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.

 

Barak Obama: The Strongest President In History

page: 14
54
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawaii50th

Originally posted by Whereweheaded

Originally posted by woghd

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by hawaii50th
 


Something I just learned, actually the POTUS does have the power to unilaterally maneuver, and avoid Congressional approval. Under the USC 287 d allows for the special agreements act:


The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That, except as authorized in section 287d–1 of this title, nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.


source: www.law.cornell.edu...

The UN Article 41-58 establish the rules of agreement through the council.

www.un.org...

I was in a debate of another topic, that this particular information was given to me. And was rather educational as well.


So basically, the president answers to the UN, and not the congress. This country has been dissolved. We are sovereign in name only.




The POTUS does not answer to the UN, but USC and UN charters allow for the POTUS to act within the confines of the council without direct Congressional Approval.


Okay but still, what about that part about not entering into combat?








Article 41:

Among the most common measures not involving the use of armed force, which the Council has at its disposal to enforce its decisions, are those measures that are known as sanctions. Sanctions can be imposed on any combination of states, groups or individuals. The range of sanctions has included comprehensive economic and trade sanctions and more targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, financial or diplomatic restrictions. Apart from sanctions, Article 41 includes measures such as the creation of international tribunals (such as those for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in 1993 and 1994) or the creation of a fund to pay compensation for damage as a result of an invasion. The Repertoire captures decisions of the Council imposing, modifying, exempting from or terminating measures under Article 41 and highlights issues that were raised in the Council’s deliberations in connection with Article 41.



Article 41 of the United Nations Charter gives the Security Council the authority to use a variety of measures to enforce its decisions. The Council regularly creates subsidiary organs to support or implement these measures. Among the most common are those measures that are known as “sanctions”, which are generally supported by a Committee, as well as Panels/Groups of Experts or other mechanisms to monitor implementation of the sanctions.



www.un.org...

Article 42:


Article 42 of the Charter enables the Council to use force to maintain or restore international peace and security if it considers non-military measures to be or to have proven inadequate. As the United Nations does not have any armed forces at its disposal (for details, see Article 43), the Council uses Article 42 to authorize the use of force by a peacekeeping operation, multinational forces or interventions by regional organizations.


www.un.org...


Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations provides the framework within which the Security Council may take enforcement action. It allows the Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to make recommendations or to resort to non-military and military action to "maintain or restore international peace and security". The Repertoire covers implicit references and explicit references to Chapter VII and Articles 39 to 51 of the Charter in documents of the Security Council, as well as case studies on instances where the Council discussed respective Articles of Chapter VII in consideration of specific situations on its agenda.



There is no stipulation about not entering into combat. Under these direct Articles of the Council, once all members of the council concede that other means will be deemed inadequate, the above framework allows for immediate action.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 

The whole point though is, "Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss" nothing changes, except for the bowing to other leaders of other countries and trillions more of debt.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by hawaii50th
 


I couldn't agree more. Just more of the same. Nothing will change until the interventionists within the Congress are removed, and individualism is again embraced.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawaii50th
reply to post by NoJoker13
 

It's almost like the U.S. is not a sovereign nation anymore.



Almost? The US constitution is in direct opposition to that treaty with the UN...and the UN won.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
The POTUS does not answer to the UN, but USC and UN charters allow for the POTUS to act within the confines of the council without direct Congressional Approval.


The UN charter does not override the US constitution (Well I guess now it does). Our constitutions says that the POTUS must have congressional approval, while the UN Charter does not. They are in direct conflict, and the UN won. This tells me that our country was absorbed by the UN and is no longer sovereign. Yes, we are allowed to keep our rituals, our flag, and other trappings, but our power no longer comes from the people as our forefathers invisioned. It comes from the UN. The fact that the US Constitution loses to the Charter when there is a conflict proves that.

This was not supposed to happen. We are Americans in name only.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawaii50th
Okay but still, what about that part about not entering into combat?
I don’t believe you’re interpreting 22 USC 287d correctly. Let me quote the complete language of the statute, divide each part and address them accordingly.


The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter.
This first part deals with Article 43 forces, the permanent UN force, which is established through “special agreement[s].” An Article 43 force has never been established.


The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein
This clause states the President does not need Congressional authority when “tak[ing] action under article 42” of the United Nations Charter and action taken pursuant to “special agreement[s]” (Article 43). Action taken pursuant to Article 43 agreements, that Congress had to initially authorize and ratify, or under Article 42, don’t require (additional) Congressional authorization.

This language stipulates that only these two situations, pursuant to the Charter, don’t require Congressional authorization, when armed forces are to be used.


Provided, That, except as authorized in section 287d–1 of this title, nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.
Section 287d-1 deals with noncombatant assistance to the United Nations, which is entirely up to the discretion of the President and doesn’t require Congressional authorization.

This final clause of 287d warns that nothing in 287d gives authorization to the President to use armed forces when the UN request was for noncombatant assistance (287d-1). In other words this proviso makes it that the President couldn’t sidestep Congressional authorization by using the armed forces pursuant to a noncombatant assistance request from the UN.



edit on 21-3-2011 by aptness because: added link



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Barack Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace prize winners combined...




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000

Barack Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace prize winners combined...



That may be the most telling post on this thread.


Thank you for bringing that to everyone's attention.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by xavi1000

Barack Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace prize winners combined...



That may be the most telling post on this thread.


Thank you for bringing that to everyone's attention.


That's change we can believe in.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Actually, those would be the presidents that got killed.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Don't get me started on that Nobel peace prize...

Does every liberal president get a free one or something? What did Obama do exactly to be awarded such a thing? I mean, he was still a total n00b probably putting his first sharpened pencils into the resolute desk, he was NEW. What did he do, put his feet up on it, open a drawer and find a coupon? "Redeem for one peace prize - offer good only one per term, Democrats only" . . . . . ?



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I wish America would have a good long think on this:

'United: we stand; divided: we fall'

I wish so strongly that we could all get along and press on with matters that would be in the best interests of everybody in this society. The day we learn to stop bickering about the unimportant stuff is the day we get to tackle the deficit, the healthcare question, our foreign policy and role in the world et c...



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
i disagree with the inital post and yeah the cruise missile nobel peace prize comment was priceless.


how do you define strongest tho? the only man in us history who has weilded the most power at any time and used the 2 nuclear bombs was truman,.

the wars where the majority of people who were killed by military action were under democratic leadership but those were all "just" causes.

obama is the worst president in us history beating carter and clinton was just as aweful..........


i am sure many will disagree with those comments but i don't really care



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


You might want to please consider reading, "JFK And The Unspeakable, Why He Died And Why It Matters" by James W. Douglass.

JFK wasn't perfect. No person is but he was taken out because he tried to cut some of the puppet master's strings.




Many books have been published on the murder of JFK, but none have so deeply penetrated the walls of secrecy and lies like this one. Douglass makes the strongest case yet that there was a deep and far-reaching conspiracy behind Kennedy's murder in Dallas and also proves that the CIA had plotted to murder him just weeks before in Chicago. The release of classified government documents in the wake of the 1991 motion picture //JFK// have finally allowed an honest portrayal of Kennedy's true aims and policies to emerge.

JFK may have started out as a "Cold Warrior," but at the time of his death he was a true Prince of Peace, committed to pulling out of Vietnam and seeking "détente" with the Soviet Union. Here we learn that Kennedy and Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev were secret partners in a last-ditch effort to prevent a catastrophic nuclear war. And, we also learn that sinister elements in the governments of both countries did not want peace and would never tolerate the emergence of a charismatic peace leader; men like Martin Luther King - killed in 1968 after his vocal opposition to the Vietnam war - or John Lennon.

More than just great political history, this book charts the soul of a man - John Fitzgerald Kennedy - who came to embrace the spiritual, life-affirming side of his Catholic faith. This element of the story is one that has never been told before, at least not like this. It raises this book to the level of masterwork, one which will come to define a man, an era, and a tragic event. - Bruce Marshall / Amazon.com

Source: www.amazon.com...=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateD escending#R634TNSCFHFI0



This review hits the nail on the head.


edit on 22-3-2011 by ofhumandescent because: grammar



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 


duality90 - United we stand, divided we fall.............I really truly wish every person would go back and read your post.

You really should get an applause and 1,000 stars for your short and sweet message.

Now, read The Art of War by Sun Tzu - to conquer a people, you distract them, dumb them down and most importantly DIVIDE THEM.

Divide et impera.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by Annee
 


You might want to please consider reading, "JFK And The Unspeakable, Why He Died And Why It Matters" by James W. Douglass.



Give me an F'n break. So - - you found someone you agree with. And that's it - - he's right.

There is no way in the world - - I would pick one JFK conspiracy theory over another.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I average 4 books a week .................. since age 6 - I am now 58.

How many books have you averaged per week?

Put down that ipod, xbox, TV, and all the rest of the junk stuff you are being programmed with and really do some hard level research.


edit on 22-3-2011 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by Annee
 


I average 4 books a week .................. since age 6 - I am now 58.

How many books have you averaged per week?

Put down that ipod, xbox, TV, and all the rest of the junk stuff you are being programmed with and really do some hard level research.


I don't have an ipod, or xbox. The TV is on Nickelodeon for my 3 year old grandson - - who I am Nanny for - - because his daddy died of Leukemia before he was a month old.

I do read - - but it is difficult because I was born with a partial jaw bone - - creating a muscle disability - - that interferes with visual focusing.

I am 64+.

Next . . . .



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Here, lets put more fuel on the fire.


Sen. Joe Biden: Iran & Impeachment





posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
All other things aside, I think in the past couple of weeks all of us - supporters and detractors both - have seen the obama administration at its weakest.

In the area of foreign policy - where obama was supposed to save our reputation - the president has been either absent or reactionary and on the defensive. Decisions are being made based on snap polls instead of planning for the future. Obama foreign policy has been more about vacations and junkets than doing the business of this nation.

On domestic issues such as the budget, obama has no time for that, instead leaving it to congress to come up with something. But at the same time, obama has time for parties and photo ops and campaigning, and picking BB brackets, etc.

All of these things have actually been to the dismay of both the people that opposed obama and the people that elected him. The supporters now find themselves with less and less to support obama for. The people opposed now find themselves going from just showing why he shouldn't have been elected to a general fear for this country and the direction it's headed.

Neither position is a "fun" place to be.



edit on 3/23/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join