The Ultimate Betrayal

Jccarlton · Post by **Jccarlton** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:42 pm

Lord Monkton reads the Treaty of Copenhagen and finds an Abomination:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/o ... more-11739
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... ember.html

If Obama does indeed sign this, we will be in the position of hoping Harry Reid's Senate does not ratify it or we will no longer have the society we grew up in. Change indeed. On the other hand if Obama does sign it, I think it's grounds for impeachment.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:43 pm

Robthebob · Post by **Robthebob** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:43 pm

excuse my language, but what the frick is this?

Where are the evidence of the existence of such a treaty? Basically, as how it is with most information on the internet, pics or it didnt happen.

Professor Science · Post by **Professor Science** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:56 pm

Given the triviality of photoshop, even pics aren't that big of guarantor. Really though, you could jump and down and shout treason every time a president signs a treaty, any time you do that you cede a little bit of autonomy away. You can't do whatever you want in a neighborhood, you gotta respect your neighbors, this follows for nations too. so, just calm down and work on your space ship to neptune so you don't have to interact with humans ever again and can live in perfect autonomy.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 5:22 pm

I wouldn't worry, it won't be ratified. Dems are already running scared for 2010, and unlike our European friends the American public can discern propaganda from science.

Even the Beeb is starting to question AGW. When you start poking at the delicate house of cards of tendentious assumptions AGW is built on, it quickly becomes clear current policies are at best a massive, unproductive overreaction, at worst a form of quasi-religious ritual self-mutilation.

kurt9 · Post by **kurt9** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:14 pm

There isn't going to be any treaty. The Dems can't even get the climate bill that the House passed in June through the Senate. That climate bill appears to be going the same way as Clinton's BTU tax in 1993. Also, treaties must be ratified by the Senate with 2/3's vote. If they can't get the climate bill through the Senate, they certainly will not muster up a 2/3s Senate vote to ratify this treaty.

The treaty is a joke anyways. China and India has stated that they will not do anything to reduce their output of CO2 and consider this whole global warming theory to be simply a form of economic imperialism (which I agree with).

BTW, I'm pro-growth for developing countries. But I think AGW is horse pucky. I als think the best way to promote growth in the 3rd world is through direct foreign investment and economic liberalization, not through any kind of foreign aid schemes. The fact that East Asia has developed on the basis of direct foreign investment and economic liberalization rather than foreign aid should make it clear that foreign aid does not work and should be discontinued.

blaisepascal · Post by **blaisepascal** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:23 pm

Jccarlton wrote:Lord Monkton reads the Treaty of Copenhagen and finds an Abomination:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/o ... more-11739
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... ember.html

If Obama does indeed sign this, we will be in the position of hoping Harry Reid's Senate does not ratify it or we will no longer have the society we grew up in. Change indeed. On the other hand if Obama does sign it, I think it's grounds for impeachment.

The big caveat, even if the treaty as written matches what he says, is his conditional:

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.

(emphasis added)

Of course, the US Constitution, despite what some right-wing anti-treaty conspiracy advocates might say, says nothing of the sort. Here's the relevant part of the US constitution often cited.

Article VI, Clause 2. 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 Supremacy Clause states that the Constitution, Federal Law, and US Treaties, overrule state constitutions and law when they are properly in conflict. It does not state the treaties overrule the US Constitution (and one could even reasonably argue that a treaty which requires the US to violate it's constitution could not be "made under the Authority of the United States". Federal laws have occasionally been deemed to be unconstitutional and unenforceable; I see no reason why treaties couldn't fall into that same category.

I looked at the treaty document he is discussing. It's not the final treaty -- far from it. It's the current working draft of the committee working on the language. It includes many, many, many options, alternatives, fill-in-the-blanks, etc. Finalization of the text won't happen until the Copenhagen meeting. Any claim that this is "the treaty" is laughable.

However, I can see the text that is referred to. The only two uses of the word "government" I was able to find that do not refer to existing sovereign governments are on page 18, paragraph 38 (of the PDF at http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... n-2009.pdf), in which the basis for "The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention" is described. The three bases listed are "government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism". Subparagraph 38(a) describes the "government", 38(b) describes the Convention's financial mechanism, and 38(c) describes the facilitative mechanism.

In context, reading the rest of paragraph 38, it's clear that by "government", what is meant is "governance of the Convention", not a supreme world government supplanting the sovereignty of signatory parties.

Furthermore, given that this is a draft document, it is somewhat unsurprising that the very next part of the document is headed "Alternative to paragraph 1-38" (italics and underline in the original), which would replace the previous 12 pages with a few half-baked subordinate clauses suggesting a different thrust (and I half-baked, I mean it. The final three suggested clauses are "Considering, in that regard, that [ ] is/are desirable global indicator(s), Having a shared vision of [summary that ties together the elements of the agreement], Hereby adopts [an implementing agreement]."

Jccarlton · Post by **Jccarlton** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:05 pm

Frankly, I'm tired of always having my liberties hanging by a thread. Especially when the scissors are held by the likes of Harry Reid.
I probably should have posted this link as a connection:
http://green-agenda.com/index.html

These people have been following this agenda for a long time now. They have changed the reasons in light of the discrediting of the 'limits" computer models, but their goals remain the same. This is not something to laugh about.

djolds1 · Post by **djolds1** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:42 am

TallDave wrote:I wouldn't worry, it won't be ratified. Dems are already running scared for 2010, and unlike our European friends the American public can discern propaganda from science.

Even the European pols only signed onto Kyoto as a convenient excuse to raise taxes while befuddling their people. You can't get that blood from the AGW stone many times.

IntLibber · Post by **IntLibber** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:34 am

djolds1 wrote:
TallDave wrote:I wouldn't worry, it won't be ratified. Dems are already running scared for 2010, and unlike our European friends the American public can discern propaganda from science.
Even the European pols only signed onto Kyoto as a convenient excuse to raise taxes while befuddling their people. You can't get that blood from the AGW stone many times.

It's more than just about raising taxes on their own people, they want the US to ratify it so that we will hobble our economy so much that they will be able to start competing against ours again, while shortsightedly ignoring that China doesnt give a darn.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:12 am

Some video and a link to the treaty:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... order.html

And according to some guy I was the #4 blog on the i'net last week. In his opinion.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... -week.html

And believe it or not there is a Polywell conection - of sorts.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:25 am

It looks like the AGW "scientists" have been inverting some data:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/17/i ... side-down/

According to the "hockey stick" it is actually getting cooler.

And so it is. At least in the USA.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/18/a ... last-week/

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 am

You can't do whatever you want in a neighborhood, you gotta respect your neighbors,

There once was a neighborhood (well more than one actually) where killing undesirables by the millions was accepted by the local population as the right thing to do.

You know. I don't think I'm required to respect those neighbors. In fact I must oppose them with all that is within my means.

The same thing if the results of your neighbors proposed plan is the death of millions said plans being the result of unconfirmed fears.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:20 pm

Not sure I can find that stuff about 'a world government':

http://www.germanwatch.org/klima/treaty1nar.pdf

but what it does say is; "Feedback : We welcome and encourage your input and feedback to this text. Please send your comments and questions to the contacts available at the back cover of this document."

so get reading, and get writing [to your politicos as well]!!... (for what it may or may not be worth, but I don't believe in not saying something even if I don't think I'll make much of a difference - just think of how history will look back on this!!..)

IntLibber · Post by **IntLibber** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:22 pm

chrismb wrote:Not sure I can find that stuff about 'a world government':

http://www.germanwatch.org/klima/treaty1nar.pdf

but what it does say is; "Feedback : We welcome and encourage your input and feedback to this text. Please send your comments and questions to the contacts available at the back cover of this document."

so get reading, and get writing [to your politicos as well]!!... (for what it may or may not be worth, but I don't believe in not saying something even if I don't think I'll make much of a difference - just think of how history will look back on this!!..)

The treaty clearly says government, after all, who is going to be collecting the taxes being imposed on the member states?

Talk-Polywell.org

The Ultimate Betrayal

The Ultimate Betrayal

Re: The Ultimate Betrayal