You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord
2009-10-15
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 theyÂ’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody wonÂ’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.
Posted by:Bright Pebbles

#8  Given who the chief justice of the Supreme Court still is, I think Maggie Ebbuter2991 is still correct, Rambler.
Posted by: trailing wife   2009-10-15 20:32  

#7  Such a treaty would never be ratified in the first place. We'd toss out every last congressman and Senator and they know it. That is what happened with Kyoto.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2009-10-15 19:59  

#6  Sovereignty rests SOLELY with the people. It cannot be given away, except by coup.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2009-10-15 19:41  

#5  Maggie E, your take assumes that the Supreme Court agrees with you. There are some on the court, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who believe that we should take foreign law into consideration in US cases. They would be happy to cede sovereignty to Europe.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia   2009-10-15 18:03  

#4  His analysis is wrong. In American law, the Constitution always trumps treaties. To revoke a treaty that was confirmed by the Senate would only require an Act of Congress signed by the President.

While sovereignty is a major concern going forward, this is not a "hit the fan" moment.
Posted by: Maggie Ebbuter2991   2009-10-15 17:27  

#3  Well I posted the right URL...
Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2009-10-15 15:29  

#2  Sry, link appears to be broken
Posted by: GirlThursday   2009-10-15 14:59  

#1  Not at all surprising.
Posted by: Besoeker in Duitsland   2009-10-15 14:55  

00:00