It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Obama Urges Americans To Give Up Liberty For Security

page: 3
34
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Cooperating with international law as a country is giving up our freedoms? How so?


(PS Not interested in your feelings about Obama in general as they are off-topic not to mention kinda ridiculous.)




posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

It does not, but it takes 2/3 of the senate to ratify one. Also the constitution is superior to all treaties. "Binding ourselves to international rules over the long term" is at odds with this.




The Constitution gives the President the power to commit the United States to treaties – but only with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the US Senate, and only if the agreement does not contravene the Constitution.
www.childrightscampaign.org...




“It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.” The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871). See also Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (1898); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




(PS Not interested in your feelings about Obama in general as they are off-topic not to mention kinda ridiculous.)


PS not interested in your feelings about my feelings as your feelings are off topic not to mention imo show signs of cranial rectal inversion.

PPS why post sources only to later deny interest in the source you posted? imo more signs of cranial rectal inversion.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I think you are mistaking the intent here. What he is saying is that the US and others can't be "free" anymore to engage in any foreign interventions they want, from wars to covert ops. I 100% agree. And, in fact, we've already agreed to countless treaties and the UN Charter to this effect.

The US has been engaging in all manners of neo imperialism for 100 years, interfering in the security and freedom of OTHER countries.

Other superpowers have acted unilaterally and selfishly. Because our countries aren't following ethics nor these international laws, the wars keep happening, and people fight back the only way they can against a superpower: "terrorism."

Even the Syrian refugee crisis is a direct result of the West and middle eastern allies funding a civil war to overthrow Assad. The refugee crisis is now spilling into the West.

Finally, you can't believe that ALL peoples and countries have rights, and then think that Americans have the "freedom" to do anything they want to sovereign nations. The two viewpoints are incongruent.

originally posted by: darkuniverse
President Obama used his final appearance at the UN Security Council to give a speech lauding globalism, saying that Americans should give up some freedom and submit to international governance.

Obama, making his eighth appearance at the UN, openly stated that in order to be more secure Americans need to give up some of their liberties

www.youtube.com...

Obama outlined his belief that security for nations ultimately lies in global government institutions like the UN.

“We can only realize the promise of this institution’s founding to replace the ravages of war with cooperation if powerful nations like my own accept constraints,” Obama said.
The president added that “powerful nations” like the United States must be prepared to give up autonomy in order to continue to prosper and realise security.

“I’m convinced in the long run giving up some freedom of action, not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests but binding ourselves to international rules, over the long-term, enhances our security.” Obama declared.

His words provide a stark contrast to those of US founding father Benjamin Franklin who famously warned that “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Obama admitted that their is massive resistance in the US and beyond to such globalism, but insisted that his belief in such a world order is the correct one.

“Sometimes I’m criticized in my own country for professing a belief in international norms and multilateral institutions, but I’m convinced in the long run…” Obama said

“We have to put our money where our mouths are.” he exclaimed.

Elsewhere during the speech Obama took blatant shots at the GOP nominee Donald Trump, saying that Trump stands against everything he believes in.

Obama denounced “aggressive nationalism” and warned that “crude populism” should not be allowed to prosper.

He also stated that physical barriers do not offer real security, saying “A nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself.”

Obama couched his advocation of all out globalism in a Utopian ideal of ‘integration’, intimating that advocating any other form of governance is backwards looking.

“I believe that at this moment we all face a choice,” Obama said. “We can choose to press forward with a better model of cooperation and integration or we can retreat into a world sharply divided and ultimately in conflict along age-old lines of nation and tribe and race and religion. I want to suggest to you today that we must go forward and not back.”

The full video is here:
www.youtube.com...

We don't need to give up any freedoms for the government to watch over us or protect us. I will never give up any of mine. The U.S. Must fight back at any attempts of socialist laws. The U.S. Has a choice, continue the same path as we had for the last 8 years or turn right, and try to steer away in a new direction.

Link:www.infowars.com...





edit on 21-9-2016 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-9-2016 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Sorry you have lost me, how is binding to international rules at odds with the constitution?

Nothing about what he said seems to suggest the removal or restriction of any liberties Americans have .



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

LOL ... you seem to be repeating yourself. Triggered?

How is cooperating with international law giving up our freedoms?


Answer the question or ignore me, but stop with the paltry attempts to be insulting; you only look childish and crude.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Obama said nothing about cooperating with international law.


Trouble with YOUR source?



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

Obama said nothing about cooperating with international law.


Trouble with YOUR source?


Yeah, that's what he said in context. What "international rules" do you think he was referring to?

Tiddly-winks? Parcheesi?

So you can't answer the question because honoring international law doesn't diminish our Constitution or our civil liberties in any way?

Yeah, that was pretty obvious.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Reading is fundamental griff.
Read YOUR source.

The constitution is the law of the land in the usa. I provided sources that legally invalidate obamas position on the issue with respect to the source YOU provided.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




Nothing about what he said seems to suggest the removal or restriction of any liberties Americans have .


I posted obamas quote from the transcript earlier in this thread, here it is again.




Sometimes I’m criticized in my own country for professing a belief in international norms and multilateral institutions. But I am convinced that in the long run, giving up some freedom of action — not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests, but binding ourselves to international rules over the long term — enhances our security.


Our constitution is the law of the land. Not international agreements no matter how wonderful obama thinks they are.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes, you did quote that, and now you've quoted it again, and it was quoted in the OP.

So, now, can you answer the question of how "binding ourselves to international rules over the long term" while simultaneously "not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests" is giving away our liberties?

Should be easy to answer, right?



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Where in that quote does it say anything about international treaties being the law of the land? You seem to be reading something that simply isn't there.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yeah I have answered it repeatedly and posted sources that school obama on the subject.

THE CONSTITUTION IS THE LAW OF THE LAND IN THE UNITED STATES.
In the good ole USofA the constitution TRUMPS international law.




“It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.” The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871). See also Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (1898); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924


Obama cannot legally "give up some freedom" and "bind ourselves to international rules over the long term" no matter how you choose to interpret it.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yeah I have answered it repeatedly and posted sources that school obama on the subject.

THE CONSTITUTION IS THE LAW OF THE LAND IN THE UNITED STATES.
In the good ole USofA the constitution TRUMPS international law.




“It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.” The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871). See also Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (1898); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924


Obama cannot legally "give up some freedom" and "bind ourselves to international rules over the long term" no matter how you choose to interpret it.


Obama hasn't said anything about international treaties over rulling the constitution.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

I put it in quotes for you.
Obama is advocating giving up some freedom and binding ourselves to international rules over the long term.

The constitution and the supreme court prove him illegal on his chosen policy.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Kewl. CAPS.

We're already party to hundreds of international agreements that establish "rules"

Your observation that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land is irrelevant in this context.

More ignorant outrage misplaced.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

The quote simply doesn't say what you seem to think. He is talking about America cooperating with international bodies and not acting unilaterally (for example invading other countries without good reason.....).

Nothing at all about Americans giving up freedoms.
edit on 21-9-2016 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
What freedom????
we lost it Long ago.
we are Slowly realising it.


(post by LordSatan removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: shooterbrody

The quote simply doesn't say what you seem to think. He is talking about America cooperating with international bodies and not acting unilaterally (for example invading other countries without good reason.....).

Nothing at all about Americans giving up freedoms.


Actually, of course, our Constitution is what gives the President the power to make treaties and have them confirmed by the Senate.

It's right there in clear lettering; some can't see.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join