Obama to Cede US Sovereignty - Part I.

Your stance on the signing of the treaty.

  • I have read the treaty and I think it should be signed.

    Votes: 5 35.7%
  • I have read the treaty and I think it should not be signed.

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • I have not read the treaty but I think it should be signed.

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • I have not read the treaty but I think it should not be signed.

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • I don't care.

    Votes: 4 28.6%

  • Total voters
    14

Tesselator

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jan 9, 2008
4,601
4
Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40&feature=player_embedded
Full event with slides: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8&feature=channel

Partial Transcript:
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.

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 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!



Treaty Draft:
 

tofagerl

macrumors 6502a
May 16, 2006
952
389
Lol. Dude, come back when you actually have the signature on the paper. These conspiracies aren't actually as fun as you think once you begin to pick up on the fact that they're all created by the same 10-20 guys in their parents cellars.
 

obeygiant

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,003
3,776
totally cool
Christ- where do the come up with this s***? :rolleyes:
I'll agree that the topic is a little "out-there" but there is no need to be rude, Lee.

Don't you remember some of the hyperbolic threads about "Bush starting another war to let him stay in office"? Those got plenty of serious discussion.

I'll wait to see if tesselator can come up with some more hard-- not so dramatic-- evidence.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
I'll agree that the topic is a little "out-there" but there is no need to be rude, Lee.

Don't you remember some of the hyperbolic threads about "Bush starting another war to let him stay in office"? Those got plenty of serious discussion.

I'll wait to see if tesselator can come up with some more hard-- not so dramatic-- evidence.
This thread topic is rude. Let's see- a link to some wacko on youtube and a link to globalclimatescam.com. Trustworthy stuff right there.

And I guess you don't remember how many people got shot down in those other threads, do you?
 

obeygiant

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,003
3,776
totally cool
This thread topic is rude.

And I guess you don't remember how many people got shot down in those other threads, do you?
Well if I could find it, I'd like to see. But I doubt you were the one doing the shooting down.

SMM, who started that thread, was virulently anti-bush some would say to the point of delusion.


And the thread topic is not rude. At least he isn't posting nude pictures of himself, right? ;)
 

Peace

macrumors Core
Apr 1, 2005
19,467
3,833
Space--The ONLY Frontier
I remember being one of the ones who said Bush could start another war in order to stay in office. And I still believe he had it in him to do something like that. Being a warmonger like he was. But that pales in comparison to this topic.
 

Tesselator

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jan 9, 2008
4,601
4
Japan
Lol. Dude, come back when you actually have the signature on the paper. These conspiracies aren't actually as fun as you think once you begin to pick up on the fact that they're all created by the same 10-20 guys in their parents cellars.
Are you suggesting Lord Christopher Monckton a Nobel laureate, is one of "10-20 guys in their parrents cellars"?

That begs the question just how out of touch can one be.

Peace!
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
Well if I could find it, I'd like to see. But I doubt you were the one doing the shooting down.

SMM, who started that thread, was virulently anti-bush some would say to the point of delusion.
Oh no- I wasn't shooting down in those threads. Given what Bush had already done, why would it be a surprise?


And the thread topic is not rude. At least he isn't posting nude pictures of himself, right? ;)
Whatever, dude. When you start a thread with links like these, it doesn't exactly make people want to jump up, cheer and pat you on the back.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,237
quae tangit perit Trump
Well if I could find it, I'd like to see. But I doubt you were the one doing the shooting down.

SMM, who started that thread, was virulently anti-bush some would say to the point of delusion.
That's your go-to-thread for "crazy things people said about Bush" and it's still a tu quoque fallacy.

Is this argument just as insane? I think so.

And the thread topic is not rude. At least he isn't posting nude pictures of himself, right? ;)
That would have made for a far better thread.
 

Macky-Mac

macrumors 68030
May 18, 2004
2,589
1,142
lol.....do those links lead to something done by Alex Jones and his pal, that guy who's a Lyndon LaRouche crony??

and if you don't know who alex is.......well, that's just proof of the conspiracy to silence him!! :eek:
 

plinden

macrumors 68040
Apr 8, 2004
3,969
3
Are you suggesting Lord Christopher Monckton a Nobel laureate, is one of "10-20 guys in their parrents cellars"?

That begs the question just how out of touch can one be.

Peace!
Eh? Is this the former journalist Monckton you're talking about? What Nobel prize did he win?
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,237
quae tangit perit Trump
Hahaha, you call "tu quoque" in this situation? I suppose the irony is lost on you.
I don't see the irony, merely you complaining yet again that since SMM said something crazy once and Leekohler didn't beat him about the head and shoulders about it, and therefore cannot offer a critique of the crazy thing that Tessalator has said.

I simply disagree with you, and I think your critique is a tu quoque.
 

obeygiant

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,003
3,776
totally cool
I don't see the irony, merely you complaining yet again that since SMM said something crazy once and Leekohler didn't beat him about the head and shoulders about it, and therefore cannot offer a critique of the crazy thing that Tessalator has said.

I simply disagree with you, and I think your critique is a tu quoque.
Well yes its tu quoque, I just disagree on the "fallacy" part. I'm not trying to divert attention away from the OT.

Also the so called "critique" from Lee was "Christ- where do the come up with this s***?" Believe me there are a few threads in the PRSI that I could just blurt that out, but I don't. I'm not saying he can't critique what was said but I'm sure something better could be said.

For instance, would signing this treaty violate Article VI of the US Constitution --Supremacy of the Constitution?
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,237
quae tangit perit Trump
Well yes its tu quoque, I just disagree on the "fallacy" part. I'm not trying to divert attention away from the OT.

Also the so called "critique" from Lee was "Christ- where do the come up with this s***?" Believe me there are a few threads in the PRSI that I could just blurt that out, but I don't. I'm not saying he can't critique what was said but I'm sure something better could be said.
Okay, in that I agree with you.

For instance, would signing this treaty violate Article VI of the US Constitution --Supremacy of the Constitution?
Interesting question. Let's look at the original document text:

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.
However, from Article VI:

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.
So, any treaties, made under the Executive branch and authorized by Congress, does become the law of the land, so long as it does not supersede the US Constitution.

So, the question would be, how would the Copenhagen treaty conflict with the US Constitution?