Some people's Rumors!!!!
2007-12-25 12:40:33 · 24 answers · asked by Bob M 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
Yes-Yes she well--in a heart beat--she well--Remember WACO--if you can
2007-12-25 12:42:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 6⤋
This is a very specific rumor. I don't know if this particular idea has been discussed or not, but I do believe that the plan is to neutralize all national boundaries and gradually move toward a "one world" type of government. I do believe that the UN is a big part of that plan, and I do believe that Hilary, and all the other "front runners" are part of that plan.
I believe that the only presidential candidate who isn't is Ron Paul.
I believe that this is a plan which has been in the works for a very long time, but it takes a while to convince people that the loss of their Sovereignty is a good thing, so the big money interests are prepared to wait.
If any of the current crop of candidates win, except Ron Paul, we will still be on track for this plan. The only question will be, how fast.
If we are concerned about this issue, that makes us Americans, not purveyors of "RW stupidity".
2007-12-26 08:12:37 · answer #2 · answered by maryjellerson 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe any congress will ratify a treaty with the U.N which gives up all the protection we have as a country. It doesn't matter whether that congress is controlled by Democrats or Republicans. Presidents have a hard time allowing a Governor to control their own national guard, or federal troops from their state. During Katrina Governor Kathleen Blanco asked that President Bush gives her the power to control parts of the Army and National Guard for Disaster Recovery. President George W. Bush insisted that all troops be federalized and put under his control. Blanco refused and compromised that a General be put over both state guard and national troops. George Bush still didn't give up the power. Our president isn't ready to give up any such power when it comes to the military. It would take a consensus of the majority in Congress and the Federal Judicial System if he did. Federal Judges and the Supreme Court have the power to control the President and Congress, and I'm sure if everyone else loses their mind our public servants of the legal sort will not disobey the law.
2007-12-25 22:04:09 · answer #3 · answered by K R 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
If people are paying more attention this questions like this and still not asking why the eff are there Cabinet members that work for our president that are accused of treasonous acts, then I fear for the future of our Country. This is pure Speculation and another reason for the two-party system to take down the true basis and foundation of our beautiful country.
The only hope I see is in a handful of Candidates: Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich. I like straight shooters.
P.S. No one can just *hand* over a military that we as *taxpayers* pay for. Never forget that the president and everyone else that works for the government, we pay for. We are *their* boss. It's time we worked on making our pimphands stronger on these guys! I'm not laying down and obeying *any* douche that I'm paying their salary; it seriously cheeses me when I hear, "Well, he's our president, so we should do as he says."
Eff that, because we're *his* boss. He does what *we* say. Same goes with Hillary. If she did win, we would be her boss, too.
2007-12-26 10:20:28 · answer #4 · answered by gillianinchains 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The office of the President can and does not act without the approval of Congress and within the confines of the Constitutionally defined powers of the office of the Executive Branch.
While the Republican majority in the Senate and House during the current administration at times seemed more than happy to forgo their responsibility and allow President Busch sweeping powers, I do not believe that either party would be so giving to a Democratic President. Just a hunch.
2007-12-27 07:13:31 · answer #5 · answered by Diane G 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Constitutionally Hillary cannot "hand over" our military to the U.N. However as Commander in Chief she has the authority to order the military to do things that would be in accordance with U.N. resolutions, so long as it is not a violation of our Constitution or any law passed in our country.
2007-12-27 06:20:17 · answer #6 · answered by Frederick D 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
She will not "hand" them to the U.N.. She would offer assistance as she should. Though handing them to the U.N. would mean her political demise. She will have to run a second term. Then she will allow U.N. Officers to lead our troops into battle.
2007-12-26 10:03:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Prez. Kennedy signed some disarmament treaty back in 1963 which called for exactly that. And both prez Bushes signed it again while they were in office. It's not a rumor.
I've heard of it quite a bit. Hillary might do it should she become the prez, but it has been in the planning stages long before she came along.
2007-12-25 20:57:33 · answer #8 · answered by doggybag300 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
First I think it is a stupid rumor. Second, the United States does have three branches of government (despite what GWB says) and I don't think Congress will let anyone do that.
2007-12-25 21:57:22 · answer #9 · answered by Sean 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
She hates our military and our standing in the world. While she will not necessarily hand them to the UN, she will go to the UN on any major military decision.
2007-12-26 15:32:47 · answer #10 · answered by wcowell2000 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
She will attempt it. It is all in the Clinton long term plan. Hilary gets the white house, Bill gets the UN and Gore gets the trees
2007-12-26 08:37:24 · answer #11 · answered by Boomrat 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋