If our dictator;

No he didn't. In fact (your garlic) he said, SPECIFICALLY, that he would need the help of Congress.

Tinfoil

Congress has the authority to create law, which I will abide by.

But you know full well that Obama stated he will dictate law without congress, if he cannot push his agenda through. Obama knows, as you do, the House will never violate the 2nd Amendment. Diane Feinstein can push whatever she likes, but it won't get past the house.

So Obama well may attempt to discard the constitution and dictate law, AS HE SAID HE WOULD.

This thread is a reaction to what Obama declared, TODAY. If he engages in treason as he has vowed to do, I will resist in any way I can.



Alright. Here's the complete text of today's press conference and the questions asked of him relating to guns and Newtown.

Show me where he said that.


THE PRESIDENT: *Good morning, everybody. *It’s now been five days since the heartbreaking tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut; three days since we gathered as a nation to pray for the victims. And today, a few more of the 20 small children and six educators who were taken from us will be laid to rest.
*
We may never know all the reasons why this tragedy happened. We do know that every day since, more Americans have died of gun violence. *We know such violence has terrible consequences for our society. *And if there is even one thing that we can do to prevent any of these events, we have a deep obligation -- all of us -- to try.
*
Over these past five days, a discussion has reemerged as to what we might do not only to deter mass shootings in the future, but to reduce the epidemic of gun violence that plagues this country every single day. *And it’s encouraging that people of all different backgrounds and beliefs and political persuasions have been willing to challenge some old assumptions and change longstanding positions. *
*
That conversation has to continue. *But this time, the words need to lead to action.
*
We know this is a complex issue that stirs deeply held passions and political divides. *And as I said on Sunday night, there’s no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. *We’re going to need to work on making access to mental health care at least as easy as access to a gun. *We’re going to need to look more closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence. *And any actions we must take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts.
*
But the fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing. *The fact that we can’t prevent every act of violence doesn’t mean we can’t steadily reduce the violence, and prevent the very worst violence.
*
That’s why I’ve asked the Vice President to lead an effort that includes members of my Cabinet and outside organizations to come up with a set of concrete proposals no later than January -- proposals that I then intend to push without delay. *This is not some Washington commission. *This is not something where folks are going to be studying the issue for six months and publishing a report that gets read and then pushed aside. *This is a team that has a very specific task, to pull together real reforms right now. *I asked Joe to lead this effort in part because he wrote the 1994 Crime Bill that helped law enforcement bring down the rate of violent crime in this country. *That plan -- that bill also included the assault weapons ban that was publicly supported at the time by former Presidents including Ronald Reagan. *
*
The good news is there’s already a growing consensus for us to build from. *A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons. *A majority of Americans support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips. *A majority of Americans support laws requiring background checks before all gun purchases, so that criminals can’t take advantage of legal loopholes to buy a gun from somebody who won’t take the responsibility of doing a background check at all. *
*
I urge the new Congress to hold votes on these measures next year in a timely manner. *And considering Congress hasn’t confirmed a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in six years -- the agency that works most closely with state and local law enforcement to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals -- I’d suggest that they make this a priority early in the year.*
*
Look, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. *This country has a strong tradition of gun ownership that’s been handed down from generation to generation. *Obviously across the country there are regional differences. *There are differences between how people feel in urban areas and rural areas. *And the fact is the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible -- they buy their guns legally and they use them safely, whether for hunting or sport shooting, collection or protection. **
*
But you know what, I am also betting that the majority -- the vast majority -- of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war. *I’m willing to bet that they don’t think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas -- that an unbalanced man shouldn’t be able to get his hands on a military-style assault rifle so easily; that in this age of technology, we should be able to check someone’s criminal records before he or she can check out at a gun show; that if we work harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one in Newtown -- or any of the lesser-known tragedies that visit small towns and big cities all across America every day.
*
Since Friday morning, a police officer was gunned down in Memphis, leaving four children without their mother. *Two officers were killed outside a grocery store in Topeka. *A woman was shot and killed inside a Las Vegas casino. *Three people were shot inside an Alabama hospital. *A four-year-old was caught in a drive-by in Missouri, and taken off life support just yesterday. Each one of these Americans was a victim of the everyday gun violence that takes the lives of more than 10,000 Americans every year -- violence that we cannot accept as routine.
*
So I will use all the powers of this office to help advance efforts aimed at preventing more tragedies like this. *We won’t prevent them all -- but that can’t be an excuse not to try. *It won’t be easy -- but that can't be an excuse not to try. *
*
And I'm not going to be able to do it by myself. *Ultimately if this effort is to succeed it’s going to require the help of the American people -- it’s going to require all of you. *If we're going to change things, it’s going to take a wave of Americans -- mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, pastors, law enforcement, mental health professionals -- and, yes, gun owners -- standing up and saying “enough” on behalf of our kids. *
*
It will take commitment and compromise, and most of all, it will take courage. *But if those of us who were sent here to serve the public trust can summon even one tiny iota of the courage those teachers, that principal in Newtown summoned on Friday -- if cooperation and common sense prevail -- then I’m convinced we can make a sensible, intelligent way to make the United States of America a safer, stronger place for our children to learn and to grow. *
*
Thank you. *And now I'm going to let the Vice President go and I'm going to take a few questions. *



Q * *Sir, may I ask a question about Newtown, please?
*
THE PRESIDENT: *Yes, I've got David Jackson. *
*
Q * *Thank you, Mr. President. *Getting back to the gun issue, you alluded to the fact that Washington commissions don't have the greatest reputation in the world. *What makes you think this one is going to be different given the passage of time and the political power of gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association?
*
THE PRESIDENT: *Well, this is not going to be a commission. Joe is going to gather up some key Cabinet members who have an interest in this issue. *We're going to reach out to a bunch of stakeholders. *We're going to be reaching out to members of Congress who have an interest in this issue. *It's not as if we have to start from scratch. *There are a whole bunch of proposals that have been thought about, debated, but hopefully also some new ideas in terms of how we deal with this issue.
*
Their task is going to be to sift through every good idea that's out there, and even take a look at some bad ideas before disposing of them, and come up with a concrete set of recommendations in about a month. *And I would hope that our memories aren't so short that what we saw in Newtown isn't lingering with us, that we don't remain passionate about it only a month later. *
*
And as soon as we get those recommendations, I will be putting forward very specific proposals. *I will be talking about them in my State of The Union and we will be working with interested members of Congress to try to get some of them done. *
*
And the idea that we would say this is terrible, this is a tragedy, never again, and we don’t have the sustained attention span to be able to get this done over the next several months doesn’t make sense. *I have more confidence in the American people than that. *I have more confidence in the parents, the mothers and fathers that I’ve been meeting over the last several days all across the country from all political persuasions, including a lot of gun owners, who say, you know what, this time we’ve got to do things differently.
*
Q * *What about the NRA?
*
THE PRESIDENT: *Well, the NRA is an organization that has members who are mothers and fathers. *And I would expect that they’ve been impacted by this as well. *And hopefully they’ll do some self-reflection. *
*
And here’s what we know -- that any single gun law can’t solve all these problems. *We’re going to have to look at mental health issues. *We’re going to have to look at schools. *There are going to be a whole range of things that Joe’s group looks at. *We know that issues of gun safety will be an element of it. And what we’ve seen over the last 20 years, 15 years, is the sense that anything related to guns is somehow an encroachment on the Second Amendment. *What we’re looking for here is a thoughtful approach that says we can preserve our Second Amendment, we can make sure that responsible gun owners are able to carry out their activities, but that we’re going to actually be serious about the safety side of this; that we’re going to be serious about making sure that something like Newtown or Aurora doesn’t happen again.
*
And there is a big chunk of space between what the Second Amendment means and having no rules at all. *And that space is what Joe is going to be working on to try to identify where we can find some common ground.
*
So I’ve got -- I’m going to take one last question.
*
Go ahead, Jake.
*
Q * *It seems to a lot of observers that you made the political calculation in 2008 in your first term and in 2012 not to talk about gun violence. *You had your position on renewing the ban on semiautomatic rifles that then-Senator Biden put into place, but you didn’t do much about it. *This is not the first issue -- the first incident of horrific gun violence of your four years. *Where have you been?
*
THE PRESIDENT: *Well, here’s where I’ve been, Jake. *I’ve been President of the United States dealing with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, an auto industry on the verge of collapse, two wars. *I don’t think I’ve been on vacation. *
*
And so I think all of us have to do some reflection on how we prioritize what we do here in Washington. *And as I said on Sunday, this should be a wake-up call for all of us to say that if we are not getting right the need to keep our children safe, then nothing else matters. *And it’s my commitment to make sure that we do everything we can to keep our children safe. *
*
A lot of things go in -- are involved in that, Jake. *So making sure they’ve got decent health care and making sure they’ve got a good education, making sure that their parents have jobs -- those are all relevant as well. *Those aren’t just sort of side issues. *But there’s no doubt that this has to be a central issue. *And that’s exactly why I’m confident that Joe is going to take this so seriously over the next couple months.
*
All right. *Thank you, everybody.
*

Remarks by the President in a Press Conference | The White House

If you hadn't noticed by now, Uncensored is a pathological liar and a lifelong meth addict.

She's incapable of rational thought from her oink to her curly tail.
 
No he didn't. In fact (your garlic) he said, SPECIFICALLY, that he would need the help of Congress.

Tinfoil

Congress has the authority to create law, which I will abide by.

But you know full well that Obama stated he will dictate law without congress, if he cannot push his agenda through. Obama knows, as you do, the House will never violate the 2nd Amendment. Diane Feinstein can push whatever she likes, but it won't get past the house.

So Obama well may attempt to discard the constitution and dictate law, AS HE SAID HE WOULD.

This thread is a reaction to what Obama declared, TODAY. If he engages in treason as he has vowed to do, I will resist in any way I can.

I believe Obama is shooting, pardon the pun, for international law.

Hours After Reelection, Obama Green Lights UN Gun Grab

A story ran on the Oklahoma City NBC news affiliate on Wednesday (the day after the 2012 election) reporting that “sporting goods stores in the Sooner state are seeing a spike in gun sales following President Barack Obama's re-election.”

Similar reports ran nationwide after the president was elected the first time in 2008.

While many accused those making a run on gun stores of reacting rashly, there may be some wisdom in this latest sales spike.

Reuters reports that within hours of his securing his reelection, President Obama ordered the U.S. United Nations delegation to vote in favor of a UN proposal to fast track an international gun control treaty.

Immediately the word went out that the United States was going to play ball (after having scuttled the last round of talks on the Arms Trade Treaty in July), and a new round of negotiations on the treaty was scheduled for March 18-28 at the UN headquarters in New York City.

A press release was sent out early Wednesday morning from the United Nations (make that Usurper Nations) General Assembly’s First Committee proclaiming the good news of President Obama’s go-ahead for the gun grab and setting the agenda for the next gun control conference

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants power to the President to make treaties with the "advice and consent" of two-thirds of the Senate. This is different from normal legislation which requires approval by simple majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

The treaty the United States made with the United Nations, which I refer to as the Usurper Nations, is unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution clearly states that treaties can only be make with sovereign bodies.

In the case of the United States, the plan is not to overthrow the U.S. government or its Constitution, but to "make it negligible." This has largely been accomplished by slowly and carefully implementing the socialist manifesto written in 1920 by the Fabian Society, which was based on the Communist Manifesto of 1848.

Isn't this making of the Constitution "negligible" exactly what is happening? In fact when the U.S. government violates the Constitution on an almost daily basis with total impunity, it makes the Constitution "negligible." Executive orders, such as going to war without a declaration of war, as in the Gulf War, have worked to make the Constitution "negligible." There is absolutely no provision in the Constitution for executive orders. Executive orders are only proclamations which the president has no power or authority to make. Only a king can make proclamations.

The warmed over League of Nations was thrust upon the U.S. Senate in 1945, dressed under a new label: the United Nations Treaty. The senators were given only three days to discuss the implications of the treaty, which could not have been fully examined in under least a full 18 months of discussion. Had the senators properly understood what they were discussing, which, apart from a few exceptions, they did not, there would have been a demand for a proper period for discussion. The fact is that the Senate did not understand the document and therefore should not have voted on it.

Had the senators who debated the United Nations treaty properly understood the document it surely would have been rejected. Apart from any other considerations, the document was so poorly written and, in many instances, so vague, deceptive and contradictory, that it could have been rejected on these grounds alone.

Now this is important

A law, which is what a treaty is, must be clearly written and unambiguous. The U.N. Treaty was far from that. In any case, the United States, bound by its Constitution, could not ratify the U.N. treaty, for the following reasons:

1) Our Constitution rests upon the bedrock of sovereignty, without which there can be no constitution. U.S. foreign policy is based upon Vattel's "Law of Nations" which makes sovereignty the issue. Although the Constitution is silent on world government and foreign bodies, when the Constitution is silent of a power, and it is not incidental to another power in the Constitution, then it is an inhibition of that power, or a PROHIBITION of that power.

2) The United Nations is not a sovereign body, having no measurable territory of its own. It is housed on U.S. territory in New York in a building loaned by the Rockefellers. Under the U.S. Constitution, we cannot make a treaty with any nation or body that lacks sovereignty. The United States could not (and cannot) make a treaty with a body or country having no sovereignty. The U.S. can make an agreement with a country or body having no sovereignty, but can never enter into a treaty with a body lacking in sovereignty.


3) For the Senate to have attempted to ratify a treaty with a body, state, or country lacking sovereignty, defined boundaries, demographics, a currency system, a set of laws or a constitution, to whit, the United Nations, was to betray the oath to uphold the Constitution which senators are sworn to do. This is commonly called treason.


4) In order for the United States to become a member of the United Nations, two amendments to the Constitution would have to be passed. The first amendment would have to recognize that a world body exists. In its present form, the Constitution cannot recognize the United Nations as a world body. A second amendment would have to say that the United States can have a treaty relationship with an un-sovereign world body. Neither amendment was ever offered, much less accepted by the Senate and ratified by all of the States.

Thus, the thoroughly suspect U.N. "treaty" never was a legal law in the United States. As matters stood in 1945, and as they stand today, although the President has the power to have a say in foreign affairs, he does not have the power, nor has he ever had the power, to make an agreement, much less a treaty, with a world body. This absolutely means that no other world body, specifically, the United Nations, has jurisdiction to deploy American servicemen and women, or to order the United States to act outside of the Constitutional restrictions imposed by our Founding Fathers.

Source link-excerpts from:Diplomacy By Deception by Dr. John Coleman
 
Last edited:
:rolleyes:

Lanza appears to be the poster boy of the right.

Yes, the new hero of these assholes. Healthmyths even went so far as to state what a wonderful sacrifice those children and teachers were to our freedom.

These people are truly sick. They have there putrid ideologies, and ignore the deaths of our children. Write their rants of praise for weopons that can kill large numbers of people very rapidly. Speak of the impact of bullets designed to do maximum damage on the human body lovingly. And then state they have no accountability for Sandy Hook.
 
.

Oh, what the hell, we've long since passed the point where we just make shit up about what other people say.

Pssst, he's also going to exhume the body of Stalin and hang it on the wall of the Oval Office, pass it on...

.

The digging up of Stalin and hanging him up on the wall is obvious disinformation....a strawman argument. This is would be known as poisoning the well of information. I believe you're conflating the legitimate with the ridiculous.

What shit is being made up?... can you give a for instance, instead of a strawman argument?
 
.

Oh, what the hell, we've long since passed the point where we just make shit up about what other people say.

Pssst, he's also going to exhume the body of Stalin and hang it on the wall of the Oval Office, pass it on...

.

The digging up of Stalin and hanging him up on the wall is obvious disinformation....a strawman argument. This is would be known as poisoning the well of information. I believe you're conflating the legitimate with the ridiculous.

What shit is being made up?... can you give a for instance, instead of a strawman argument?


Sure:

Obama has declared that he will openly violate the constitution of the United States and declare law by fiat...

Obama has simply STATED he will "bypass congress" and declare law in open treason.

Not to mention several silly inferences here.

And you're sure he's not digging up Stalin?

.
 
Last edited:
.

Oh, what the hell, we've long since passed the point where we just make shit up about what other people say.

Pssst, he's also going to exhume the body of Stalin and hang it on the wall of the Oval Office, pass it on...

.

The digging up of Stalin and hanging him up on the wall is obvious disinformation....a strawman argument. This is would be known as poisoning the well of information. I believe you're conflating the legitimate with the ridiculous.

What shit is being made up?... can you give a for instance, instead of a strawman argument?

It is? No way!
 
You "will not comply and will view his actions as treason and an act of war."

What does that mean, exactly? Are you going to take up arms against President Obama and the US gov't?
I could be wrong but I think the attitude will be like it was at Waco. Just live your lives peacefully, but when they come for the guns you go down in a blaze of gun fire.

Democrat politicians have already proven they are perfectly willing to slaughter innocent women and children who get in the way of their totalitarian agenda. We all need "assault rifles" with 100 round clips.
 
.

Oh, what the hell, we've long since passed the point where we just make shit up about what other people say.

Pssst, he's also going to exhume the body of Stalin and hang it on the wall of the Oval Office, pass it on...

.

The digging up of Stalin and hanging him up on the wall is obvious disinformation....a strawman argument. This is would be known as poisoning the well of information. I believe you're conflating the legitimate with the ridiculous.

What shit is being made up?... can you give a for instance, instead of a strawman argument?


Sure:

Obama has declared that he will openly violate the constitution of the United States and declare law by fiat...

Obama has simply STATED he will "bypass congress" and declare law in open treason.

Not to mention several silly inferences here.

And you're sure he's not digging up Stalin?

.

No, I don't think he's digging up Stalin, but he may have a picture of him in his wallet, next to Karl Marx, Moses Hess, Vladimir Lenin, Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer and Frank Marshall Davis though.:D
 
The digging up of Stalin and hanging him up on the wall is obvious disinformation....a strawman argument. This is would be known as poisoning the well of information. I believe you're conflating the legitimate with the ridiculous.

What shit is being made up?... can you give a for instance, instead of a strawman argument?


Sure:



Obama has simply STATED he will "bypass congress" and declare law in open treason.

Not to mention several silly inferences here.

And you're sure he's not digging up Stalin?

.

No, I don't think he's digging up Stalin, but he may have a picture of him in his wallet, next to Karl Marx, Moses Hess, Vladimir Lenin, Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer and Frank Marshall Davis though.:D


Hey, ya never know, could be.

And he STILL beat Romney.

.
 
The digging up of Stalin and hanging him up on the wall is obvious disinformation....a strawman argument. This is would be known as poisoning the well of information. I believe you're conflating the legitimate with the ridiculous.

What shit is being made up?... can you give a for instance, instead of a strawman argument?


Sure:



Obama has simply STATED he will "bypass congress" and declare law in open treason.

Not to mention several silly inferences here.

And you're sure he's not digging up Stalin?

.

No, I don't think he's digging up Stalin, but he may have a picture of him in his wallet, next to Karl Marx, Moses Hess, Vladimir Lenin, Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer and Frank Marshall Davis though.:D

Awwwww.....you nutters and your name dropping!
 
.

Oh, what the hell, we've long since passed the point where we just make shit up about what other people say.

Pssst, he's also going to exhume the body of Stalin and hang it on the wall of the Oval Office, pass it on...

.

The digging up of Stalin and hanging him up on the wall is obvious disinformation....a strawman argument. This is would be known as poisoning the well of information. I believe you're conflating the legitimate with the ridiculous.

What shit is being made up?... can you give a for instance, instead of a strawman argument?

It is? No way!

Wow, another graduate of Saul Alinsky's school of sarcasm
 
Sure:





Not to mention several silly inferences here.

And you're sure he's not digging up Stalin?

.

No, I don't think he's digging up Stalin, but he may have a picture of him in his wallet, next to Karl Marx, Moses Hess, Vladimir Lenin, Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer and Frank Marshall Davis though.:D

Awwwww.....you nutters and your name dropping!

You, most likely, don't even know who half of them are. Low IQ monkeys, such as yourself, are only capable of sophomoric ridicule
 
Last edited:
You "will not comply and will view his actions as treason and an act of war."

What does that mean, exactly? Are you going to take up arms against President Obama and the US gov't?
I could be wrong but I think the attitude will be like it was at Waco. Just live your lives peacefully, but when they come for the guns you go down in a blaze of gun fire.

Democrat politicians have already proven they are perfectly willing to slaughter innocent women and children who get in the way of their totalitarian agenda. We all need "assault rifles" with 100 round clips.

Sounds like you need a prescription for thorazine or some other antipsychotic medication.
 
No, I don't think he's digging up Stalin, but he may have a picture of him in his wallet, next to Karl Marx, Moses Hess, Vladimir Lenin, Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer and Frank Marshall Davis though.:D

Awwwww.....you nutters and your name dropping!

You, most likely, don't even know who half of them are. Low IQ monkeys, such as yourself, are only capable of sophomoric name calling.

Let me see.....if I don't know who Max Horkheimer is......does it mean that I have a low IQ?

That seems like a pretty low threshold. I wonder if I can drop a name that you have never heard before? What'd day think, genius?
 
I'm still waiting for the OP, or anybody else for that matter, to show me where the President said what was claimed.

Anybody? Anybody?
 
You "will not comply and will view his actions as treason and an act of war."

What does that mean, exactly? Are you going to take up arms against President Obama and the US gov't?
I could be wrong but I think the attitude will be like it was at Waco. Just live your lives peacefully, but when they come for the guns you go down in a blaze of gun fire.

Democrat politicians have already proven they are perfectly willing to slaughter innocent women and children who get in the way of their totalitarian agenda. We all need "assault rifles" with 100 round clips.


They have? How and when?
 
Democrat politicians have already proven they are perfectly willing to slaughter innocent women and children who get in the way of their totalitarian agenda. We all need "assault rifles" with 100 round clips.

Sounds like you need a prescription for thorazine or some other antipsychotic medication.

Accusing their critics of being mentally ill is a well known tactic of the Soviet government.
 
Sure:





Not to mention several silly inferences here.

And you're sure he's not digging up Stalin?

.

No, I don't think he's digging up Stalin, but he may have a picture of him in his wallet, next to Karl Marx, Moses Hess, Vladimir Lenin, Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer and Frank Marshall Davis though.:D


Hey, ya never know, could be.

And he STILL beat Romney.

.

As if we have real choice in our elections. The average Americans get to choose from the moneyed interest's puppets. Puppet A or Puppet B. Pandercrat vs. Repandercan.
 

Forum List

Back
Top