Obama to Cede US Sovereignty in December

[jsharmon7]

Thanks for the brief jsharmon.
There is nooo way I'm printing that out, and I can't stand to read more than a few pages (on screen) at a time.
So I'll read it whenever. I have a whole month and a half according to Lord Mintcake.

Maybe he's drawing some likely conclusion as to where this treaty will lead. Or maybe he was just trying to be dramatically English, and scare the daylights out of some northern minnasota kids whilst feeling Englishly superior.

That's only what I read from it, I could always be wrong. I just didn't see anything, anywhere that would lead me to make the conclusions made by Lord Mintcake (haha!). It's mainly setting out a plan of commitment by the global community to reduce the (supposed) impact of carbon emissions, global warming, etc. I think it's good to be vigilant of stuff like this, but it's hardly the cloak and dagger stuff it's made out to be.

 

[mettle]

Sounds like BS to me. Needs to be independently verified from a variety of sources. And, what makes him a Climate Change Expert? It has always amazed me how people think a British accent is a sign of intelligence and a Southern accent is a sign of stupidity. Anyways, I think this is probably BS and is just another case of trolling.

Sarge, I think this guy has called you out. You're 3900 posts, 2 stars and constant posts filled w/ quality research PROVES that you are a troll...


I KNEW there was something about you .....

 

[jedi]

4Sarge I really HATE your post because it just saddens my heart where our country is going, the lack of voice we (the people) currently have, and I want to go back to the day of being an ignorant, stupid, mindless American that though the whole world loved us, we could change the world via peaceful means, and bring democracy to the rest of the world.

 

[mettle]

4Sarge I really HATE your post because it just saddens my heart where our country is going, the lack of voice we (the people) currently have, and I want to go back to the day of being an ignorant, stupid, mindless American that though the whole world loved us, we could change the world via peaceful means, and bring democracy to the rest of the world.

I was saddened too...

 

[WWIIIDefender]

Here is a copy of the very treaty.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf

 

[VN Vet]

I wish I were forty years younger but just as ticked!

 

[4sarge]

4Sarge I really HATE your post because it just saddens my heart where our country is going, the lack of voice we (the people) currently have, and I want to go back to the day of being an ignorant, stupid, mindless American that though the whole world loved us, we could change the world via peaceful means, and bring democracy to the rest of the world.

I HATE it also and if I were not living in these perilous times would think that it was a work of fiction. The Sheeple and Progressive Kool Aid drinkers are leading us all to the slaughter. It's like a bad episode of the [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x0BSgLKnSk&feature=related"]Twilight Zone[/ame]

 

[4sarge]

That's only what I read from it, I could always be wrong. I just didn't see anything, anywhere that would lead me to make the conclusions made by Lord Mintcake (haha!). It's mainly setting out a plan of commitment by the global community to reduce the (supposed) impact of carbon emissions, global warming, etc. I think it's good to be vigilant of stuff like this, but it's hardly the cloak and dagger stuff it's made out to be.

It is a treaty that relinquishes US Sovereignty to the United Nations and redistributes the wealth of the US to unnamed 3rd world countries. All penalties and rule of law would be enforced upon the US without the Constitutional protections or system of American Law that we are accustomed too. Sorry, I'll take the experts opinion over yours

Lord Monckton is one of the few people who has thorough familiarity with a recently completed draft of the treaty President Obama will sign in Copenhagen in just a matter of weeks. He does not mince words about what he has found in the course of his reading of the document.

The treaty is not just a foot in the door for one-world government. It IS communist, one-world government. And because of the high regard in which our Constitution holds foreign treaties, this document, if ratified by Congress, would supercede the Constitution.

The treaty will, of course, be signed under the banner of coming together internationally to "save the environment" through the reduction of carbon emissions. Except, oh dear, cat's out of the bag...global warming is a giant lie.

While Lord Monckton has become one of the most visible and vocal apologists for this fact, he is hardly alone. MANY credible scientists with solidly conducted research to back them up, have revealed the meme of human-caused climate change as a complete farce.

 

[spartan933]

No, I am not limey toothed. I have a dental plan. No, I am not an Obama or Gore lover. For that matter, I am not a George Bush lover either. You don't have to be one or the other. Also, when I made the statement "drunkard" on my profile, I was referring to Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca. You know, when the Nazis ask him what his nationality is and he says, "I'm a drunkard." And, comparing my post count and number of reputation points is just silly. The simple fact is that 4sarge has likely been on this forum longer than I have and posts a lot more than I do. Are we having a measuring contest now? And, I don't know what's wrong with being thirty years old.

Now, yes, I think this is BS. If you can independently verify this and show that it is going to create a "New World Order", which is what I think everyone is concerned about, then by all means I will agree with you. But, as far as I can tell, this is an issue regarding climate change. The UN might actually do something and regulate carbon emissions or something. So what? Let them do it. They aren't taking over the United States and they aren't going to control what we do. How many other treaties and agreements has the United States entered into over the years? But, because one English guy that has "lord" in front of his name says so, everyone else thinks it must be true. I am sorry. I am not going to buy it.

And, regarding this issue of referring to 4sarge as troll. If you are not a troll, then I apologize, sincerely.

Why did I say you were a troll?:

What I have been seeing on INGO Politics lately is a lot of people who are afraid of something, whatever it may be, because others tell them they should be. And then everyone gets ramped up and no one takes the time to actually look around and verify information. Or, they only look at websites that could be considered "conservative". So, they are reinforced of their opinion, because it's easier that way.

And, no, I am not attacking Conservatives. I feel the same way about liberals.

Anyways, that is my point. If you are not a troll. Then I am truly sorry if I insulted you.

 

[jsharmon7]

It is a treaty that relinquishes US Sovereignty to the United Nations and redistributes the wealth of the US to unnamed 3rd world countries. All penalties and rule of law would be enforced upon the US without the Constitutional protections or system of American Law that we are accustomed too. Sorry, I'll take the experts opinion over yours

Well I'm glad to hear that you'll take his opinion over mine. I'd be even happier if you'd read the document in question and form your OWN opinion rather than simply believing him because he's "an expert." If YOU can point out to me where in that document it says we're doing anything other than committing to some guideliness for reducing climate change and providing money (which I don't agree with) in order to help developing countries in this endeavor, then I may agree as well. Call me crazy but I'd rather read it myself and make my own decision, right or wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you posted this article because it's always good to be vigilant. I just think we need to read it for what it is rather than summise that this is the end of U.S. sovereignty as we know it.

 

[LEaSH]

4sarge: Just highlight or quote the part(s) of the treaty which leads you to believe that we are doomed to the dissolution of United States sovereignty.
And tell me how the UN is finally going to become effective in enforcing its 'demands' for the first time in history.
When Obama is out and a republican is in - I don't see anything more than a strongly worded letter being sent from the UN to the USA expressing their discontent.

I haven't gotten even halfway through it, but before I reinforce anymore fearmongering, I think I'd like to know what I'm talking about, myself.

Lord Sugarsnot wouldn't be the first to profit from other peoples' fears. And I doubt he has much else to do. If not one Republican office holder is aware of this treaty and has not said a peep - rest assured we're too screwed to do a thing about it. Why wouldn't a congressman or senator be screaming bloody murder at this point?

 

[SavageEagle]

Thanks for posting this 4sarge. Very enlightening indeed. The transfer of wealth, the building of a One World Government, yea, I see the danger and I'm pretty worried as well.

What I have been seeing on INGO Politics lately is a lot of people who are afraid of something, whatever it may be, because others tell them they should be. And then everyone gets ramped up and no one takes the time to actually look around and verify information. Or, they only look at websites that could be considered "conservative". So, they are reinforced of their opinion, because it's easier that way.

Now, I have to wonder, does what the government do not concern you at all? Do you not get worried when they say they are going to take your money and give it to these people so they can do with it as they wish? Do you not see the Foundation for the NWO in the UN and this as another stepping stone? A BIG one at that!

Anytime they take your money in taxes and gives it to another Country or Body of people that is essentially holding a gun to your head and forcing you to pay them money. Tell me you're against that.

Also, according to what I'm reading, this is a treaty that we can't just back out of. It says that anyone wishing to leave the treaty will have to be voted out and I doubt they'll do that. And what if we just leave and tell them SCREW YOU? Trade relations might disappear. Yep, no more overseas electronics. No more overseas steel, cars, food, medicines, etc etc etc. I don't know how you CANT see the inherent danger here.

 

[SavageEagle]

Page 8:

9. The shared vision for long-term cooperative action recognizes the strong link between adaptation
and mitigation as well as the cross-cutting role played by financing, technology transfer and capacitybuilding.
Failure to implement ambitious and immediate mitigation actions by developed countries will
increase the need for adaptation in developing countries and therefore for financial support. At the same
time, increased financial support and technology transfer to developing countries will help these
countries in their implementation of NAMAs, reducing the risk of crossing tipping points that could​

result in abrupt climate change.

Money and Technology transfer. Pretty broad to me. Plus, it forces us to give things to other Countries. That doesn't worry anyone?

10. Led by developed country Parties, [an economic transition is needed [that shifts] [in order to
adjust] global economic growth patterns towards a sustainable [low-emission economy] based on
development of innovative technologies, more sustainable production and consumption, promoting
sustainable lifestyles and [climate-resilient] [sustainable] development [while ensuring a just transition of
the workforce]. The active participation of all stakeholders in this transition should be sought [, be they
governmental, including subnational and local government, private business or civil society, including
the youth and addressing the need for gender equity].] Those developing countries that were and are low
carbon economies need sufficient financial incentives and appropriate technology transfer to keep
avoiding GHG emissions in their path to sustainable development and to prevent adopting the high GHG​

emission trajectories of developed countries.

read that again. No, here...

The active participation of all stakeholders in this transition should be sought [, be they

governmental, including subnational and local government, private business or civil society, including​

the youth and addressing the need for gender equity].]

:wtf: does gender equity have anything to do with climate change? Maybe they want men to fart less? And this here shows that they will be forcing not just governments, but BUSINESSES and CIVIL SOCIETY (I.E. YOU) to conform to their regulations or face ?????... Sounds like change we can on....​

Page 9​

15. [All Annex I Parties also agree to present Carbon Neutral Strategies (CNS) containing their

vision to meet their quantified targets by 2020. This plan by all Annex I Parties, will act as a transparent
modality in meeting the Annex I Party individual targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will​

​

​

outline a mitigation policy in totality as well as measures how it will meet its targets and stay on track.]​

2020. Are they serious? Kill all coal fired power plants, non-hybrid cars, blah blah blah in 10 years? Yep. I'm all for that. What's the alternitive? Nuclear Plants? There's no way windmills and solar plants will make up the capacity. get rid of our carbon emitting cars trucks and semis? Oh yea, transportation industry down the tube. GREAT idea.​

17. [All Parties should aim to undertake a similar level of effort to others at a similar level of

development and with similar national circumstances.] [Developing countries] [Those Parties] whose
national circumstances reflect greater [responsibilities] [responsibility] and [capabilities] [capability]
[must contribute to the effort] [should make a greater contribution to the global effort] to address climate
change, including for limitations of emissions and enhancement of removals of greenhouse gas emissions​

​

​

and in assisting the most vulnerable Parties and populations to adapt to climate change.]]​

Considering we are the largest "contributor" to "Global Warming", this is obviously geared to hurt us. How anyone can't see that is beyond me.​

Page 10​

20. In order to fulfill this shared vision, Parties have agreed to establish a coherent, cohesive and

integrated system of financial and technology transfer mechanisms under the Convention and a follow​

​

​

up/compliance mechanism. These institutions are robust and effective. emphasis mine​

Are they SERIOUS? I call . How do they know they are effective? Effective against what? ​

21. [The shared vision [for] [is of] long-term cooperative action, including the long-term global goal

for emission reductions, [shall be guided by the ultimate objective of the Convention and its provisions
and the principles] [to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention and ensure its full, effective and
sustained implementation, in accordance with its provisions and principles], recognizing that their
application as regards individual Parties should evolve, in particular the [principles of [on the basis of
equity and of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, as well as the
precautionary principle and state responsibility [, that are enshrined in the Convention] to guide the
international community in addressing climate change], in particular articles 3.2, 3.3 and 3.5 of the
Convention. [It also] [takes] [taking] into account environmental, evolving national circumstances,
including social and economic [and political] conditions [, the specific needs and special circumstances of developing countries, precautionary approaches, the right to development and sustainable economic
growth] [and other relevant factors]]] [as reflected in the Convention], and ensuring that global crises,
such as the financial crisis, should not constitute an obstacle to the provision of financial and technical​

​

​

assistance to developing countries in accordance with the Convention. emphasis mine​

Ok, so even though we are all going BROKE and can't afford to feed our own people's, it shouldn't matter and we should STILL continue to fund the organization to accomplish ?????... Still don't see the inherent danger here?​

Please read this treaty. I don't have the time to sit here and point out all the flaws I see, and I'm sure I overlooked MANY more just in the first ten pages. I didn't even get to the part about the take over of US Sovernty.​

This is VERY disturbing and just as this was tried before (can't think of the name of the convention) it will have no good effects for this Country.


EDIT: sorry the quoted parts are broken. Don't know how it happened and I'm too lazy now to fix it. It is Sunday after all.

EDIT2: Now they're not broken. Mods, are you messing with me or WHAT???? ​

 

[MeltonLaw]

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution, 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.

I stopped reading after this because it is a true and utter falsity. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any treaty is subject to that law. There have been several cases in which a treaty has been challenged on constitutional grounds and SCOTUS has held that the treaty is subject to Constitutional protections. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)
This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. 33 For example, [***1164] 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 [*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." Id. at 1231.

 

[TopDog]

What I have been seeing on INGO Politics lately is a lot of people who are afraid of something, whatever it may be, because others tell them they should be. And then everyone gets ramped up and no one takes the time to actually look around and verify information. Or, they only look at websites that could be considered "conservative". So, they are reinforced of their opinion, because it's easier that way.

Wow, where to start on this? Yes people here on INGO are largely of a like mind. But not in a similar manner as the sheep who accept whatever they are told. I get the feeling that most of the INGO population are very informed and genuinely concerned if not involved in current events. So what are you basing this accusation? The fact that some of the posts are not verbose enough for you? Perhaps you formed that opinion because not every response is jammed packed with points and counterpoints? Instead largely just reinforcement of the previous posts or agreement with such posts?

I think you may be mistaking the enthusiasm expressed here as people blindly jumping on the band wagon. I don't think so, many people here are probably reading the same sources of information and may already be upset about the subject matter, then they see like minded people expressing their own discourse and simply agree.

You of course are able to express your opinion here as well, I would just caution you do exercise a little restraint when accusing other members as being trolls.

And, no, I am not attacking Conservatives. I feel the same way about liberals.

Well it sounds eerily as if you are:

Or, they only look at websites that could be considered "conservative".

So what you don't think these people are exposed to the liberal media? You don't think they are exposed directly (co-workers, family members etc) or indirectly (casually meeting people in stores, on the street etc) to liberal rhetoric? You really think in this day and age the only source of influence would be certain types of web sites?

Hey I could be wrong. I'm very surprised it took this long for people to wake up to the wrongs their government (both the conservative and liberal sides) have forced on them. I'm amazed they are just now taking varied and very exposed (tea parties, sending pink slips) actions that express their anger at what has been forced upon them. But hey that is what you get in a republic isn't it? That was sarcasm in case its miss read, this is not what the founding fathers had in mind.

 

[mettle]

Page 8:



Money and Technology transfer. Pretty broad to me. Plus, it forces us to give things to other Countries. That doesn't worry anyone?



read that again. No, here...

:wtf: does gender equity have anything to do with climate change? Maybe they want men to fart less? And this here shows that they will be forcing not just governments, but BUSINESSES and CIVIL SOCIETY (I.E. YOU) to conform to their regulations or face ?????... Sounds like change we can on....​

Page 9​

2020. Are they serious? Kill all coal fired power plants, non-hybrid cars, blah blah blah in 10 years? Yep. I'm all for that. What's the alternitive? Nuclear Plants? There's no way windmills and solar plants will make up the capacity. get rid of our carbon emitting cars trucks and semis? Oh yea, transportation industry down the tube. GREAT idea.​

Considering we are the largest "contributor" to "Global Warming", this is obviously geared to hurt us. How anyone can't see that is beyond me.​

Page 10​

Are they SERIOUS? I call . How do they know they are effective? Effective against what? ​

Ok, so even though we are all going BROKE and can't afford to feed our own people's, it shouldn't matter and we should STILL continue to fund the organization to accomplish ?????... Still don't see the inherent danger here?​

Please read this treaty. I don't have the time to sit here and point out all the flaws I see, and I'm sure I overlooked MANY more just in the first ten pages. I didn't even get to the part about the take over of US Sovernty.​

This is VERY disturbing and just as this was tried before (can't think of the name of the convention) it will have no good effects for this Country.


EDIT: sorry the quoted parts are broken. Don't know how it happened and I'm too lazy now to fix it. It is Sunday after all.

EDIT2: Now they're not broken. Mods, are you messing with me or WHAT???? ​

Savage, Spartan said not to worry, and the information is probably wrong b/c it is from the media. So, settle down and just stop being concerned.

{loud policeman's voice}--- THERE IS NOTHING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT FOLKS, MOVE ALONG, MOVE ALONG.

 

[SavageEagle]

Savage, Spartan said not to worry, and the information is probably wrong b/c it is from the media. So, settle down and just stop being concerned.

{loud policeman's voice}--- THERE IS NOTHING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT FOLKS, MOVE ALONG, MOVE ALONG.

That's right. I'm sorry. I see the error of my ways. I'm being a right-winged nut job terrorist fear monger.

Nothing to see, move along.

 

[jsharmon7]

I agree with SE that this isn't in the best interest of the U.S., especially at this time. I also think it's highly debateable that there is really even that much cause to be concerned about global warming and climate change. I still don't think anyone can show that this has anything to do with Obama completely ceding U.S. sovereignty, which is the original point of this thread.

 

[Chefcook]

I am so Jacks look of non surprise....

 

[haldir]

Many of us post items that we find on the internet. It is usually because it is something that in our opinion is of some import that we felt like bringing to the attention of the other members. There are certain topics that I feel are important that I feel the MSM ignores due to PC reasons. So I bring them to everyone's attention when I see articles on those topics. Others may think they are unimportant. Others on occasion seem to take exception at just the mere posting of them. But I continue to do it as I feel forewarned is forearmed.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone is free to post their thoughts on the subject. I think we have a large diversity of opinions on here. There are people on here that I agree with on many topics but am diametrically opposed on other subjects. There are others on here that I disagree with on most every subject but I also feel they are sincere, respectful and thoughtful in their posts.