el ninio" pattern that is predicted to moderate our winters (yours included). They did have snow in Texas in November this year. Global warming? We humans have gone through bottlenecks in our history and probably we will do so again. If it is due to our making it will be nuclear winter for 50 or so years, thus another ice age. If nature is the cause it will likely be an asteroid or for your country and mine the eruption of the caldera volcano in Yellowstone park. We have been able to measure surface changes since the advent of satellites and unfortunately the land inside the caldera has risen nearly 4 feet since they started measuring. Tourist areas have been changed due to changes in the geysers and hot pools which have inundated the walk ways and changed their activity patterns. This volcano is about 50 thousand years past its historic eruption cycle. That catastrophe over shadows global warming by far and WILL hurt humans sooner than will global warming. There is no money in exploiting that one though. As a civilization we are now so populous that were on a path to destruction. Come hell or "high water" we WILL succeed in accomplishing that end!! Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: stevenpd 09-Dec-2009, 01:08 PM | ||
Camac, The issue of climate change is still in dispute, either way. If you consider western civilization's history one has to wonder the impact of the industrial revolution of the early 20th century. With the total lack of science of the environment and no protections in place what impact there was from that period alone. Regardless, waters were cleaned up and air quality improved. New methods of harvesting natural resources have lessened environmental damage, not eliminated it but lessened it. Does this mean we ignore it all? Not at all. We do need to be careful of the law of unintended consequences though. It is not nice to fool with mother nature. She has been around for a lot longer than man. Yes, weather patterns have been a little erratic lately. As far as I know, no scientist can conclusively prove that it is or is not because of human activity. Even the Climate Change proponents point to cattle emitting too much methane. That is the reason for the skepticism, the scientist just don't know. If they do not know, then how can they prove something that does not exist? If they do know, then why can't they predict with a certain level of accuracy, future weather patterns. I'm sure New Orleans would have liked a little advanced warning. Some other scientists have indicated a correlation between sun spots and Earth's weather. If this is the case, how does anyone control that? Bottom line is this, the Climate Change people are trying to gain power through faulty science and ignorance. Their science is inconclusive and there are people that prefer to remain ignorant and leave it up to someone else to make a decision. Monckton may be making money at it but what about Gore? There is enough to go around. A few quotes here: To everything there is a season. - Ecclesiastes 3:1 Live each season as it passes; breathe the air, drink the drink, taste the fruit, and resign yourself to the influences of each. - Henry David Thoreau (1817 - 1862) All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse. - Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790) |
| Posted by: MacEoghainn 09-Dec-2009, 02:29 PM | ||
The problem with this whole Climate Change BS is that the scientists, politicians, and global corporations that have something to gain by civilization proceeding down this path they have planned for us is that they are continually (and I believe intentionally) confusing Micro changes in climate (better referred to as "Weather") and Macro Climate Change (which needs to be viewed in periods of centuries, if not thousands of years, not in years, decades or a single century). Contrary to the "Lamestream" press reports that it is settled science that man is the cause of all recent Climate Change there is no such thing as consensus on this in the Scientific world. Here's some "Change You Can Believe In": No matter what the current weather conditions are where you are they are going to change (minutely or noticeably) in the next hours, days or weeks. (PS: and all the scientists in the world cannot predict to a certainty what is going to happen with your weather in the next few days, let alone what is going to happen to the world's climate over the next years, decades, or centuries) |
| Posted by: Patch 09-Dec-2009, 04:27 PM |
| The temp. here just dropped 20 degrees and I do not fear a coming ice age. You are right on in that they can not do an accurate 5/10 day forecast let alone further. Maybe they should consult the farmers almanac. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: wdorholt 10-Dec-2009, 02:20 AM | ||
Camac, Thanks for the info. I was not making a comment about how well Obama followed protocol with various leaders. I was trying to find out what Patch meant when he said that Obama was unpatriotic because of his "crotch salutes." I thought he meant his deep bows. Evidently there is another meaning that I don't think I yet understand or have seen Obama exhibit as Patch has. It doesn't appear to matter anyway, as it seems that the folks posting here have decided that Obama name calling, ( wanker, inept, dipstick, dangerous, unpatriotic, schmuck, idiot, etc.) suffices to prove their point. Which is too bad, as I think that nothing is learned when this is done, regardless of who is the target of the name calling. |
| Posted by: Jillian 10-Dec-2009, 05:49 AM |
| wdorholt, The name calling tends to result when the frustration level exceeds the ability to further put this sense of helplessness and hopelessness into linguistic expression! It reminds me of the "W" years when this forum resulted in "shrub"and other not so nice names! I hear ya though...(I'm trying to recall if I've ever called him a name in my posts!)...wouldn't it be nice if we could find a Prez that didn't result in such partisan feelings? I wonder who that would be....hmmm...if both sides could through out names of people they could live with as Prez, maybe we could find the common denominator and vote him or her in! I personally still like Condileeza Rice! Jillian |
| Posted by: Camac 10-Dec-2009, 07:38 AM |
| Jillian; Since the election here that gave the conservatives their minority government it has been the most acrimonious Parliament on record. Harper and his people are really mean spirited conservatives who seem to relish in playing dirty politics. We also revert at times to calling our political leaders names but for some reason they seem to be a bit more polite. The previous leader of the Liberal party was call "Professor" but it wasn't meant as a term of endearment. He was far to cerebral to be the head of a political party. Also he had a pretty heavy Quebec accent that caused him a lot of trouble when he spoke english for which he was ridiculed. Jean Chretien when he ran for PM had a speech impediment that caused him to talk out of the side of his mouth and the conservatives ran some pretty nasty campaign adds that they were forced to withdraw by Elections Canada. Mostly he was call "Dat guy from Shawinigan" I remember my Dad telling me that name calling was the last resort of the ignorant, but, then we all do it when we become frustrated. As for the "crotch salute" , look at it in this vein, it use to be the position of the hands when the military stood at ease. Camac. |
| Posted by: Patch 10-Dec-2009, 07:44 AM | ||
This explains my earlier answer to your question. A number of pictures exist depicting this action on obama's part. An astute leader would make sure he was photographed acting appropriately even if it was not his belief. If you really are interested, you can locate the pictures. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Camac 10-Dec-2009, 09:49 AM |
| Patch; I also do not consider myself overly smart. I do not have political connection or for that matter any other connections. What you hear and see is what you get. I don't give a damn about what people think of me or my politics, and beliefs. I try desperately to accept people the way they are and always give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that's why my ex took advantage of me for years. What the Hey. As to politicians well they are all cut from the same cloth, arrogant, conceited, and narcisistic, plus a streak of larceny. They are after all our elected representatives and you either love them or hate them, no sense getting paranoid over them. They are a product of the Me generation and the world revolves around their wants and needs. If Obama is such a lousy President then vote him out in 4 years or hope he screws up enough to impeach him. Fortunately under our system the PM is also the head of his party and the party can call a performance review on his leadership and if he is found wanting he's out and someone else is appointed in the interum until the next party convention. Camac. |
| Posted by: stevenpd 10-Dec-2009, 11:46 AM | ||
wdorholt, In general, I will agree with you that name calling is unproductive. Some of the terms you have identified are uncalled for because they do not necessarily promote dialog. Terms like wanker, dipstick, schmuck, idiot, etc. do not but the terms inept, dangerous, and unpatriotic do. As they are used as adjectives describing a certain perspective I don't see this as name calling in a derogatory sense. Yes, they have a negative connotation but hardly rise to the level detracting from a dialog. |
| Posted by: Patch 10-Dec-2009, 01:33 PM |
| The term "dangerous wanker" came from the UK and is how the British/Scottish people for the most part feel about him. "Wanker" is not an American term. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: CelticSpecter 10-Dec-2009, 09:47 PM |
| No matter how you want to sweet talk it, he is still incompetent. Sometimes colorful language is all you have left. With the bozo doing what he is doing, there won't be anything left of this country sooner than later. I call 'em as I see 'em and if anybody has a problem with that then it is their problem, not mine. All you have to do is watch him. |
| Posted by: Patch 11-Dec-2009, 03:03 AM |
| I had hoped early on that his actions were due to the fact that he had neither military or business experience and not a "plan" to dismantle our way of life. When representatives and senators reply to constituents concerns with generic form letters and the administration ignores the will of the people frustration does exactly as it did under bush. Now the democrats are whining. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: wdorholt 12-Dec-2009, 02:46 AM |
| Patch, Thanks for pointing out how you answered my question before about the "crotch salute." I'm sorry I missed that the first time, I could have skipped the bowing stuff! While I don't agree that not putting your hand on your heart to salute the flag is unpatriotic, at least you defined what you meant. And you usually do by the way, which I appreciate. Stevenpd, My concern isn't so much about the adjectives used as it is that they are used as the end of the argument. In other words, saying Obama is dangerous is given as a statement of fact without any added justification. I'm just looking for the why someone thinks he is dangerous, or a wanker, or an idiot. That's all. I happen to like colorful adjectives and, as CelticSpecter indicated, sometimes that is all you have left! I would just like to see more of the why. It is how I learn. I truly believe that discussions like those that take place here are important and can do much to change things. They fine tune opinions, even change them and can cause one to, at a minimum, check facts and be exposed to new and different ideas. At least they can if there is an explanation given to justify the colorful adjectives employed. |
| Posted by: Patch 12-Dec-2009, 08:08 AM |
| His move toward socialism from our capitalistic society would be the most dangerous. Second is his fiscal policy upon which the house just voted to add another 1 (plus) Trillion in bail out dollars. Third, Health care which will add another Trillion to the deficit when it has been proven that the government cannot effectively manage ANY program. Fourth Cap and Trade. We are going to raise the price of fuel and power for those who can least afford it at a time when unemployment/under employment is at near depression levels. Fortunately it is not likely to pass as people are waking up and the D's are now aware of same. Fifth, these additions to the deficit will at some point in the near future generate interest payments that we cannot meet. Consequently America will default on it's obligations. Sixth, of all the money that was appropriated to create jobs, much was stolen and very little created any jobs. Now we have another "jobs program." New unemployment claims dipped to 11K two weeks ago and it was touted as an economic turn around. Last week the numbers were back near 500K. At 500K new claims a week we may just be doomed as this is not sustainable. The list goes on. As for the "Wanker" you need to talk with a citizen of the UK, Scotland or Ireland about that. Re: patriotism, this is AMERICA and his actions are unpatriotic when he fails to honor the American flag. That is not lost on veterans and they vote. The names I have seen obama called here are not as bad as those the liberals directed at bush during his tenure. My personal opinion is that obama is an educated individual who lacks common sense and is a narcissist. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: MacEoghainn 12-Dec-2009, 11:02 AM | ||
I believe Barack H. Obama has an extensive traditional education (how well he did during this "education" is a matter of speculation since he has thus far refused to make his educational records public), as well as extensive mentoring by a number of Marxist intellectuals and true believers. However.... I think the jury should still be out on how "educated" he is. "Book Smarts" should not be the only consideration in determining if someone is "educated". I have ran into more than a few people during my lifetime with a high school education (or less), who instead came up through “the school of hard knocks" and they have more intelligence, common sense, and "education" than many people I know with college educations, including people with masters and doctorate degrees!  |
| Posted by: Patch 12-Dec-2009, 11:11 AM |
| His move toward socialism from our capitalistic society would be the most dangerous. Many people now realize this and will vote their opposition. Second, is his fiscal policy. The house just voted to add another 1.1Trillion in bail out dollars. at a time when tax revenue is rapidly shrinking. The senate is now considering the same. This fact is not lost on conservatives, independents and a number of liberals and they vote. Third, would be health care which will add another Trillion plus to the deficit when it has been proven that the government cannot effectively manage ANY program and control it's cost. This fact is not lost on seniors and they vote. Fourth, Cap and Trade. We are going to raise the price of fuel and power for those who can least afford it at a time when unemployment/under employment is at "near" depression levels. Fortunately it is not likely to pass as people are waking up and the D's are painfully aware of that fact. When this hurts the low income citizens they will realize it and they will likely vote Fifth, these additions to the deficit will at some point in the near future generate interest payments that we cannot meet. Consequently America will default on it's obligations. When we arrive at that point most everyone will vote their displeasure. Sixth, of all the money that was appropriated to create jobs, much was stolen and very little created any jobs. Now we have another "jobs program." New unemployment claims dipped to 11K two weeks ago and it was touted as an economic turn around. Last week the numbers were back near 500K. At 500K new claims a week we may be doomed by this alone as this is not sustainable. The unemployed and the under employed will be voting too. The list goes on. As for the "Wanker" you need to talk with a citizen of the UK, Scotland or Ireland about that. That description was hung on him there for reasons they feel strongly about. Re: patriotism, this is AMERICA and his actions are notably unpatriotic when he fails to publicly honor the AMERICAN flag. As the leader of this country his failure to do so also shows a lack of common sense. (not a good leadership trait) That is not lost on veterans and they vote. The names I have seen obama called here are not nearly as bad or frequent as those the liberals directed at bush during his tenure, though as times passes it could equalize. My personal opinion is that obama is an educated individual who lacks common sense and is a narcissist. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: stevenpd 16-Dec-2009, 06:00 PM | ||
The alarm has been raised. Let's see what he does upon arrival. Although the issue is a dangerous one, it is interesting.
http://foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=22720&content=28554016&pageNum=-1 |
| Posted by: MacEoghainn 16-Dec-2009, 09:29 PM | ||
Who ever wrote that article isn't very good at math. The current number of US Senators required to ratify a treaty is 67 ( and has been since Hawaii entered the Union on August 21, 1959). |
| Posted by: wdorholt 16-Dec-2009, 11:52 PM |
| MacE, Once again, I am in complete agreement with you! This might be a trend. What is going to happen to my Liberal Democrat membership? Incidently, I believe the President can sign the treaties, but they are not binding until ratified by the Senate. |
| Posted by: CelticSpecter 17-Dec-2009, 12:04 AM |
| If and when the President signs the treaty it is the world's perception that it will be binding. Regardless of the technicalities. With the treaty signed the Dem's will fall in line and agree. The danger is the end run around the Constitution, which.is S.O.P. for Obama. |
| Posted by: wdorholt 17-Dec-2009, 12:40 AM | ||
CelticSpecter, Care to elaborate on what Obama has done that is an end run around the constitution? As far as the Democrats falling in line because Obama signs something, I wish that was true, but this issue is even more divisive within the party than Health care. I just don't see 67 of these Senators agreeing on much of anything, and I believe that governments know very well how this process works, what is binding and what is not. |
| Posted by: CelticSpecter 18-Dec-2009, 05:04 PM | ||||
The most blatant are his "czars." With these "advisers" he has basically created a shadow government for one. Two, his administration is standing by to force change by changing the rules. Case in point, EPA and climate change. Statements made by Lisa Jackson such as:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/12a744ff56dbff8585257590004750b6/2e2fc405206fb50d85257687005493c2!OpenDocument While he has been in office stories have surfaced of underhanded cronyism.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Gerald-Walpin-speaks-the-inside-story-of-the-AmeriCorps-firing-48030697.html Walpin has since been exonerated. |
| Posted by: Antwn 18-Dec-2009, 07:20 PM | ||
I don't see how the appointing of advisers is unconstitutional. They don't have any actual power do they? Perhaps they have influence, but so what. That's still within the purview of an adviser. While I agree that AGW (climate change being the new PC euphemism) is overestimated and not potentially catastrophic if its occurring at all, that doesn't mean the EPA actions are unconstitutional. There's no constitutional mandate to not be stupid. As for cronyism, isn't that business as usual in Washington? |
| Posted by: wdorholt 19-Dec-2009, 02:59 AM |
| CelticSpecter, I appreciate that you answered my question. Thank you. I don't know that I would come to the same conclusions that you have, but I think I understand your concerns. Perhaps you are aware that the term "czar" was made up by the media and refers to department heads and advisors in a presidents administration. As such, the media makes it sound like these are special positions within the government that would not normally exist. These positions go back to Roosevelt. Many of Obama's are carry overs from previous administrations. So, while you still have a point about that he has advisors and one could be anxious about what they advise, as Antwn says, he is allowed to do so as other presidents have done and it isn't unconstitutional to have department heads. As far as the EPA goes and changing rules, the EPA was founded in 1970 and its mission is listed as follows: The mission of EPA is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment -- air, water and land -- upon which life depends. EPA's purpose is to ensure that: all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work; national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information; federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively; environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy; all parts of society -- communities, individuals, businesses, and state, local and tribal governments -- have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks; environmental protection contributes to making our communities and ecosystems diverse, sustainable and economically productive; and the United States plays a leadership role in working with other nations to protect the global environment. I don't see that the EPA is doing anything it wasn't authorized to do, just that it has decided to do it now. It could have done it before if it felt that the data on co2 emissions warranted it. I suspect the move to do it now is politically motivated to fit within the global warming excitement, but I don't think there is anything unconstitutional about it. Forcing someone to resign, cronyism, as Antwn indicates, happens in most large agencies, private and public. Congress or the Justice Dept. has a right to investigate if alarmed. But I don't see this as particularly alarming or new to Obama's administration. |
| Posted by: MacEoghainn 19-Dec-2009, 08:47 AM | ||
Change we can believe in? |
| Posted by: wdorholt 20-Dec-2009, 02:25 AM | ||
Ouch! Clever one MacE! |
| Posted by: Patch 20-Dec-2009, 11:32 AM |
| CelticSpecter: IG's are to oversee the actions of the govt. They are supposed to be insulated from pressure. Sadly, as a true narcissist, obama does not see the need to follow the law in his actions. At least the meeting was in disarray. I would be interested in finding where we are going to get any funds that obama promised. Slàint, Patch |