What's your take?

[Medic624]

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/obamas-sneaky-treaties/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I usually get my news from any site I can find...I read everything from the MSM, Blaze, Drudge, a few Fringe whackos and some foreign countries news...heck I even read Al Jazeera on ocassion to see what we are doing in this country that we don't get in our own news!

This is a quick read on some alleged behind the scenes not so publicized dealings that we are supposedly moving toward.

I'm gonna keep my view to myself for now (if anyone REALLY wants to know ask or take a look...my previous posts show how I lean) But... I'm curious as to what you may feel about this stuff...

[The Annoyed Man]

I can take Dick Morris in measured doses, but I'm not a huge fan of the guy. I'm not actually sure why I'm not. I guess his mannerisms just grate on me or something.

Regarding these various treaties....

I definitely think we need to be vigilant against the administration signing away American sovereignty, but I also think that there is not much chance of these things becoming law. Let's take the U.N. Small Arms Treaty for instance..... First of all, it won't pass the Senate. Republicans will, perhaps with or without Olympia Snow, vote against ratification. That's 46-47 votes against, needing only another 5 or 6 votes to defeat it. Add the fact that there is a reliable block of relatively pro-gun democrats who will also vote against ratification. That puts the Nay vote over the top. Add to that there is another block of democrat senators who are not necessarily pro-gun, but who know that a Yes vote will permanently end their political careers and kill the party. They will vote against it. Only the most radically liberal democrats would support it, and they just aren't in enough numbers to force passage. In most cases, they represent states that will reliably reelect them, so they are safe if they vote yes. But the bottom line is that the Treaty won't pass the Senate, and if it doesn't pass the Senate, it will never arrive on Obama's desk for a signature.

Then, even if it did pass, I honestly think that it is questionable as to whether or not Obama would sign it. Here's why: if he does, there are several consequences that I'm sure he doesn't want to deal with. 1) Obama is not about surrendering one single iota of his own power. Signing this treaty into law would cede some of his power to the U.N. 2) Who would enforce it? On the day that the U.N. starts ordering the arrest of American citizens for pursuing endeavors that have been legal for the past 236 years until the day before the treaty becomes law, that will be the last time democrats will ever again win an election. They will simply cease to exist as a viable political force in American politics. And then what? Blue Helmets start showing up in cast-off Vietnam era APCs to try and force Americans to give up their guns? They'd all be dead inside of 72 hours.

Here's the thing, even though Obama has made inroads in reducing our military power, and he will continue to try to do so, we are STILL the world's most powerful nation. Even if these UN treaties were all passed, it would simply guarantee that the next president would be a Republican, and he would tell the U.N. to go fly a kite. "Just say 'No.'" Here's the other thing, treaties can be broken. What are they going to do? Declare war on us for refusing to comply? I don't think so.

On the upside, it might be exactly the motivation needed to throw the U.N. out of NYC. Let the French host them for the next 70 years.

[Medic624]

I can take Dick Morris in measured doses, but I'm not a huge fan of the guy. I'm not actually sure why I'm not. I guess his mannerisms just grate on me or something.

Regarding these various treaties....

I definitely think we need to be vigilant against the administration signing away American sovereignty, but I also think that there is not much chance of these things becoming law. Let's take the U.N. Small Arms Treaty for instance..... First of all, it won't pass the Senate. Republicans will, perhaps with or without Olympia Snow, vote against ratification. That's 46-47 votes against, needing only another 5 or 6 votes to defeat it. Add the fact that there is a reliable block of relatively pro-gun democrats who will also vote against ratification. That puts the Nay vote over the top. Add to that there is another block of democrat senators who are not necessarily pro-gun, but who know that a Yes vote will permanently end their political careers and kill the party. They will vote against it. Only the most radically liberal democrats would support it, and they just aren't in enough numbers to force passage. In most cases, they represent states that will reliably reelect them, so they are safe if they vote yes. But the bottom line is that the Treaty won't pass the Senate, and if it doesn't pass the Senate, it will never arrive on Obama's desk for a signature.

Then, even if it did pass, I honestly think that it is questionable as to whether or not Obama would sign it. Here's why: if he does, there are several consequences that I'm sure he doesn't want to deal with. 1) Obama is not about surrendering one single iota of his own power. Signing this treaty into law would cede some of his power to the U.N. 2) Who would enforce it? On the day that the U.N. starts ordering the arrest of American citizens for pursuing endeavors that have been legal for the past 236 years until the day before the treaty becomes law, that will be the last time democrats will ever again win an election. They will simply cease to exist as a viable political force in American politics. And then what? Blue Helmets start showing up in cast-off Vietnam era APCs to try and force Americans to give up their guns? They'd all be dead inside of 72 hours.

Here's the thing, even though Obama has made inroads in reducing our military power, and he will continue to try to do so, we are STILL the world's most powerful nation. Even if these UN treaties were all passed, it would simply guarantee that the next president would be a Republican, and he would tell the U.N. to go fly a kite. "Just say 'No.'" Here's the other thing, treaties can be broken. What are they going to do? Declare war on us for refusing to comply? I don't think so.

On the upside, it might be exactly the motivation needed to throw the U.N. out of NYC. Let the French host them for the next 70 years.

As usual a well thought out and very concise reply...thank you Sir...