Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 10/16/2009 7:27:04 AM PDT by little sis
At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.
(Excerpt) Read more at fightinwordsusa.wordpress.com ...
He's an impotent wusp. This is why he is always apologizing. He wants a one world government. He wants the U.S. to be a bit player in an International Court. He has already trashed our Constitution. In fact, he wasn't the first. Obama is finishing the job. I state this with anger ad sadness. I love my country and HATE, absolutely HATE seeing him destroy it and make us into a third world country.
Enemies within.
He can sign it. The Senate has to ratify it and they aren’t going to do so.
Zero isn’t King yet.
Last time they tried this, it got 0 votes in the US Senate. Just cause he signs it doesn’t make it law.
It would be treason. Impeach.
Clinton signed all sorts of things but they had no force of law.
Yep ... those treaty things are much tougher to get around ... 66 votes to ratify.
Carter and Clinton did stupid stuff like this. Heck Clinton even signed onto the Kyoto protocols.
In the USA, the sovereigns are the citizens. They cannot be sold out by the government. We do not have rulers, we have representatives. O-dumb-boy doesn’t get the difference.
Oh no, they didn’t!
Lock and load. Lock and load.
How many votes does it take to ratify a treaty? If it takes only 51, then this is a done deal.
this has nothing to do with real science....’climate change’ is a vehicle for globalist one world government
Says who? They have 60 62 at least 64 Dhimmi votes that would love to vote for such a measure.
Traitors all.
“Yep ... those treaty things are much tougher to get around ... 66 votes to ratify.”
It could be a headfake anyway. He knows it won’t pass but the dems sign the useless silly thing and then get to pass the blame onto the GOP.
Looks bad for the GOP to the Euroevironazis but good to the average US citizen.
It’s a no-win for the dems either way. It just makes their loopy commie arm happy.
“The Senate has to ratify it and they aren’t going to do so.”
They rejected Kyoto because it would cost them. They may go along with this, though, because to be left out of the world governance would be unthinkable.
If this actually sets up a world government (and it de facto does) then some would desperately want to be at the reins, rather than in the traces.
Difference is Obama will send them the money. Spreading the wealth is a good thing. And remember Kissinger already said Obama is being groomed to be installed as World Leader.
Barry will be a gelding after 2010.
As far as I know the Constitution is the Supreme Law of Land and even treaties cannot trump it’s provisions.
The preamble even state the Constitution is made for the people.
HOLY-MOLY AMEN TO THIS GUY!
You may be surprised to learn that there is plenty of precedent that treaties do indeed trump the Constitution as formal obligations of the Nation. I think that is crap, but still, it is out there.
By 2010, Barry will have gelded the US.
If you get a chance, please stop by the FReepathon thread and give it a bump. If you haven’t donated something yet, please give it some thought...
Thanks!
Yet another ACT of TREASON!
I really DO feel vulnerable, angry and betrayed in a way which is even more visceral than what I felt when Clinton was President.
A treaty, however, cannot be held as superior to the US Constitution -- case law is clear on that point. In Reid v. Covert [354 U.S. 1 (1957)], Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority:
Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . . ."While it's true that the law says that no treaty can supersede the Constitution, it is also true that in America the law is whatever the gun boys say it is -- and the president controls the gun boys. If the president signs this treaty, he could move to implement it by an Act of Congress; our recourse would be to mount a judicial challenge to that Act, a process that could take years. By the time our case against the federal laws stemming from this treaty reached the USSC, the damage would already be done.There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [354 U.S. 1, 17] War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights - let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition - to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 , it declared: "The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [354 U.S. 1, 18] government or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent." [Source]
A troubling post. Thanks for sharing it.
We will be trapped without a shot being fired.
Do you suppose, we can say, in a year or two later ooopppss! We changed our mind? NO WAY!
If we do not YELL this from all media sources so people know what is about to happen ... we will all have several families living in our house with us. Like they did in Russia in the time of the Bolsheviks/Lenin taking power.
Chaos, death, starvation for millions followed. Dr Zhivago anyone??
That’s what Clinton did ...
Excellent find. Thank you.
Betrayal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.