View Full Version : Obama poised to cede US Soverignty
Warrior-Mentor
10-15-2009, 14:15
British Lord: Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty
FightinwordUSA
October 15, 2009
The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.
Here's his remarks:
"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.
[laughter]
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.
So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.
But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.
So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:
Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!"
Lifted from here:
http://fightinwordsusa.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/obama-poised-to-cede-us-soverignty-claims-british-lord/
http://mnfreemarketinstitute.org/2009/10/15/monckton-speaks-to-over-700-at-minnesota-free-market-institute-event/
SEE HIS SLIDES HERE:http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/monckton_2009.pdf
If you don't read the whole thing, at least check out slides 159, 171 and 172
If it weren't that it goes hand in hand with the Global Warming and Cap and Trade scams and 'The Ones' tendencies I would dismiss it as absolute fiction.
I hate to say it, but never say never.
Still has to be agreed to by the Senate - President Wilson brought home a treaty he signed committing us to the League of Nations - the Senate rejected it and we never participated.
I'm still betting this will not get Senate approval.
Art 2 - Sec 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...
Current Senate is 58 Dems - 40 Repubs.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Still has to be agreed to by the Senate - President Wilson brought home a treaty he signed committing us to the League of Nations - the Senate rejected it and we never participated.
I'm still betting this will not get Senate approval.
Art 2 - Sec 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...
Current Senate is 58 Dems - 40 Repubs.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Hopefully you're on the mark as usual.
Warrior-Mentor
10-15-2009, 15:48
Still has to be agreed to by the Senate - President Wilson brought home a treaty he signed committing us to the League of Nations - the Senate rejected it and we never participated.
I'm still betting this will not get Senate approval.
Art 2 - Sec 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...
Current Senate is 58 Dems - 40 Repubs.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Who do Lieberman and Sanders caucus with?
1 Mark Begich (D-AK)
2 Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
3 Mark Pryor (D-AR)
4 Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
5 Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
6 Mark Udall (D-CO)
7 Michael Bennet (D-CO)
8 Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
9 Ted Kaufman (D-DE)
10 Thomas R. Carper (D-DE)
11 Bill Nelson (D-FL)
12 Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
13 Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
14 Tom Harkin (D-IA)
15 Roland Burris (D-IL)
16 Richard Durbin (D-IL)
17 Evan Bayh (D-IN)
18 Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
19 Paul G. Kirk (D-MA)
20 John Kerry (D-MA)
21 Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
22 Ben Cardin (D-MD)
23 Carl Levin (D-MI)
24 Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
25 Al Franken (D-MN)
26 Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
27 Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
28 Max Baucus (D-MT)
29 Jon Tester (D-MT)
30 Kay Hagan (D-NC)
31 Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
32 Kent Conrad (D-ND)
33 Ben Nelson (D-NE)
34 Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
35 Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
36 Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
37 Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
38 Tom Udall (D-NM)
39 Harry Reid (D-NV)
40 Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
41 Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
42 Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
43 Ron Wyden (D-OR)
44 Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
45 Arlen Specter (D-PA)
46 Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA)
47 Jack Reed (D-RI)
48 Sheldon Whitehouse(D-RI)
49 Tim Johnson (D-SD)
50 Jim Webb (D-VA)
51 Mark Warner (D-VA)
52 Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
53 Patty Murray (D-WA)
54 Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
55 Herb Kohl (D-WI)
56 Russ Feingold (D-WI)
57 Robert Byrd (D-WV)
58 Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
59 Joe Lieberman (I-CT)
60 Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
61 Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
62 Richard Shelby (R-AL)
63 Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
64 John McCain (R-AZ)
65 Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
66 George LeMieux (R-FL)
67 Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
68 Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
69 Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
70 Jim Risch (R-ID)
71 Mike Crapo (R-ID)
72 Richard Lugar (R-IN)
73 Pat Roberts (R-KS)
74 Sam Brownback (R-KS)
75 Jim Bunning (R-KY)
76 Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
77 David Vitter (R-LA)
78 Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
79 Susan Collins (R-ME)
80 Kit Bond (R-MO)
81 Thad Cochran (R-MS)
82 Roger Wicker (R-MS)
83 Richard Burr (R-NC)
84 Mike Johanns (R-NE)
85 Judd Gregg (R-NH)
86 John Ensign (R-NV)
87 George Voinovich (R-OH)
88 Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
89 Tom Coburn (R-OK)
90 Jim DeMint (R-SC)
91 Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
92 John Thune (R-SD)
93 Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
94 Bob Corker (R-TN)
95 Kay Bailey Hutchison(R-TX)
96 John Cornyn (R-TX)
97 Bob Bennett (R-UT)
98 Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
99 Mike Enzi (R-WY)
100 John Barrasso (R-WY)
It takes 67 of 100 in the Senate to pass such a treaty.
Richard
Utah Bob
10-15-2009, 18:10
Barring a swine flu die off of the Republican senators (and some demos too), it'll never happen.
rltipton
10-15-2009, 19:02
My question is, if this guy is on target and Obama is really trying to pull this shit, umm....can we not shitcan him and lock him and his staff in the pen? That's treason, right? Jeez
An intresting note I have heard over the years however is that the Geneva convention treaty was never ratified yet we still hold to that. I am sure many here know beter than me on that issue, but it would be intresting to hear the facts about that.
Series of four international agreements (1864, 1906, 1929, 1949) signed in Geneva, Switz., that established the humanitarian principles by which the signatory countries are to treat an enemy's military and civilian nationals in wartime. The first convention was initiated by Jean-Henri Dunant; it established that medical facilities were not to be war targets, that hospitals should treat all wounded impartially, that civilians aiding the wounded should be protected, and that the Red Cross symbol should serve to identify those covered by the agreement. The second convention amended and extended the first. The third stated that prisoners of war should be treated humanely and that prison camps should be open to inspection by neutral countries. The 1949 conventions made further provisions for civilians falling into a belligerent's hands. Guerrilla combatants were extended protection in two 1977 amendments, which the U.S. did not sign. Violations of the Geneva Conventions were among the crimes included in the jurisdictions of the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (1993) and Rwanda (1994) and the International Criminal Court (2002).
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/229047/Geneva-Conventions
My question is, if this guy is on target and Obama is really trying to pull this shit, umm....can we not shitcan him and lock him and his staff in the pen? That's treason, right? Jeez
According to some, President 'O' should already have been given the boot or a cell for his seat on the UN Security Council.
Because: Section 9 of the Constitution says:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
It is 'subject to interpretation'.
IMHO even several Demecrats would vote against it. An intresting note I have heard over the years however is that the Geneva convention treaty was never ratified yet we still hold to that. I am sure many here know beter than me on that issue, but it would be intresting to hear the facts about that.
Not quite.
http://ask.yahoo.com/20020212.html
Google can find more detail if interested.
Source is here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/04/us-climate-change-bill-browner/print).
Copenhagen summit
US climate bill not likely this year, says Obama adviser
Carol Browner's bleak view deepens concerns negotiations will fail to produce meaningful agreement in Copenhagen
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Sunday 4 October 2009 18.45 BST
The White House has said for the first time that it does not expect to see a climate change bill this year, removing one of the key elements for reaching an international agreement to avoid catastrophic global warming.
In a seminar in Washington, Barack Obama's main energy adviser, Carol Browner, gave the clearest indication to date that the administration did not expect the Senate to vote on a climate change bill before an international meeting in Copenhagen in December.
Browner spoke barely 48 hours after Senate Democrats staged a campaign-style rally in support of a climate change bill that seeks to cut US emissions by 20% on 2005 levels by 2020.
"Obviously, we'd like to be through the process, but that's not going to happen," Browner told a conference hosted by the Atlantic magazine on Friday. "I think we would all agree the likelihood that you'd have a bill signed by the president on comprehensive energy by the time we go in December is not likely."
Browner's bleak assessment deepens concerns that negotiations, already deadlocked, will fail to produce a meaningful agreement in Copenhagen. It also threatens to further dampen the prospects for a bill that was struggling for support among conservative and rustbelt Democrats.
The UN has cast the Copenhagen meeting as a last chance for countries to reach an agreement to avoid the most disastrous effects of warming. Negotiators – including the state department's climate change envoy – admit it will be far harder to reach such a deal unless America, historically the world's biggest polluter, shows it is willing to cut its own greenhouse gas emissions.
Browner's comments undercut a campaign by Democratic leaders in the Senate, corporations and environmental organisations to try to build momentum behind the bill. The day before Browner's comments, John Kerry, the former presidential candidate who is one of the sponsors of the cap-and-trade bill, told a conference he remained confident the bill would squeak through the Senate.
Her remarks also raise further doubts about how forcefully the Obama administration is willing to press the Senate for a climate bill in the midst of its struggles over healthcare.
In the last two weeks, diplomats have grown increasingly frustrated with the administration. Negotiators say they understand Obama would have to struggle to get this agenda through the Senate, but say the president has shied away from opportunities to make the case for climate change.
Obama came in for harsh criticism from environmental organisations for failing to urge the Senate to act during a speech to the United Nations summit on climate change late last month. Environmental groups called it a "missed opportunity".
"If there is no serious US legislation in place then we will have delegations arriving and getting increasingly frustrated with nothing happening," said John Bruton, the European Union's ambassador.The following two pieces are from The Economist. Source is here (http://tinyurl.com/yzyvv9d).Global-warming diplomacy
Bangkok blues
Oct 15th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Gloom and pragmatism ahead of the Copenhagen climate-change summit
THE planet is warming, but the mood among climate negotiators seems as chilly as ever. On October 9th the penultimate round of talks before December’s climate-change summit in Copenhagen ended in Bangkok. Only one session remains, in Barcelona in November. Leaders are now busy lowering expectations, saying that this summit will be a prelude to a “Copenhagen II” in 2010.
One problem is procedural: what to do with the Kyoto framework. Some European countries, and many of the poor ones, want to keep it, since it requires the rich economies to bind themselves to numerical targets for cutting their emissions. But it will be difficult for Barack Obama’s administration to sign up to a Kyoto-style deal: the Senate made it clear that it would refuse to ratify the treaty even before George Bush walked away from it. The European Union negotiating block is edging away from supporting a Kyoto-like architecture for Copenhagen, infuriating some poor countries.
One of the two big practical questions is: by how much does the world need to cut emissions? Japan and the EU have set eye-catching headline goals. America has not—though cap-and-trade legislation seemed to advance this week. The rich world wants concrete promises from poor countries. Hu Jintao, the president of China, now the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, has pledged to cut the carbon-intensity of the country’s economy but he has not said by how much. India says that it will accept only a limit on emissions per person that matches rich countries. That is so easily satisfied that it is no condition at all.
The second big question, less discussed in Bangkok, is what rich countries will pay poor ones both to adapt to climate change and shrink their use of carbon. China has said that rich countries should pay 1% of their GDP a year—which would be $400 billion. Gordon Brown has suggested $100 billion a year. Despite some clever ideas about using small investment guarantees to unlock bigger flows of private capital, the gap remains large.
One deal at Copenhagen does look likely. Deforestation makes Indonesia and Brazil among the biggest sources of greenhouse gases. It accounts for 18% of global greenhouse-gas emissions. Brazil has offered an 80% cut, and Indonesia 26% less deforestation than would happen with “business as usual” by 2020, if rich countries help pay for it. (They have not, yet.)
But on another issue, the Bangkok talks went backwards. Poor countries suggested language that would allow compulsory licensing of low-carbon technologies developed in the rich world. Neither the EU nor America wanted that.
Negotiations always look bleakest as their deadline approaches. Even so, the chances are receding of a deal that sees countries promise explicit cuts in emissions. That does not mean Copenhagen is fated to be a failure. But it does mean a great deal of work next year if the world is not to give up trying to stay cool.Source is here (http://tinyurl.com/yjscbp8).
Cap-and-trade
The road to 60
Oct 15th 2009 | NEW YORK
From The Economist print edition
Signs of bipartisanship on the climate-change bill
MANY commentators fear that Barack Obama’s plans for a cap-and-trade bill have got fatally stuck in the Senate. Their calculations were shaken up over the weekend when Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, joined John Kerry, a liberal Massachusetts Democrat, to write an article headlined “Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)” in the New York Times. Mr Kerry is the main author of the Senate’s cap-and-trade bill. Mr Graham is no squishy moderate, but he is an occasional dealmaker. When he crosses the aisle, it tends to matter.
The part most likely to bring a few extra Republicans on board concerns nuclear power. The two call for streamlining regulations on new plant construction, and putting more money into research on handling waste. This sop to nuclear power is more likely than anything else to bring on board John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee and a strong nuclear supporter. Green Democrats are wary of nuclear, but the edge of their worry has been dulled by the even greater worry over climate change. Barbara Boxer, the Democratic head of the environment committee, has admitted that she may not be able to hold the line against nuclear power.
The second main provision of the Kerry-Graham agreement is renewed offshore drilling for oil and gas. Many conservatives want to mitigate America’s energy-security problems by looking to domestic fossil fuels. This has nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions, but it might help a bill that does contain carbon caps to pass.
The third announcement from Senators Kerry and Graham is that “we should consider a border tax” on goods from countries with lax environmental standards. This will cause righteous howls from the big developing countries, especially China and India, which note America’s historical responsibility for the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If included in the final bill, it would make a deal at the climate summit in Copenhagen in December more difficult. But the weasel-word “should consider” may eventually mean giving the president a lot of discretion on whether to levy such “carbon tariffs”. In other words, a classic fudge.
Will the Kerry-Graham intervention work? Besides Mr McCain, other Republicans with a history of sympathy to cap-and-trade, like Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, could be persuaded by it to sign on. A strong nuclear commitment could tempt Georgia’s Johnny Isakson and Tennessee’s Lamar Alexander, both of whom have leant strongly against the bill in the past. The trick is getting Republicans on board to assure passage without alienating Democrats, of which the majority can afford to lose very few. Democratic senators from conservative coal states are particularly nervous. Getting to 60 votes, enough to defeat a filibuster, is still a tall order. For cap-and-trade, it may require greasing the wheels with giveaways to favoured industries, not to mention the dodgy carbon tariffs. The maths is still daunting. But the leap by Mr Graham, who voted against two earlier cap-and-trade bills, may well mean something.
..... An intresting note I have heard over the years however is that the Geneva convention treaty was never ratified yet we still hold to that. I am sure many here know beter than me on that issue, but it would be intresting to hear the facts about that.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_762529232_2/Geneva_Conventions.html#s5
A Countries Belonging to the Conventions
As of 2005, 192 countries had ratified (thus becoming parties to) all four of the Geneva Conventions. Additional Protocol I had been ratified by 161 states, and 156 countries had ratified Additional Protocol II. Nearly every country has ratified the Geneva Conventions, so they are now considered customary international law. The United States is a party to the four Geneva Conventions, but has not ratified the two Additional Protocols. The United States refuses to ratify Protocol I because it claims the protocol will legitimize groups involved in wars of national liberation. Although the United States has not ratified Protocol I, it has indicated that most of its provisions are incorporated into customary international law. The United States also decided not to ratify Protocol II, fearing that it might enhance the status of rebels, even though there was little objection by the U.S. military to ratification of this protocol. Without the Additional Protocols, recent conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo might not have been covered by humanitarian law.
My Note: Even though not ratified, the concenpt of practice between nations becomes customary international law when done so over time. Generally following the Protocol, even without ratification, over years becomes binding.
v/r
phil
Warrior-Mentor
10-16-2009, 08:53
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_762529232_2/Geneva_Conventions.html#s5
Even though not ratified, the concenpt of practice between nations becomes customary international law when done so over time. Generally following the Protocol, even without ratification, over years becomes binding.
And that's the concern.
sounds like the Bilderberg Group to me.........
Leaders Will Delay Agreement on Climate
President Obama and other world leaders have decided to put off the difficult task of reaching a climate change agreement at a global climate conference scheduled for next month, agreeing instead to make it the mission of the Copenhagen conference to reach a less specific “politically binding” agreement that would punt the most difficult issues into the future.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/asia/15prexy.html?_r=1&hp
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin