Posted on 12/01/2009 6:00:51 AM PST by markomalley
It’s a major part of the “NO RINOS” business.
Seems like a very good time for King Arthur to re-appear and save Britain.
Without a single shot fired.
“Doesn’t the Senate have to ratify treaties?”
Congress will have to approve. And I’m sure they’ll say “it won’t have the votes”, but then somehow they find them in the last minute and passes. It’s the same ruse they used with health care—for weeks they distracted people with the “they don’t have the votes” and lo and behold, it passed. This is designed to make you stand down.
If you read the Constitution, you’ll see that any treaty immediately becomes the “supreme law of the land”. So once this is signed and passed, whatever we give away of our nation to the UN becomes the Supreme Law of the Land. Basically, you’re witnessing the take over of the USA.
It’s nothing more than treason.
“I wonder if this will affect the continuation of the monarchy in England.”
Probably not. I think the EU will allow some window-dressing to preserve the illusion that the country is still sovereign.
Yes. It is this website’s stated position that that Socialist fraud and weasel will not receive so much as one drop of support in his quest to buy the 2012 GOP Presidential nomination. It’s called “raising awareness.”
Then, the operative question would be, "To where?" A "world" (or also read, global) government is exactly that, global. I haven't seen any interplanetary spacecraft in orbit, nor any viable destinations to go to, lately, have you? Ask yourself why...
the infowarrior
This has been the problem with "Utopians" throughout our history. They have always sought to build their "Utopian Dream" using the blood, and bones of those who believe their dream to be a Dystopian Nightmare. Thus they fail, even as they are beginning, as that wholesale slaughter is usually one of the first, and not one of the final, steps.
Still, those who dream these "Utopias" have never figured out this simple fact, so we are condemmned to repeat it, ad nauseum, et ad infinitum, et ad absurdum...
the infowarrior
Honestly, if the American government literally cedes our soveriegnty to a world government. (or to a regional government as just occurred to England) Then moving isn’t the answer. Literal revolt is the only solution.
Our revolution was fought *precisely* over the idea that a far away power, that doesn’t answer directly to the people, is not a legitimate government.
We still have the chance to avoid a war to restore the constitution with the 2010 and 2012 elections. After that, if we fail,, i think all bets are off. And it makes me sad for our children.
You're thinking of the British Government. The British Monarchy is wholly self-financing. Even the civil list money (when that still existed) was a substitute for monies from the Crown Lands.
I guess someone believes we havn’t got the message on Romney.
Thats a fantasy to say that the British monarchy costs the British government nothing. At best, it’s an accounting game. And if they are self financing today,,,,then im curious, in what industry did the Royals create the *initial* fortune from which they now self-finance?
They obviously are wealthy today only because of divine right, lands exclusively owned by the monarchy which they inherited from other monarchs, and taxation.
When a ruling family, with no legitimate business to explain it, becomes unusually wealthy WHILE they rule, it’s a classic sign of corruption. Like most US COngressmen and Senators.
What ???
Any world government is going to have more influence in some areas than others. I plan to go to India, as the chaotic political climate there, plus personal connections I have, should allow me to remain fairly free. Although unified as a country, India’s government itself has highly variable influence within its own borders, so any edicts that any world body might push will be only sporadically enforced if at all. Plus, most of the power in the world has historically been held in the US and Europe, so that’s where the focus would be initially. India has already shown resistance to any outside pressure centering around the AGW/Copenhagen crowd and its agenda.
Given the facts, in their totality, on the ground, I will not disagree. The fact is, we are being disposessed of our interests in this planet, and its resources, by a combination of force, and fraud. This to the perpetual benefit of a self-styled, largely self-anointed, self appointed "elite", who propose to be our masters, while we become their serfs, *if* they, in their graciousness, deign to allow us to live at all.
When faced with this fact, there are only two viable options, those being fight, or flight. For the reasons I have indicated, flight is not a viable option, as there is no place to flee to. Thus, by process of elimination, fight is the only viable solution left, whether it fall fair, or fall foul.
In the end, I have chosen, that rather than live on my knees, kissing a tyrant's posterior, I'll die on my feet, spitting into his face. That is the character they G-d that made me imbued me with, and it was without doubt, in anticipation of this particular time that He chose to do so...
the infowarrior
From land ownership - normal land ownership of the same type that other people enjoyed (for example, the Duke of Westminster - who is far more wealthy than the Queen - derives his family's wealth from land they owned in the 1500s and business interests since that time - he still owns a fair chunk of London). The royal family (and their predecessors) acquired land in the same ways other people did and became wealthy in the same way other people did.
The money the Royal family currently gets from the British government (the Civil List) is a payment the government makes in exchange for getting all of the revenues of the Crown Estate. This was a deal done by George III - he handed over the vast majority of the Royal family's property to the government in exchange for an annual payment.
The Crown Estate is currently worth approximately eleven billion pounds and each year generates somewhere over £200 million pounds in profit to the government. In exchange for this the Royal family receives about £8 million pounds in civil list payments.
It's a pretty sweet deal for the government - a net profit of around £190 million.
Do you believe governments should be able to seize people's property without paying fair compensation - because that is what would be involved in what you're suggesting. The Windsor family may be the royal family - but their wealth was gained in the same way other wealthy families did it.
They obviously are wealthy today only because of divine right, lands exclusively owned by the monarchy which they inherited from other monarchs, and taxation.
Nothing to do with divine right. Yes - lands inherited from other monarchs in the same way other people have inherited land from their ancestors. Taxes for the most part, played very little role in generating the wealth of the royal family - taxes were raised for other purposes.
As I have mentioned above, one of Britain's richest men is the Duke of Westminster. He is rich because he owns a fair chunk of London. Would you take his wealth away from him too?
If titles don't mean anything, then they shouldn't mean a person is subject to having their private property seized by the government anymore than a person without a title should be.
When a ruling family, with no legitimate business to explain it, becomes unusually wealthy WHILE they rule, it’s a classic sign of corruption. Like most US COngressmen and Senators.
Any corruption that occurred occurred more than two hundred years ago, when George III transferred the wealth of the Crown Estate to the government. Unless you believe the sins of the Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandfather should be visited upon the Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandchildren, it's hard to see how you could use that as a reason to steal the current property of the Windsor family.
Incidentally, the roots of the Crown Estate come from land owned by William the Conquerer - should the fact the person has an ancestor who was a thief 900 years ago put their current family's wealth at risk?
I can understand wanting to get rid of the Monarchy - although from the perspective of a citizen of two Commonwealth nations, I think they give us a stable system of government we'd lose if they vanished, that I don't think modern politicians would be able to come up with anything to satisfactorily replace it. But whether she is Elizabeth II, or Mrs Elizabeth Windsor, she's entitled to not have her property stolen by the government. Or taken possession of without fair compensation.
My family held Kings land, for cheap rent, and also from the Duchy of Cornwall, a bit cheaper, in the West of England before we crossed the pond. Better than the locals were offering.
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.