Instead of hijacking another thread I thought I would start this one.
Just to recap.
As is usual with the current administration, just another attempt of an end-run around the Constitution, the following bolsters the thought of losing sovereignty without any checks and balances afforded by the Constitution.
Here is a letter from Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) to the President about Copenhagen.
QUOTE
Dear Mr. President:
I would like to express my concern regarding reports that the Administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed upon at the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The phrase “politically binding” has been used.
Although details have not been made available, recent statements by Special Envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern indicate that negotiators may be intending to commit the United States to a nationwide emission reduction program. As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.
I would very much appreciate having this matter clarified in advance of the Copenhagen meetings.”
The upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, is supposed to produce a successor agreement to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, a treaty signed by the Clinton Administration but never sent to the U.S. Senate for advice and consent.[1] The proposed "Kyoto II" successor agreement, if crafted along the lines of the current 181-page negotiating text, poses a clear threat to American sovereignty. This threat is primarily due to the nature of the proposed treaty--a complex, comprehensive, legally binding multilateral convention.
Three Types of Treaties
The United States arguably cedes some amount of sovereignty whenever it ratifies a treaty. The amount of sovereignty ceded depends on the nature of the treaty obligations as well as the reciprocal nature of the obligations of the other parties to the treaty. Such relinquishments of sovereignty are necessarily difficult to quantify.
It may be fairly argued, however, that different kinds of treaties pose different potential risks as to the amount of sovereignty at stake. In terms of the level of risk of ceding sovereignty, an argument may be made that, in general, bilateral treaties pose less of a risk than multilateral treaties, treaties that do not have legally binding obligations pose less of a risk than those that do, and treaties where the U.S. has the ability to make reservations pose less of a risk than those where reservations are not permitted.
The contemplated post-Kyoto climate treaty fails on all three of those counts.
Steven Groves is the Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at The Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.
Groves is responsible for developing and running the "Freedom Project," part of Heritage's Leadership for America campaign. The project's goal is to advance the cause of protecting American sovereignty, self-governance and independence while promoting Anglo-American leadership on issues relating to international political and religious freedom, human rights, and the strengthening of democratic institutions.
As these things develop and are brought out to see the light of day, it makes one wonder about the current administration. Does Obama and his cronies actually have the interests of the United States in mind or do they see America as something to destroy in the name power acquisition?
Those that see the government as the be-all, end-all solution to America's problems, actually think they can trust such an administration? Would you not consistently apply the situation across the board? Where there is smoke, odds are pretty good that there is a fire burning somewhere.
Dear Lord, lest I continue in my complacent ways, help me to remember that someone died for me today. And if there be war, help me to remember to ask and to answer "am I worth dying for?" - Eleanor Roosevelt
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. -- Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)
Admittedly obama attended muslim schools in his youth and he has shown absolutely no patriotism as an American. McCain displayed a "birth certificate" when questioned. Obama has only produced only a "certificate of live birth" (my niece born in China has one of those). We can look at him and deduce that he was not still born.
I am hearing a name tossed about as to who is the real leader of the country and that is frightening. There is no way to verify that information though.
A narcissist with power usually makes snap decisions as they feel they are the "one" and any decision is final The procrastinating could be an indication that he must wait for his marching orders.
Admittedly obama attended muslim schools in his youth and he has shown absolutely no patriotism as an American. McCain displayed a "birth certificate" when questioned. Obama has only produced only a "certificate of live birth" (my niece born in China has one of those). We can look at him and deduce that he was not still born.
I am hearing a name tossed about as to who is the real leader of the country and that is frightening. There is no way to verify that information though.
A narcissist with power usually makes snap decisions as they feel they are the "one" and any decision is final The procrastinating could be an indication that he must wait for his marching orders.
Slàinte,
Patch
I am interested to know why you think Obama is not patriotic, what that has to do with his attending a muslim elementary school, and why you can't get past that bizarre "birther" nonsense after all this time. It seems that lately, Obama has been criticized for taking too long to make decisions, but now he makes snap decisions? Or he is not a narcissist? And now we have a shadow President?
You are a smart guy Patch, so I figure you must have some reason I'm missing for these comments. Enlighten me. If you are just having a bad "patch" and everything looks out of sorts, I can understand that as a reason. It happens.
I do think it is important that any treaties we decide to enter into are scrutinized carefully and that we protect the principles of our constitution, so Senator Webb and Steve Grove's concerns are important.
--------------------
Is beannaithe iad a shantaíonn an ceartas (Blessed are those who desire justice)
The glaring example of his lack of patriotism is his "crotch salute" which he performs when others are placing their hand over their heart or saluting to honor our flag. He stands with both hands firmly in his crotch.
As to a shadow president, that is coming from people working in DC.
I do not consider myself overly smart, just well connected politically and other wise.
You talk about losing your sovereignty. Come live up here and see what it's like to be constantly fighting off the subtle enchroachments of the US against us. You own or controll most of our industry. NAFTA is 95% in your favour especially when it comes to natural resources. We are bombarded daily by American T.V. and movies. We have a right wing government lead by a known Yankeephile with roots in a province that is 60% or more American expats. Although I am 100% against Quebec Seperatism there are time my Friend when I fully understand them.
NAFTA was signed by both countries and was supposed to be for the mutual benefit of both. We loose to Mexico and probably gain from Canada. For us it is still a net loss. NAFTA was a good idea in theory (as drafted by politicians) but in reality it sucks.
I can not address your elected officials as your system put them in place. I know how ours got there and it was not as many liberals think.
A lot of things that are in NAFTA were not told to the Canadian People, such as our fresh water fall under the agreement. The soft wood lumber issue is an opened wound that is festering and "Buy American" does an end run around NAFTA.
As to our leaders. Well they got elected on 35% (a Minority) of the vote and mainly because the Liberals were caught in a number of scandal involving money and Quebec. In Canada we do not vote a government in we vote them out.
I have been an opponent of NAFTA since it's inception. I do not believe that business or govt can be relied upon to act responsibly so the treaty would only be for their benefit. What has transpired since proves my concerns to be valid.
I believe that individual trade treaties are best and each country can negotiate what they feel is important to them.
It reminds me of a diversity class I attended many years ago. A man of color presented the class and he opened with the story that as a child Johnson and Johnson had a major advertising blitz promoting their new "flesh toned" band aids. This was a radical departure from the gauze pad on white adhesive tape that was a band aid until that point in time. After much cajoling his mother bougtht them for him. He was terribly disappointed when he found they "were not flesh toned for him!" It just proves that no one thing including a treaty fits everyone.
From your posts I see that you have strong feelings about your country and it's heritage. I feel the same about mine and I am not sure how we will fix the situation we have gotten ourselves into.
The glaring example of his lack of patriotism is his "crotch salute" which he performs when others are placing their hand over their heart or saluting to honor our flag. He stands with both hands firmly in his crotch.
As to a shadow president, that is coming from people working in DC.
I do not consider myself overly smart, just well connected politically and other wise.
Slàinte,
Patch
Are you referring to the fact that he bowed to the Saudi King and the Japanese Emperor?
Surely you have heard that Bush bowed to the Pope, Nixon bowed to the Japanese Emperor and to Mao, Eisenhower bowed to President DeGaulle. There is nothing written anywhere about not being allowed to bow, in fact it is part of protocol.
Bush kissed and held hands with the Saudi King. Does that trouble you?
If you check my very old posts, you will find I did not like bush either. I said nothing about bowing though since you went there, why did he NOT bow to the British Queen?
Re: the crotch salute, as a very young boy my parents taught me that it was socially unacceptable to to publicly hold that portion of my anatomy. I taught my children those same social skills and the teaching has now reached my grandchildren and in a year or so even a great grandchild. I fear that there are many more skills which every American should know that obama failed to learn.
The man is seriously flawed! A year ago I gave him the benefit of the doubt in that he might be the person to see that people had food and heat. He failed to live up to any of the "benefit", confirmed every "doubt" and more. I know people who have NO heat and we are down to 15 degrees tonight. Our CAC has no money and local churches and some private citizens are doing what we can to make up for the administration's failure. Can you believe, there is not an obama supporter in the group? I guess they are waiting for him to do something. Hell is likely to freeze over first.
The proper protocol or etiquette when meeting Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is for men to bow their heads biefly and women to make a shallow curtsie. When in conversation with her she is addressed as Ma'am. One does not touch the Queen except when shaking her hand. From the news clip I watched of the Obama's meeting her neither of them followed this protocol except to shake her hand and say Your Majesty.
My friends in the UK have little use for obama after the chintzy gifts he gave the queen and other slights.. I can affirm that they do refer to him as a "dangerous wanker." I feel he should have treated the Queen as he did other Monarchs.
Were he just a "wanker" we could handle it as we have had those before.
My friends in the UK have little use for obama after the chintzy gifts he gave the queen and other slights.. I can affirm that they do refer to him as a "dangerous wanker." I feel he should have treated the Queen as he did other Monarchs.
Were he just a "wanker" we could handle it as we have had those before.
Losing Our Sovereignty?, Copenhagen conssessions
