Obama Urges Americans To Give Up Liberty For Security

a reply to: darkuniverse

But what other options do we have

We have other options.

I posted a link to the direct download of a pdf, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray Rothbard (didn't mean to break the T&C's, didn't realize direct downloads weren't allowed). The title of the book is somewhat of a misnomer, it isn't a manifesto for libertarian minarchism, but details a political philosophy concerning free market anarchism.

Here's a link to a synopsis of the book from the Mises website where you can find the pdf:

Mises article

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

Ask the Brits who voted for Brexit what it was like having unelected bureaucrats in Brussels suddenly overriding their own government right and left.

You think anyone here in the US who believes in local government and Amendmants 9 and 10 is going to be happy with the idea that the Feds who already tick them off enough should them be overridden by yet another entity and one we have NO votes for?

There's really no comparison between a spat between members of the EU and the relationship of the United States to treaties and international law either historically or looking forward.

No treaty would be Constitutional if its terms superseded the Constitution.

This is a ludicrous misunderstanding that utterly begs the boundaries of absurdity.

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.

No he didn't. He referred to 'freedom of action' and 'binding ourselves to international rules.'

Big difference.

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
a reply to: darkuniverse

The U.S. Must fight back at any attempts of socialist laws.

where? around the world?
europe does quite well thank you, maybe america should enact a couple.

Or maybe you can move to Europe.

Agenda 21.

Has been happening for awhile, seems like they are ramping up their efforts. Thanks Obama, you # sellout

originally posted by: Gryphon66
There's really no comparison between a spat between members of the EU and the relationship of the United States to treaties and international law either historically or looking forward.

No treaty would be Constitutional if its terms superseded the Constitution.

This is a ludicrous misunderstanding that utterly begs the boundaries of absurdity.

And yet that's what he was urging us to do.

Obama Urges Americans To Give Up Liberty For Security

Dear Lame Duck,

Bite me!!

Sincerely,
seagull.

For one to think that the UN is a benign force only out to help, one must be totally incapable of reading between the lines in treaties and UN agreements. Try Agenda 21 [ Source here ] on for size. Or Agenda 2030 [Source here ]. Both are plans for a redistribution of wealth between the wealthiest countries (think US or Germany) to "equalize" the environmental and economic gap between the haves and the have-nots. Yet strangely, according to both docs, there are no have-nots in the US. These documents are nothing more than a gift wrapped trojan horse to allow the UN to enforce it's edicts and agenda. So anyone that thinks that the US should be "constrained" by the UN needs to reconsider their definition of Freedom and Liberty.

a reply to: LetsGoViking

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: darkuniverse

With him threatening to veto the 9/11 lawsuit bill, threatening and throwing government whistleblowers in jail, now he's pushing for American's to give up some of their freedoms, you really have to wonder whose side he's on? For someone who ran his campaign on government transparency, he's done nothing of the sort but pulled the wool over everyone's eyes who voted for him!

He should serve as a shining example to never trust political candidates. They're all liars.

I said this on another site, and I'll say it here because it's true.
If Reagan would have said half of what I heard (from Obvious at
the UN) in the well of the House even thirty years ago; the
Sergeant -at-Arms would have been ordered to drag him to
the Capitol jail. Bread and water. Get him out of here .

Whether the Senate would determine if there was just cause
to immediately hang him for treason on-the-hoof is debatable.
We evidently live in a kinder, gentler, and more than all else
self-destructively ignorant country now.
When I heard that organism say "the rule of law" I choked out
a multigrain minature cracker object coated with cheap dip.
Almost hoped it cut a good artery from the inside: no such luck.

PS Wherever he goes, I hope he enjoys HIS breakfasts of Eggs
Benedict Arnold. He sure earned them...

originally posted by: seagull


Dear Lame Duck,

Bite me!!

Sincerely,
seagull.

Get that bird another Ronsonol !! ..and a light.

a reply to: eXia7

You can't sell out what you never were, my friend.

A lot of people were sold a bill of goods by Pres. Obama. ...and many are buyin' another bill of goods from Clinton and only a slightly differing one from Trump. Both are selling forms of tyranny that we should be rejecting at the top of our respective lungs. But we're almost certainly going to get one of those two idiots, along with some coat-tail Congress-critters--and later some Supremes to justify for them.

Good times comin'. Good times.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Gryphon66
There's really no comparison between a spat between members of the EU and the relationship of the United States to treaties and international law either historically or looking forward.

No treaty would be Constitutional if its terms superseded the Constitution.

This is a ludicrous misunderstanding that utterly begs the boundaries of absurdity.

And yet that's what he was urging us to do.

Not in anything I've read in the speech. Can you point to something other than the bit about "international rules" that offers some evidence for your claim?

Give it just a tiny bit of thought ... both the President and the Senate have their powers to propose and ratify treaties and international agreements VIA the Constitution, which states, itself that it is the Supreme Law of the Land.

No, the President did not urge us to do anything other than abide by our agreements and by international law.

Obama has always had a ego since he's been in office and throwing the U.S. Under the bridge, apologizing about the us.

www.infowars.com...

They're fluttering their wings stating this openly and boldly like this, it's a psyop meant to intimidate you. Showing how brazenly they can get away with slandering one of the nation's founders by directly contradicting his advice, and this is an incredibly famous quotation, I think most adults have heard it. They're indirectly and subconsciously telling you they're in charge and daring you to do anything about it.

Or at least this is the effect it will have. I don't know to which extent they write their stuff just to piss off conspiracy theorists.

This is a old story from this year, but proves Obama's agenda..

Link:www.google.com...://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/13/obama-gives-away-internet-and-it-our-liberty/&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjPkfa8k qbPAhVI0WMKHWbWAk0QFggkMAg&sig2=vAlDY4-msF4eoPbVgj6mkQ&usg=AFQjCNFD7btie5t50eW8mycwNblD_VL7_Q

www.google.com...://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04/08/exclusive-un-starts-toward-new-control-over-worlds-oceans.html&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiQ3 cSkk6bPAhUPxWMKHQNyC30QFggNMAA&sig2=LDdA2saISU84RpdmMhND1g&usg=AFQjCNHAclK-YwpqGIPEy-p2E6MZODgGKA

we can and should be able to see what this will do, and security wont last long if it all hits the fan. Therer is a host of people who would flatly go to war over such a decision. the over powering size of government and media would spin the situations that arise out of rebellion against giving up sovereignty to keep the sheep in line and minimize opposition. Frankly i think this whole times were in is one giant messy douche of a situation, being manipulated by a bunch of oompa lumpas gone mad with power and money.

If a President says that America should accept being ruled by others, and therefore, he likely took actions that lean in that direction...isn't he a traitor and didn't he crap on his oath of office and...isn't that punishable by death?

Just askin'.

Just some thoughts. 2012 was supposed to be the beginning of the apocalypse and was the beginning of Obama's second term. If America disappears and is ruled by people other than Americans, and they decide to "mark" us...what would that make Obama?