Posted on 10/26/2009 7:45:44 AM PDT by Carry_Okie
Interesting! Good to see you writing again.
a new treaty on carbon emissions is actually meant to institute a global bureaucratic authority, I thought it would be useful to point out the particulars and provide the background showing that, if anything, he has understated his case. It may take years before it becomes evident, but this IS about global governmentAnd thanks Carry_Okie for posting this.
You're quite welcome. Actually, I wrote it.
lol, not as clearly as I would have liked. So far, there have been about four typos.
Damn,....a whole new angle the commies want to screw us with....
thanks...
I wrote this one, not just because of the urgency of the pending situation with "cap & trade," but because of a multiplicity of pending "agreements" all of which have anti-gun provisions hidden deep within. It is a very serious situation. Federal agencies will be sued to enforce said provisions if they do not do so on their own.
I hadn't thought of it, but the bit on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties must be why Bush II had to bother with "unsigning" the International Criminal Court Treaty, if you remember all that.
There was quite a bit about the impact of treaties in environmental law in Natural Process, as well as the other articles linked in the piece above. Virtually every one of the articles has been posted here at FR over the years, but at least now the wildergarten.com site has them all together in one place for reference purposes. If you go to any of the three sites I own (including Shemitta.com and NaturalProcess.net, just look for an "articles" link on the side bar and it will take you to the list. There's a fair bit of environmental stuff there too.
I’m here. I’m pretty busy studying the other work of art you’ve assigned me to review at this particular time.
Clank!
Thank you, Sir. MOST informative, well put, and dire.
Now, how to make Copenhagen into Verbotenland...
As always, an effective communicator. Thanks for this and other work.
>>It’s amazing.
Yes, He is.
Thanks, I was not a bit disappointed with the response it got here. This article ties together a lot of the work I've published here over the years. Most of that work was well received and engendered considerable discussion. I had thought this one would evoke even more discussion, perhaps about other simple amendments that would make unmistakable the limits of Federal powers in concluding international agreements and the hierarchy between treaty and Constitutional provisions. For example:
This is FreeRepublic, supposedly the premier conservative discussion site on the web. Why don't more FReepers want to discuss such ideas? After all, we have the intention of coming back against the Slave Party in 2010. Wouldn't it be nice to have a few concrete proposals and descriptions constructed for public consideration?
Had I made the topic a "gun thread" my guess people would have been all over it. Yet this subject DIRECTLY pertains to gun rights. Can't they see that?
Drives me nuts.
Sadly, Hamilton's bombast, Randolphs bluster, and Madison's stammering (all in the article) show that the founders did it too. I don't care what their reason was, it's up to us to fix that mistake.
Couldn't agree more, but I don't have a problem with this: "This Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, all international agreements notwithstanding." Really, we can't force modern English on people writing 220 years ago.
In more current English, it would read "This Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, despite all international agreements." i.e., if the international agreements (treaties) don't mesh with the Constitution, then we're not bound by them, as the Constitution rules supreme.
Why all the fuss?
>>Why don’t more FReepers want to discuss such ideas?
The single most important reason to be in Iraq was the defense of the Petro Dollar. But how few are willing or able to recognize that reality?
Not surprising given the Fabian Socialist nature observable among former and current beneficiaries of the Military Industrial Complex.
Few these days, I observe, are able to articulate the ideological difference between the American and Soviet Military Industrial Complexes.
Mercantilism is as it does.
Kurtz: Are you an assassin?
Willard: I’m a soldier.
Kurtz: You’re neither, you’re an errand boy, sent by Grocery clerks to collect a bill.
Working through the notion of, and one’s role in, Military Mercantilism is an uncomfortable, but necessary, process - for AMERICANS who’ve been indoctrinated to obey, rather than question, what’s rolling down the hill from The One.
Eternal VIGILANCE not eternal OBEDIENCE.... is the price of liberty.
Mississippi
initialing
?
?
>>Yet this subject DIRECTLY pertains to gun rights.
>>Can’t they see that?
Homer Simpson? Articulate?
The expression of his maliable fear and hope is measured primarliy in Gun and Lead sales.
He’s busy off learning to convert the AK to full auto and playing Rambo in the woods.
Not a bad thing mind you... unless enthusiasm for the 2nd amendment comes at the expense of the ability to EXERCISE THE FIRST.
But alas, symptomatic of this dysfunctional malaise - a local LCMS “Church” has “banned email” among the congregants - while at the same time its macho leadership prattles on about “2nd amendment rights”.
What’s wrong with that picture?
Homer Simpson, Articulate?
Hmmm.... time to give Shemitta another reading.
Yup, a good thing. May it return to but a necessary exercise, but First things first.
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.