| Author | Message | ||
     Fb1 |
*John R. Bolton, a diplomat and a lawyer, has spent many years in public service. From August 2005 to December 2006, he served as the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations. From 2001 to 2005, he was under secretary of state for arms control and international security. At AEI, Ambassador Bolton's area of research is U.S. foreign and national security policy. [Source: www.aei.org] | ||
| Ltbuell |
Those pos's are pullin' another silent "end run' around the public's eyes and ears so they can"behind closed doors" rush it through for approval and such.Gotta love the socialist crap way of sellin' this country "down the tubes"..another reason to strongly dislike the current admin.....POS'S.Call those pos Congress men/women and tell 'em big N....big O...WAKE UP people....we're slowly and systematically loosing it all so they can control us.I don't know about you,but i stand for my country(the way it use to be,freedom of choice,god and saying with pride the National Athem,pledge of allegiance,the Amendments...ALL OF THEM),flag and god and all.Not how its going towards.I'm so disgusted with how the gov't has sold us and how other countries "laugh at us"for how things are here and have become. | ||
| Fireboltwillie |
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp i feel fairly confidant the the rights established under our constitution can not be taken away via treaty, only by a new amendment. | ||
| Fb1 |
Fireboltwillie - John Bolton has some pretty impressive (and relevant) credentials. If he's worried, I'm worried. Best, Ferris | ||
| Fireboltwillie |
FB1, i agree with you on his credentials. and i also worry about this end around that seems to be going on. maybe i still have a little faith in the courts (not much left after recent decisions), but that may be the last bit of optimism i possess in these matters. W- | ||
| Aesquire |
Fireboltwillie, What difference does it make if the treaty isn't legal? There is a momentum in these things that goes beyond ideology and into the nature of the Bureaucracy itself. Once a program gets started, it almost never fades away. People have jobs in the new agency, or branch, and defend them as needed. Why is that important? Let us say that Barack is perfectly willing to cram through a treaty buried in the NEXT Continuing resolution to fund the Gov. Or however he choses to ignore laws that don't let him do as he pleases. So he Will make it "official" and the courts can sort it out later. Let us say that Romney/x wins in Nov., and the new Prez signs an executive order that the treaty not be enforced, which may not be legal, ( even though it IS this Admin's practice ) or some other cancellation of the treaty. ( This applies as well to Obamacare ) The law will already be changed and people will already be working in secure gov jobs. It may not be possible to reverse some decisions. Obamacare, for example, has already driven insurance companies out of some markets, and some institutions are already gone. It will never go back to the way it was a few years ago, though the damage might be limited if action is taken quickly. | ||
| Geedee |
...and how other countries "laugh at us" for how things are here and have become. No they are not laughing Ltbuell. The rest of us have already been dealt to. None of us have guns. Policy is in place, without so much as a whimper. America needs to be neutered now, because your job as world policeman is over. Oh! They haven't told you yet? You should look outside America more. Stop watching the American alphabet North East West South' agencies, because they are not going to tell you what is really going on. They are owned. UN and NATO rule now. Remember this? When you kick out the Blues, and 'vote' in the Reds, the faceless Bureaucrats stay where they are. The Sleepers will already be in place. Bureaucrats don't usually run their own businesses do they? They usually like to organise other people's business. That is why they are bureaucrats :-). The Bureaucracy and Policymaking Bureaucrats put government policy into practice, and therefore the federal bureaucracy has a large impact on policymaking. In order to get their policies passed, the president and Congress must work with the bureaucracy. Controlling the bureaucracy can be difficult for the following reasons: *Size: The president cannot monitor everyone or even every group within the bureaucracy, so much of what bureaucrats do goes unmonitored. *Expertise of bureaucrats: The people who administer policy often know much more about those issues than the president or members of Congress. This expertise gives the bureaucrats power. *Civil service laws: Firing bureaucrats, even for incompetence, is very difficult. *Clientele groups: Many federal agencies provide services to thousands of people, and those people sometimes rally to defend the agency. *Policy implementation: When Congress creates a new program, it does not establish all the details on how the policy will be implemented. Instead, Congress passes enabling legislation, which grants power to an agency to work out the specifics. Although the agency must stay within some bounds, it has a great deal of latitude in determining how to carry out the wishes of Congress. Bureaucrats as Policymakers In theory, federal bureaucracies merely carry out the policies enacted by Congress and the president. In practice, however, many scholars argue that the bureaucracy plays a significant role in federal policymaking via iron triangles and issue networks. Iron Triangles An iron triangle is an alliance of people from three groups: a congressional subcommittee that deals with an issue, the executive agency that enforces laws on that issue, and private interest groups. Often, the members of the triangle know each other well, and people frequently move from one corner of the triangle to another. The members of the iron triangle work together to create policy that serves their interests. Full article here: http://www.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politi cs/american-government/the-bureaucracy/section4.rh tml I notice some Republicans featured here: You can bet "The Rule of Law" mentioned won't be good either. The Chinese Corporate Capitalist Communist system is their model. Yeah, I'm a Conspiracy Factualist. The "theory" part happened years ago. Best just hide your weapons, you might need them. This one is for you Ltbuell :-) | ||
| Fb1 |
FB1, i agree with you on his credentials. and i also worry about this end around that seems to be going on. maybe i still have a little faith in the courts (not much left after recent decisions), but that may be the last bit of optimism i possess in these matters. W- W - I, too, still have a little faith in the courts...a little. Justice Roberts sure fired a warning shot across our bow, however... The "system" (in this case our Constitution and Bill of Rights) is ultimately only as good as the people who are utilizing the system. If our top governmental employees refuse to play by the rules (Fast & Furious comes immediately to mind), then the system is failing/has failed. Mr. Obama has repeatedly proven that he is immune from the constraints of the Constitution. He doesn't think this (well, actually he does), he's actually proven it to be so. And what is the system (in this case, the folks we elect to withhold and protect the Constitution) doing about this? Quite a bit, actually, yet...Obama and his minions are still in charge, making it up to suit their interests as they go along. If you don't play by the rules, the rules thus have very little value. All of which is a long way of saying that if Mr. Bolton - a man who intimately understands how the UN system works and what their ultimate goals are - is worried, we ought to be worried, too. Put another way: If I asked you if you think the current administration has YOUR best interests at heart (on ANY issue, not just this one) - which, of course, is their actual job description - or THEIR best interests at heart, how would you answer? Mr. Obama HATES the Constitution. This is fact. He has raped it at nearly every opportunity. If he endorses the United Nations ATT (and he apparently does), that's good enough evidence for me that UNATT is not going to be my friend when it comes to retaining my Second Amendment rights. Sorry for such a rambling, long-winded post; I'm not a political pundit by profession (nor do I play one on TV). Do you believe in the ongoing mission of the National Rifle Association*? I do. Here is a link to some relevant reading: http://nraila.org/news-issues/hot-topics/unatt.asp x Bottom line for me: Any time someone says "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" I'm immediately suspicious. Were it George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or John Adams saying this, I'd embrace them warmly and invite them in for tea. Times, sadly, have changed. Come November I hope we start down the long road to recovery. It's (almost) not too late... Best, FB *...While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the NRA has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But our successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly four million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs. As former Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos said, "Let me make one small vote for the NRA. They're good citizens. They call their Congressmen. They write. They vote. They contribute. And they get what they want over time." [Source: http://www.nra.org/aboutus.aspx] |
