Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Lord Monckton Said At Dinner . .
Right Side News ^ | October 17, 2009 | Kirsten Lombard

Posted on 10/17/2009 4:12:17 AM PDT by RightSideNews

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................

(Excerpt) Read more at rightsidenews.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: army; copenhagen; globalwarming; military; monckton; obama; treaty; usarmy; veterans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last
To: aruanan
Like that's never been done before in the absence of "official" amendments.

Yes, the usurpers have been able to get Unconstitutional laws enacted and enforced. But the last thing we should ever do is acquiesce to such usurpation, or fail to name the perpetrators as the treasonous scum they are.

21 posted on 10/17/2009 6:29:33 AM PDT by sourcery (Those whom the gods would destroy they first make socialist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary
Mentioned in the article "With wealth comes a cleaner environment."

Maybe. To be fair we would need to look at the long term. It's likely that we did a decent amount of damage in the getting there phase, so it may take some time for the net to be a gain.

But we also get to claim some credit. Cleaner technologies and the like that came out of our development can be utilized by developing nations, so we can make the claim that we have offset some of the damage they would have done, but no longer need to.

22 posted on 10/17/2009 6:50:29 AM PDT by Darth Reardon (https://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com/donate3.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RightSideNews
Lord Muncton said:
“But I will say one thing; they know, in the White House, that they won’t be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to ratify a treaty of this kind. However, what they’ve worked out is this – and they actually let it slip during the election campaign, which is how I know about it. They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple majority of both houses. That they can do. But the virtue of that – and here you have a point – is that is, thank God, reversible. So I want you to pray tonight, and pray hard for your Senate that they utterly refuse to ratify the [new] Treaty of Copenhagen, because if they refuse to ratify it and [Obama] has to push it through as domestic legislation, you can repeal it.”

We CAN'T stop Obummer from signing the darn thing, BUT we CAN stop senate ratification, thus killing it.

23 posted on 10/17/2009 7:07:07 AM PDT by faucetman (Just the facts ma'am, just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
“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.”

Treaties SHALL be the SUPREME LAW of the land.

While not superseding the constitution, it is nearly equal to and certainly supersedes congress. I would rank a treaty one small step below an amendment. In other words, I think treaties carry a lot of weight and are to be feared as a way to steal power from the people and their representatives.

24 posted on 10/17/2009 7:44:07 AM PDT by faucetman (Just the facts ma'am, just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 1stbn27; 2111USMC; 2nd Bn, 11th Mar; 68 grunt; A.A. Cunningham; ASOC; AirForceBrat23; Ajnin; ...
Related:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2364497/posts


25 posted on 10/17/2009 9:05:56 AM PDT by freema (MarineNiece,Daughter,Wife,Friend,Sister,Friend,Aunt,Friend,Mother,Friend,Cousin, FRiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RightSideNews

NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say that treaties supersede the Constitution. The Constitution for the United States is the SUPREME law of the land and NOTHING supersedes it. Treaties are more or less on a par with federal law, but ALL MUST CONFORM to the Constitution. Don’t you think the Founders had that one figured out??? That one day some Congress or President might want to do through a treaty what he couldn’t do through the Constitution??? Our Constitution says in Article VI that “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, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” So any law or treaty MUST BE MADE IN PURSUANCE OF (or conformance to) THE CONSTITUTION. So no treaty can be made which abrogates our rights or grants government more power than is allowed them by the Constitution. If they try? Well, We, the People, are still their employers and we do hold the last argument (The reset button, the Second Amendment).


26 posted on 10/17/2009 9:52:27 AM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faucetman

No, treaties do NOT supersede Congress. They must be ratified by the Senate, but they are the third item mentioned in Article VI, which is about the level of importance the Founders put on them. The do NOT have any real effect until or unless enabling legislation is passed by Congress and of course THAT may not exceed the specific authorities granted to Congress by the Constitution.


27 posted on 10/17/2009 9:58:43 AM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RightSideNews

Does the One plan to have the Senate approve it, or does he just intend to dispense with that requirement?


28 posted on 10/17/2009 10:25:24 AM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamomforfreedom

ping


29 posted on 10/17/2009 10:55:40 AM PDT by 2111USMC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
I would rank a treaty one small step below an amendment.

I believe you would.

30 posted on 10/17/2009 1:15:17 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Understand Natural Law and understand our Declaration of Independence & Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: freema
Three years to go. There may come a day soon where this POTUS just may face impeachment charges. Democrats on the Hill want to preserve their cozy jobs. If enough discontent grows, and sufficient charges are brought forth, Obi may end up going down hard. It is in the realm of possibilities. I am not throwing out false hope, just a thought.
I see many Democrats in the mode where they will try to distance themselves from this guy. It is weird how New Jersey Governer Corzine, is brazenly seeking Obi's help for reelection. His crew must not be aware of how voters are getting a whiff of what Obi is all about.
If zero agrees to the UN takeover, then it may be the last straw.
31 posted on 10/17/2009 5:09:17 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle

I’ve never found occasion to disagree with your thinkin’.


32 posted on 10/17/2009 6:19:07 PM PDT by freema (MarineNiece,Daughter,Wife,Friend,Sister,Friend,Aunt,Friend,Mother,Friend,Cousin, FRiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: freema

Likewise ma.


33 posted on 10/17/2009 6:39:33 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle

BUMP!


34 posted on 10/17/2009 10:32:08 PM PDT by Publius6961 (Â…he's not America, he's an employee who hasn't risen to minimal expectations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle
Democrats on the Hill want to preserve their cozy jobs.

In another time, even, perhaps, quite recently, that might've been true. It is no longer an operative truism, in my opinion.

What do you think the various stimulus bills were all about? Where do you think that money has gone? Quite apart from your run-of-the-mill daily doses of vice, venality, graft and corruption that these scoundrels (and worse) partake of, things have been rearranged on the deck of the Titanic to insure continued operability regardless (or perhaps because of) of circumstances or personnel.

For the Left (and that includes the apparatus that purports to govern us), this is their perceived end-game. They feel they have the numbers, power and influence to pull this off, and the money angle is deemed their ultimate social lubricant to make sure that the proper skids have been greased properly.

No, the Dems aren't particularly worried about their current/future lot in life, at least politically. The current situation is win/win for them. Should the populace remain docile enough, why it's no problem, and certainly no water off their backs. On the other hand, should things deteriorate and go south, they'll be gone faster than a $100 bill within easy reach of a hooker.

Remember, we here on this board are the well-informed, and our numbers are relatively small in the overall scheme of things, although I hope those numbers are increasing due to the current state of affairs. To be successful, should circumstances dictate an alternative approach to political realities, we'd have to reach a critical mass of 35% - 40% of the adult population before we can even begin to think of success.

In this instance, our enemy isn't really the left, it's the institutional torpor of "the middle" that has to be overcome. And that may be most difficult to accomplish, as that political mass rarely, if ever, is moved to action by anything but the most extreme antagonism.

The current Mafioso may indeed provide the stimulus (!) for such antagonism, but until such time as it shows promise of manifesting, it's presumptuous to feel that way, or rely on it.

CA....

35 posted on 10/17/2009 11:16:23 PM PDT by Chances Are (Whew! It seems I've at last found that silly grin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Chances Are

Your statements are well taken as well as also confirmed in my mind. I just threw out a remote possibility.


36 posted on 10/18/2009 4:41:32 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SonOfDarkSkies

I think are right on target. Revolution, but it is hard to imagine exactly how it will take place.


37 posted on 10/19/2009 8:13:31 AM PDT by mel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson