We Know that HW Bush mentioned the ‘One World Order’ in his speech, that Kerry and GW were in Skull and Bones, and I know that from everything I have seen, Bernanke brought down our economy by starting the downslide of it when he first got in by manipulatig the mortgage rates, and I know that Paulson also from Sachs was in on these deals.
All of these things were no mistakes - they have been in the works for years. We were just asleep on the Watch!
I was thinking about this. I listened to Lord Monckton twice. The part where one administration can giveaway America's freedom did not make sense. There has to be checks and balances in the event a communist president gets into office. Which I believe we have.
How far can a executive agreement go? Can a president enslave his country to other nations and give a new global power over our Constitution with his signature?
If Obama tries to sign this, it will be his final kiss off to America. Maybe the powers want to see him try it. They want to see how badly he wants our money going to other nations for his revenge. He will not get 2/3rds votes to ratify this treaty.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
Treaties
The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties made by the executive branch.
The Senate has rejected relatively few of the hundreds of treaties it has considered in its history. Many others, however, have died in committee or been withdrawn by the president rather than face defeat.
Some presidents have found it helpful to include senators in negotiating treaties in order to help pave the way for later Senate approval.
The requirement for a two-thirds vote ensures that a treaty will need bipartisan support to be approved. The Senate may also amend a treaty or adopt various changes, which may lead the other nation, or nations, to further negotiate the treaty.
The president may also enter into executive agreements with foreign nations that are not subject to Senate approval.
Constitutional Provisions
Article II, section 2, of the Constitution states that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur." These few words are the cornerstone to a major part of our system of divided powers, checks and balances.
Executive Agreements, Treaty Termination, Status as Law Executive Agreements
In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law.
The difficulty in obtaining a two-thirds vote was one of the motivating forces behind the vast increase in executive agreements after World War II. In 1952, for instance, the United States signed 14 treaties and 291 executive agreements. This was a larger number of executive agreements than had been reached during the entire century of 1789 to 1889. Executive agreements continue to grow at a rapid rate. The United States is currently a party to nearly nine hundred treaties and more than five thousand executive agreements.
The growth in executive agreements is also attributable to the sheer volume of business and contacts between the United States and other countries, coupled with the already heavy workload of the Senate. Many international agreements are of relatively minor importance and would needlessly overburden the Senate if they were submitted to it as treaties for advice and consent. Another factor has been the passage of legislation authorizing the executive branch to conclude international agreements in certain fields, such as foreign aid, agriculture, and trade. Treaties have also been approved implicitly authorizing further agreements between the parties. According to a 1984 study by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, "88.3 percent of international agreements reached between 1946 and 1972 were based at least partly on statutory authority; 6.2 percent were treaties, and 5.5 percent were based solely on executive authority."