Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?
posted by Bob at Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Custom Search
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL HOME
Do you have a topic you want to discuss at the Town Hall? Email your request to A_Democracy@yahoo.com
“A DEMOCRACY” Disclaimer- While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to this forum express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned
THE ROOF GUYS
Mickey's Diner 1950 7th Street West, St Paul, MN
(651) 698-8387
AX-MAN SURPLUS
1639 University Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104
Tel:(651)646-8653
LANDLORD.COM LINK HERE
SHHHH! While we listen to words of wisdom from a wise man.
Conscience is the light of the Soul that burns within the chambers of our psychological heart. It is as real as life is. It raises the voice in protest whenever anything is thought of or done contrary to the righteousness. Conscience is a form of truth that has been transferred through our genetic stock in the form of the knowledge of our own acts and feelings as right or wrong. A virtuous and courageous person can alone use the instrument of conscience. He or she can alone hear the inner voice of the soul clearly. In a wicked person this faculty is absent. The sensitive nature of his / her conscience has been destroyed by sin or corruption. Hence he or she is unable to discriminate right from wrong. Those who are leading organizations, business enterprises, institutions and governments should develop this virtue of the ability to use their own conscience. This wisdom of using the clean conscience will enable them to enjoy the freedom.
Dr APJ Kalam, President of India given during the inauguration of the seminar on “THE EFFECTS OF CORRUPTION ON GOOD GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Previous Posts
- Two top strike force leaders part of inquiry
- Wilder Foundation slashing jobs, programs
- Audit of St. Paul agency: No fraud or abuse, but i...
- Hennepin County workers accused in swindle scheme
- Candidate for St. Paul school board paid $12,000 t...
- Judge tells city of Afton to pay developer $60K in...
- Chris Coleman decides not to seek governor's offic...
- St. Paul to increase rate for street maintenance
- St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman and challenger Eva Ng...
- POLICE STATE, USA/ City to homeowner: Let us in, o...
15 Comments:
Only a con artist relying on people hate for the president and ignorance of the constitution could sell this as possible. Only the fools among us will buy, which will be enough to sustain the con game of fear. Lord Monckton's reign of stupidity lives on.
1. The United States signs treaties and international agreements all of the time. None of this is alarming. We sign treaties on reducing our weapons every decade.
2. We enforce treaties and international agreements all the time. Everything from rebukes, to sanctions, to war. Think, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Pakistan, China and Afghanistan.
3. He is wrong that Treaties over-ride the Constitution. Nothing, absolutely nothing, over-rides the constitution.
4. Also, it takes 2/3rds of the Senate to ratify a treaty. That's 67 of them.
5. Lord Monckton is a Viscount who got that title by birth and nothing on his own. Don't let that influence you. He is a nut who is most famous for blaming the spread of malaria on Jackie Kennedy.
Eric
Only a drooling lefty moron would spew out such an ignorant dismissal without having at least looked into the facts.
Article 6 of the US Constitution says:
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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
That means that a treaty enjoys equal footing with the Constitution and overrides all other authorities.
Lord Monckton overstated the authority, but he is 100% correct on all the other aspects of this Obamanation.
It does in fact include a transfer of wealth, it does in fact impose restrictions upon the sovereignty of the countries stupid enough to sign on and the US will without any doubt be the biggest loser on the planet.
Obama, of course, will sign this turd without a second thought.
Thank GOD for the very few sane Democrat Senators, and the sane Independent (Lieberman isn't a Democrat, but he caucuses with them) that will not play this insane game.
I am really starting to believe that Obama is trying to bring America to it's knees.
Clinton was impeached for buffoonery; it's time we remember what High Crimes and Misdemeanors really are and we will never have a better example.
So Eric gives us four non-sequiturs and an ad-hominem, without addressing the overarching point - that the climate treaties would involve ceding sovereignty at some level.
Is that because that's all you have, Eric? Or because your superiors have told you that ad-hominem is the flavor of the day?
OK snapperheads.
Read the title. I gave four clear points of how Obama CANNOT be poised to cede US Sovereignty and signing this will not be anything new. So, that's not a non-sequitur.
Its good you've learned a new word, now go and learn the definition.
Swiftee didn't dispute anything except the Treaty would over-ride the Constitution. Excuse me Swiftee if I don't take your zero years of studying the constitution over my confirmed understanding.
Point One:
In the 1957 case of Reid v Covert it was made clear that: "The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution."
That's pretty clear.
Point Two:
Article VI clause 2 of the US Constitution
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.
Point Three:
If a treaty could over-ride the Constitution, wouldn't Bush be on trial at the world court for war crimes? Yes.
There is not a transfer of wealth. China and India, two of the biggest polluters, have signed on.
We are 5% of the worlds population yet, utilize 25% of the worlds oil.
Like I said, this whole thing by the viscount is set up to work on the ignorant. Arm yourself with knowledge of process and history and you'll be less likely to fall for it.
Swiftee, being the snapperhead that he is, is against it, because Democrats are for it. Its a reflex.
Remind me again who inherited a budget surplus and turned it into the biggest deficit ever? Who ignored intelligence reports until we were hit with the biggest strike of domestic terrorism since the civil war? Who sent us into two wars and didn't even wait for real evidence or even proper equipment for our troops? Who sank our economy to the verge of a Depression Era collapse? Who gave the largest tax cuts in history to the smallest group and wrote blank checks for two wars without budgeting on how to pay for either one? Who killed the American good standing reputation around the world?
All of that would be the Republicans with you guys sitting back and nodding in agreement. Now either lend a hand of shut the f*** up and let us fix this mess you've left behind.
Eric
Ooof. What a mess.
Look, I don't come here for enlightenment, so no worries - but some of this stuff is...well, kinda out there.
OK snapperheads.
Eric, your swerving between "I'm more educated than you" and the namecalling would disorient a lesser guy.
Fortunately, I'm not a lesser guy.
Read the title. I gave four clear points of how Obama CANNOT be poised to cede US Sovereignty and signing this will not be anything new. So, that's not a non-sequitur.
Well, it's actually a non-sequitur on both of your parts. While there are parts of the right that make more of the "treaty" angle than they should (and the left-leaning media is perfectly happy to publicize it, just as they are the birthers), the treaty would enact policies that are, frankly, stupid no matter who is "sovereign" over their enactment. Fortunately, Americans are figuring that out.
Which, I suspect, explains some of the name-calling y'all (plural) are putting out, Eric.
Excuse me Swiftee if I don't take your zero years of studying the constitution over my confirmed understanding.
Er, Eric, I believe you're confusing "schooling" with "education". Please see to that.
Point Three:
If a treaty could over-ride the Constitution, wouldn't Bush be on trial at the world court for war crimes? Yes.
Well, provided that the courts actually ruled that his use of wartime executive powers actually did violate the constitution. Which is still very much in question.
There is not a transfer of wealth. China and India, two of the biggest polluters, have signed on.
Well, sort of. They have a different plan than we do; since they've sold themselves as "developing nation" they get the "lite" version.
We are 5% of the worlds population yet, utilize 25% of the worlds oil.
Actually, we use 20% of the world's energy, not just oil.
But just curious, Eric - people throw that figure around a lot, without acknowledging its logical extension. So do you know what percentage of the world's productivity we are?
The total world GDP is 70 Trillion dollars. The US, even in its current depressed state, is 14 Trillion of that.
So we use 20% of the world's energy to create 20% of its GDP. Which means we are actually five times more efficient than the world as a whole.
Arm yourself with knowledge of process and history and you'll be less likely to fall for it.
And arm yourself with enough, and you'll never vote Democrat again!
Swiftee, being the snapperhead that he is, is against it, because Democrats are for it. Its a reflex.
And as reflexes go, it's not a bad one.
I should really sign this off now - but you left some strawmen lying around. They need to be lit on fire and kicked into the gutter:
Remind me again who inherited a budget surplus and turned it into the biggest deficit ever?
So many responses to this:
1) a "surplus" merely means we're over-taxed. It's not a good thing in and of itself.
2) Did I miss the Bush "Surplus Destruction Act", or could it be that the end of the Tech Bubble, 9/11 and - finally - the mortgage meltdown might have had something to do with that?
Who ignored intelligence reports until we were hit with the biggest strike of domestic terrorism since the civil war?
Eric, I'm glad to see you believe Presidents are clairvoyant and can predict the future. Presidents see all kinds of intelligence reports, predicting all kinds of things; the CIA does not, shall we say, have a confidence-building record (especially due to the "wall" the Clinton Administration under Jamie Gorelick built between the CIA, the military and the FBI)
Who sent us into two wars and didn't even wait for real evidence or even proper equipment for our troops?
So many chanting points. So little time.
What "real evidence" did we need in Afganistan in 2001?
And the troops had "proper equipment" for the war the US military had been preparing to fight since 1975; the Clinton Administration underspent on the military, and failed to fund any serious change in doctrine from Cold War mechanized doctrine to the small-scale counterinsurgency wars we face today. (I suggest reading Robert Kaplan's Imperial Grunts for the best explanation I've seen of this whole conundrum).
Who sank our economy to the verge of a Depression Era collapse?
Ooh, that's easy! A policy of privatizing reward and subsidizing risk, dating back to 1998, in which the government both mandated more subprime loans and promised to fob all the bad debt off on Fan and Fred. It was a bipartisan debacle; people on both sides profited, and people on both sides warned us about it. To claim otherwise is very, very dishonest.
Who gave the largest tax cuts in history
Hyperbole alert! Reagan's were bigger as a percentage of GDP.
And you might recall (although not with any help from the media) that the economy DID have 3-4 really good years, there, thanks entirely to the tax cuts.
Who killed the American good standing reputation around the world?
Um, don't look now, but not only did everyone who hated us from 2000-2008 hate us before 2000, but Obama has already trashed us with whole new parts of the world; Poland, the Czechs, Georgia...
All of that would be the Republicans with you guys sitting back and nodding in agreement.
On some special little world where "reality" equals "Democrat propaganda"? Perhaps.
Not in the world we all live in.
Now either lend a hand of shut the f*** up and let us fix this mess you've left behind..
Er, I'll take option 3 - evict both the sitting administration and the RINOS that botched things up from 2004-2008, if it's all right with you.
Swiftee said... Eric useless. morons.
others have been saying the same thing about the two "want-ta-bee's that lurk behind their party and their slick ways.
Swiftee, do you feel Chuck and Eric are just a couple of yes men that don't really have a life in the political hairum. DFL
Swiftee,
If that's what you call an attempt to a serious conversation, you are more delusional than I suspected.
So, your point is that this Viscount over played his hand in the whole constitution verses treaty? Clearly we've spent four emails saying that.
You then went on to say:
Lord Monckton overstated the authority, but he is 100% correct on all the other aspects of this Obamanation.
It does in fact include a transfer of wealth, it does in fact impose restrictions upon the sovereignty of the countries stupid enough to sign on and the US will without any doubt be the biggest loser on the planet.
You said all of that without giving one example of it. I too am familiar with the agreement and read it completely different. Of course in your snapperhead you believe that I hate America and want to sell out to some pantaloons wearing bicyclists. I know on the other hand that politicians you have supported have in turn divided this country, sold out our friends, trumped up war, destroyed access to the American Dream for millions and fan the flames of hate. You work the hate angle in every email.
Without proof or opinion you go to say:
Clinton was impeached for buffoonery; it's time we remember what High Crimes and Misdemeanors really are and we will never have a better example.
Once again snapperhead, what example?
You crying, scared, pissypants lost the election. You didn't loose a war. You lost an election to the other American political party.
Figure out how to live with it, or go blow your brains out. Whatever.
Eric
Mitch,
the answer to all of the above is George W. Bush.
Spin it how you want and try changing the preface but, the fact is, his policies with the Congressional Republicans as accomplices left us open for the greatest terror attack on our soil, sent us into Iraq with questionable evidence, no national security interest, and ill-equipped troops. He also sank our economy and depleted our own ability to save/free/rescue our own countrymen when in a time of crisis.
worst. president. ever.
The whole set up of this title post is to project something that is not happening and pretty impossible for any president to do. History and process will help you come to this conclusion.
As I told Lord Swiftiton, you lost an election, not a war. This shit your side is pulling is both dividing the country and killing your support (only 20% of the people admit to being Republicans now).
I'm going to agree partially with Michele Bachmann (R-Crazytown), we may need to bring back the hearings on patriotism and start calling out the un-American activity happening all around us. We gave you Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. What more do you want with those viewpoints you have.
Eric
Mitch,
the answer to all of the above is George W. Bush.
Spin it how you want and try changing the preface but, the fact is, his policies with the Congressional Republicans as accomplices left us open for the greatest terror attack on our soil, sent us into Iraq with questionable evidence, no national security interest, and ill-equipped troops. He also sank our economy and depleted our own ability to save/free/rescue our own countrymen when in a time of crisis.
worst. president. ever.
The whole set up of this title post is to project something that is not happening and pretty impossible for any president to do. History and process will help you come to this conclusion.
As I told Lord Swiftiton, you lost an election, not a war. This shit your side is pulling is both dividing the country and killing your support (only 20% of the people admit to being Republicans now).
I'm going to agree partially with Michele Bachmann (R-Crazytown), we may need to bring back the hearings on patriotism and start calling out the un-American activity happening all around us. We gave you Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. What more do you want with those viewpoints you have.
Eric
Eric,
Ah, I get it. I bring up history, facts, actual occurrences, and if I need to, cites...
...but you say "the fact is...", and that's all she wrote?
Please.
As to your "badthink" hearings - wow. Just...wow. I remember when "dissent was the highest form of patriotism", don't you?
Eric,
Non-responsive response duly noted.
This shit your side is pulling is both dividing the country
Er, so what?
We who dissent are supposed to fall blindly in line behind The One, just because you really really want us to?
Baloney! Our system is supposed to foster a vigorous debate!
And so if you feel the need to clutch your pearls and get the vapors because we not only disagree with you, but say it out loud, that'd be your problem, not ours, right?
and killing your support (only 20% of the people admit to being Republicans now).
SFW? Show me the crosstabs.
And then I'll show you that a majority of independents are turning away from the Dems, it's a year 'til the next election, Obama passion index is minus 13, and the conservative base is the most motivated it's been in a generation.
IN short - your polls are meaningless, and your attempt to demonize dissent is as unamerican and heavyhanded as everything else about this really, really not-ready-for-prime-time administration.
Not to comment-bomb, but this one here was bugging me all night. I'm gonna write about it on my blog (when I get my code fixed :-(
This shit your side is pulling is both dividing the country
I've always been curious about that when Dems say it. "Dividing" the country? The country is divided! It's why we have elections! If the country weren't divided, we wouldn't need parties, elections, or courts for that matter!
No, I know - what you want is for all of us to fall in line behind The One and not ask any questions, because questioning and thinking are "divisive".
But I have a question, Eric; why is it that "dissent was the highest form of patriotism" from 2000-2008 when it meant burning flags and yelling "Chimpy McBushitler!" and enforcing campus speech codes (against conservative speech only, naturally) and rioting in the streets and wishing President Bush and all Republicans would just drop dead...
...but showing up at town hall meetings and taxpayer rallies to protest Obama's wastrelcy is "divisive" "shit"?
You all ever have an answer for that, but I figured I'd ask anyway.
(And I love the way that "chimpy mcbushitler" is PC, but calling the sitting president "jug-eared mctoothy" would get the PC police stomping on my rhetorical head...)
"So, your point is that this Viscount over played his hand in the whole constitution verses treaty?"
Veeeery good, dolt! (pats your pointy little head)
"Clearly we've spent four emails saying that."
*blink*....*blink*
Bwahahahaha! Right. When dealing with scary smart liberals, it takes two posts to make one point because I have to add emphasis to posts I've already made to drag the special needs kids along!
HAHAHAHaaaaaa(I can see your lips moving, dolt!)hahahahahahaahahaha
hahahahaha(sound it out...sound it out)aaaahahah
hahahahahahahahahahaahahaha(use your words..)hahahahahahaahahahah
a(you lefty morons are killing me!!1!)hahahahahahahahahaaha!
Say Eric?
Upon careful consideration I've concluded you are not smart enough to hate America...you're just running on instinct.
Post a Comment
<< Home