The Constitution of the New Global Government

Started by kramarat, November 21, 2012, 05:02:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

valjean

Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 22, 2012, 09:56:56 AM
Care to give some evidence that Obama has a lot more respect for UN dogma than he ever had for the constitution.
YOUR flapping gums don't FACTS make!

Your rhetoric is tiresome, you keep asking for facts as if every iota of knowledge of this sort consists of information that is properly factual. 2+2=4, this is a fact, what we are speaking about are views, opinions, and trends. What sort of so called fact would satisfy you? When discussing Obama's views we have only his actions and words to go off of. Consequently, the conclusions we form from his actions can properly be said to be opinions and not facts, so your incessant demand for facts is incoherent. If I were to state that Obama is not a capitalist, you'll demand facts! This view does not, and cannot rest on factual evidence, it is a conclusion that has to necessarily be formed by anecdotal evidence, the noticing of trends, interpretations, and inferences made from his policy actions.

Even if Obama got up in front of a podium and said publicly that he prefers internationalism and the UN over the nation state constitution, I doubt that even this would satisfy you fully since there is an interpretive aspect to what he says. When those of us who believe Obama values internationalism over the constitution say as much, our claim is not a strictly factual claim, it is impossible to make such a factual claim without perfect knowledge, it is merely an interpretative claim of his policy actions.

We have several instances that lend support to this view, the Obama administration's interest in committing the  US to a new UN arms treaty that has the potential to undermine the 2nd Amendment if it does not already do so. The Obama administrations seeking of international approval for military actions around the world rather than the US congress, there was a big controversy over this which led to a confrontation between Obama's secretary of defense, Leon Panetta and Congress when Panetta stated publicly that the administration would seek international approval/the UN and not the approval of congress for the enactment of a no fly zone over Syria. These are two of the most recent instances where Obama has shown his affinity for the mixing of US and international law, opting for the international approach over the strictly constitutionalist view.

Moreover, Obama comes from a school of interpretation of the constitution that undermines the constitution itself. The so called "living document" interpretation which is essentially the license for any politician to do what they want. He has stated views to this effect many many times; Obama is by no means an originalist or a constructionist in his interpretation. Taking this into consideration we can conclude that his motives do not reside in a commitment to realize the dream of the framers of the constitution but rather achieve of separate vision, and this vision manifests itself in his policy actions and pursuits which have invariably been towards the end of further integrating the US into an international body of laws, such is the case with the new arms treaty, concerning potential military action in Syria, and we can say the same for binding climate change treaties which Obama is in favor of while the people at home especially the states are not given the right to determine such issues themselves.


kramarat

Great post valjean.

I wish I could get just the facts off his duff. If he were to tell the UN that all of the things they are working on is right wing propaganda, they would be very upset. The facts are contained on their website, and they are very proud of them.

I'll post links when I get time. There is a voluminous amount of material there. Just the facts maam would be overwhelmed within seconds. I will help him. I try not to turn my back on the confused and ignorant.

Just_the_facts_mamm

Quote from: kramarat on November 22, 2012, 10:11:53 AM
Lets just say that the UN is actively working on gaining control of global industry, energy and currency. As well as implementing a set of global laws that supercede things like the US constitution.

This sounds like flapping gums.  Where is the proof?  some docs from 1948?
Pretty sure the hundreds of countries of the world are all set to get onboard this plan and
QuoteAs far as Obama is concerned, the UN and the Nobel prize people are completely intertwined. I know you don't ever question anything that comes from left field, but didn't you ask yourself, (just a little), how Obama was able to garner a Nobel peace prize for doing absolutely nothing?
Are you so dim?
Obama was given the peace prize as a reward for NOT BEING GW BUSH!

"According to Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland, "He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate... Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early? Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond - all of us."

FACE IT!  You cons are just displaying SOUR GRAPES.

QuoteI really wish you were capable of doing your own research. It would save a lot of time. But since you aren't able, we'll tackle this subject when I get some time. Today and tomorrow I'll be pretty tied up, but we'll do it, I promise.
Can't wait!

Just_the_facts_mamm

Quote from: kramarat on November 22, 2012, 12:14:28 PM
Great post valjean.

I wish I could get just the facts off his duff. If he were to tell the UN that all of the things they are working on is right wing propaganda, they would be very upset. The facts are contained on their website, and they are very proud of them.

I'll post links when I get time. There is a voluminous amount of material there. Just the facts maam would be overwhelmed within seconds. I will help him. I try not to turn my back on the confused and ignorant.

Standing BY!
Bring them on.

You might want to read them first.

JustKari

Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 22, 2012, 09:56:56 AM
The SKY IS FALLING!  you know what happened to the kid who cried WOLF too often?Because your PARANOID, means your probably WRONG most of the time.
Paranoid types read one thing and see "The SKY IS FALLING!" instead.
See, your paranoia is at work here.
Care to give some evidence that Obama has a lot more respect for UN dogma than he ever had for the constitution.
YOUR flapping gums don't FACTS make!


Your and you're are two different words.  You enjoy coming here and stirring the pot, being inflammatory, claiming to have facts, showing nothing.  The constant capitalizing makes you look foolish and your inability to converse without being rude is getting old.   If you don't believe Obama loves the opinion of the UN, the onus is on you to prove it.  Prove that you can back up your bravado, until then, I see little need to respond to your posts anymore.

Darth Fife

Quote from: JustKari on November 22, 2012, 12:36:20 PM

Your and you're are two different words.  You enjoy coming here and stirring the pot, being inflammatory, claiming to have facts, showing nothing.  The constant capitalizing makes you look foolish and your inability to converse without being rude is getting old.   If you don't believe Obama loves the opinion of the UN, the onus is on you to prove it.  Prove that you can back up your bravado, until then, I see little need to respond to your posts anymore.

Thank you, dear lady! You have no idea how crazy it makes me when people* screw that up!  :thumbsup:

Their and there comes in a close second!

(*Especially if they are self appointed "intellectuals"...)

Just_the_facts_mamm

Quote from: valjean on November 22, 2012, 10:36:27 AM
This view does not, and cannot rest on factual evidence, it is a conclusion that has to necessarily be formed by anecdotal evidence, the noticing of trends, interpretations, and inferences made from his policy actions.
I agree with this statement whole hardheartedly.
The "problem" is conservatives are not "interpreting" things very rationally.

He's a Muslim.
He was born in Kenya
He's a socialist
He's a communist.

These statements are not based in reality, therefore I can conclude that conservatives don't interpret trends or policy actions very well. 
QuoteEven if Obama got up in front of a podium and said publicly that he prefers internationalism and the UN over the nation state constitution, I doubt that even this would satisfy you fully since there is an interpretive aspect to what he says.
That would do it actually!


QuoteWhen those of us who believe Obama values internationalism over the constitution say as much, our claim is not a strictly factual claim, it is impossible to make such a factual claim without perfect knowledge, it is merely an interpretative claim of his policy actions.
I see.
So do you think Obama is NOT a US citizen?
So do you think Obama is a Muslim?
A socialist?
A communist?

Lets check your reality level, so we can gauge your "interpretations"

QuoteWe have several instances that lend support to this view, the Obama administration's interest in committing the  US to a new UN arms treaty that has the potential to undermine the 2nd Amendment if it does not already do so.
The treaty that has yet to be negotiated?
You DO KNOW that there are hundreds of watch dog groups both left and right that are very well informed about these things.
People who are very grounded in reality.

The NRA just wants you to go buy more guns.  It's good for business.


QuoteMoreover, Obama comes from a school of interpretation of the constitution that undermines the constitution itself. The so called "living document" interpretation which is essentially the license for any politician to do what they want.
You DO KNOW that the constitution has been amended MANY times.  Hench the "Living Document".
It adapts to societies needs as the world changes.
Remember, women and black folk were not even people then.
A good horse had more rights!

QuoteHe has stated views to this effect many many times; Obama is by no means an originalist or a constructionist in his interpretation. Taking this into consideration we can conclude that his motives do not reside in a commitment to realize the dream of the framers of the constitution but rather achieve of separate vision, and this vision manifests itself in his policy actions and pursuits which have invariably been towards the end of further integrating the US into an international body of laws, such is the case with the new arms treaty, concerning potential military action in Syria, and we can say the same for binding climate change treaties which Obama is in favor of while the people at home especially the states are not given the right to determine such issues themselves.
Oh God!
The above, is very much your interpretation of reality. 

Lets see how you answer the Birth certificate & Muslim/socialist communist question before we gauge that reality.

kramarat

#22
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 22, 2012, 12:19:17 PM
Standing BY!
Bring them on.

You might want to read them first.

Here is the UN convention on the rights of the child. The US has signed it, but not ratified it. I'm sure it will be coming at some point. If you are able to read through all of the happy, "feel good" language, it places the responsibility for child rearing in the hands of the state, for all practical purposes.

http://www.childrensweek.org.au/UN%20poster%20Jan%202008.pdf

Here is a link to a report on the UN's work toward creating a single global currency, including a link to the actual report.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5298305-504383.html

This is the Charter for Global Democracy, or one world government. It was written by the International Progress Organization. One would think that this is just crazy leftist clap trap, but 57 nations have signed on.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/global_democracy.htm

This describes the global cap and trade scheme. The US has not signed on, but they are still at work on it. If and when it's completed, it would place the UN in charge of emissions on a global scale. This would give them de facto control over all global industry and energy production.

http://www.cfr.org/climate-change/debate-over-greenhouse-gas-cap--trade/p14231

This is the UN office for Disarmament Affairs. I think the name says it all. Of course the crazy right wingers think this might have some impact on the 2nd amendment. How could they think that?
At the very least, it's interesting that they specifically mention drug gangs, and that our current administration was caught arming the Mexican drug cartels, which resulted in the murders of Mexican and US citizens. Had they not been caught, I would imagine that the call for more gun control would have grown much louder.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/

Of course they are aware that all of this must be done in baby steps, and done through gentle coercion rather than force. It takes time.

http://www.osce.org/odihr/94913

How do you suppose that the UN would go about getting a left leaning US president, fully on board with the implementation of it's plans and agendas?

http://www.un.org/aboutun/nobelprize/

While admitting that there have been no specific reports on right wing extremism, the DHS has now placed patriots, the Tea Party and returning veterans on it's terrorist watch list. This is the government entity that was created to protect us from radical Islamic extremists. Apparently it has a new mission.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/14/homeland-security-report_n_186834.html

Yep, the facts are just crazy.

mdgiles

Quote from: JustKari on November 21, 2012, 06:29:07 PM
There are two main belief systems that libs espouse that are incredibly naive, which makes them dangerous.  The first is, "the government would never do that to us." The second is, "If something was really happening, the media would report it."
You left out the Easter Bunny,the Tooth Fairy - and especially - Santa Claus/sarc.  :rolleyes:
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

kramarat

Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 22, 2012, 12:19:17 PM
Standing BY!
Bring them on.

You might want to read them first.

Where did you go?

I went to the trouble of providing links to facts. The least you could do is respond.

If you're only here to disrupt, I'd highly recommend that you get placed on the removal list. :angry:

Solar

Quote from: kramarat on November 24, 2012, 06:05:05 AM
Where did you go?

I went to the trouble of providing links to facts. The least you could do is respond.

If you're only here to disrupt, I'd highly recommend that you get placed on the removal list. :angry:
He's been banned along with Fuddys self inflicted mono peddle bullet hole leading to his demise as well.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

kramarat

Quote from: Solar on November 24, 2012, 06:47:08 AM
He's been banned along with Fuddys self inflicted mono peddle bullet hole leading to his demise as well.

Good. I don't mind debating liberals, and have quite a few lib friends. Fish is okay.

When these people get on here just to sling snot and bust up the threads though, it gets old quick.

valjean

Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 22, 2012, 08:38:28 PM
I agree with this statement whole hardheartedly.
The "problem" is conservatives are not "interpreting" things very rationally.

He's a Muslim.
He was born in Kenya
He's a socialist
He's a communist.

These statements are not based in reality, therefore I can conclude that conservatives don't interpret trends or policy actions very well.  That would do it actually!

I see.
So do you think Obama is NOT a US citizen?
So do you think Obama is a Muslim?
A socialist?
A communist?



I do not believe Obama is a Kenyan, or a Muslim, or a Communist. A Socialist? Perhaps he has socialist leanings, but since when is socialism a dirty word? You act like calling someone a socialist is a slur; it is a legitimate political stance. An incredibly ineffective political stance in my opinion, but a legitimate stance nonetheless. Obama certainly is not a capitalist for one, but neither am I, and I don't like socialism. I think the jury is out on what Obama actually believes, but all indications are that he has been heavily influenced by Liberation theology, and left wing political theory, this can't be disputed. He might have this socialist dream in mind, but I think even if this were the case he knows he can't accomplish it which is why he settled for the affordable care act and not a single payer system which he probably wants.

We know he favors redistribution of wealth undertaken by the government, we know he favors labor unions, but on the other hand we also know he bows to wall street time and time again, so who is this man really? I really can't say for certain, but my view is that he was an academic who adored socialism, got into politics, realized that he couldn't push that line effectively so he made concessions, altered his views and course of action, and so now you have a president who is a mosaic of policies driven by socialist values and policies driven by matters of sheer circumstance, but in principle his world view is the world view of a socialist I don't see how it could be any different. But in the end, your world view and actions are two different things.

Solar

Quote from: valjean on November 24, 2012, 07:55:38 AM
I do not believe Obama is a Kenyan, or a Muslim, or a Communist. A Socialist? Perhaps he has socialist leanings, but since when is socialism a dirty word? You act like calling someone a socialist is a slur; it is a legitimate political stance. An incredibly ineffective political stance in my opinion, but a legitimate stance nonetheless. Obama certainly is not a capitalist for one, but neither am I, and I don't like socialism. I think the jury is out on what Obama actually believes, but all indications are that he has been heavily influenced by Liberation theology, and left wing political theory, this can't be disputed. He might have this socialist dream in mind, but I think even if this were the case he knows he can't accomplish it which is why he settled for the affordable care act and not a single payer system which he probably wants.

We know he favors redistribution of wealth undertaken by the government, we know he favors labor unions, but on the other hand we also know he bows to wall street time and time again, so who is this man really? I really can't say for certain, but my view is that he was an academic who adored socialism, got into politics, realized that he couldn't push that line effectively so he made concessions, altered his views and course of action, and so now you have a president who is a mosaic of policies driven by socialist values and policies driven by matters of sheer circumstance, but in principle his world view is the world view of a socialist I don't see how it could be any different. But in the end, your world view and actions are two different things.
Don't bother, he's been banned.
Though in response to your post,  Husein' belief system is more closely aligned with Fabian socialists, a group that formed the rebirth of Marxism.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

kramarat

#29
Quote from: Solar on November 24, 2012, 08:12:17 AM
Don't bother, he's been banned.
Though in response to your post,  Husein' belief system is more closely aligned with Fabian socialists, a group that formed the rebirth of Marxism.

Some of my liberal friends have come to the realization that they are more conservative than they thought.

A belief in our founding documents and conservatism is in no way inherently evil or stupid, and quite frankly, neither is liberalism, or certain factions of it.

I remember the runaway polluting of the late 60s and early 70s. I unwittingly took part in it. I worked for a ball bearing company in the tumbling room. We flushed all of our chemicals directly into a pristine river. I credit liberals for bringing attention to our destructive ways........................and things have been cleaned up because of it.

Both liberalism and conservatism can be carried to extremes. There's no denying it.

Maybe I'm more of a libertarian.............or something. I think that the democrats and republicans in Washington are on one team. I think that both of them work hard to keep the rest of us at each other's throats..............and it's working.

Obviously there are some trouble makers that pop up on here, but I also think that liberals, or anyone else that thinks they have a valid point to make, should be allowed to speak without being called stupid. Stupid will definitely come into play, but it shouldn't be an automatic, blanket statement about all liberals. It plays right into the hand of people that call conservates, angry haters.

One thing is for sure. If WE THE PEOPLE continue to allow the stuffed shirts in Washington to keep us separated and hating each other, they will win the game, and all of us will be following their rules. Republicans don't represent conservatives, and democrats don't represent liberals. All of us are pawns in chess game that is bigger than we can imagine.

America was founded on the idea that the pawns are in charge. That idea has been turned on it's head. It's about time we realize it, return to our founding principles, settle our differences as conservatives and liberals, (which aren't as big as we think), and place our government back in the hands of the people........................as it was intended.

If we are unable to accomplish that, we all become subjects of a centralized ruling state. I don't think that most conservatives or liberals really want that.

Edit: BTW- I'm as guilty as anyone for just wanting to lash out at libs. Deep down inside, I know it will lead to nothing.......or worse. I'm making an effort to think before I type. I have no problem beating some jerk to death, that deserves it. I also need to make sure that I am not playing the role of the jerk. It's an easy role to slip into.