December 2009 could spell the end of US Sovereignty
Is this what President Obama Meant On Thursday?
Lord Christopher Moncton is an adversary of climate change legislation, pointing out the fallacious arguments in it’s favor. Most notably, he was an official political advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. His full bio appears in the full length version of the video at bottom of column.
President George W. Bush did not submit the treaty for Senate ratification based on the exemption granted to China (now the world’s largest gross emitter of carbon dioxide, although emission is low per capita). Bush opposed the treaty because of the strain he believed the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasized the uncertainties which he believed were present in the scientific evidence. Furthermore, the U.S. was concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For example, the U.S. did not support the split between annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:
This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world’s. The world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People’s Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto … America’s unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change … Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.”
In June 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency released the “Climate Action Report 2002”. Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol.[citation needed] At the G8 meeting in June 2005 administration officials expressed a desire for “practical commitments industrialized countries can meet without damaging their economies”. According to those same officials, the United States is on track to fulfill its pledge to reduce its carbon intensity 18% by 2012. The United States has signed the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, a pact that allows those countries to set their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions individually, but with no enforcement mechanism. Supporters of the pact see it as complementing the Kyoto Protocol while being more flexible.
Here is the official document: http://vienna.usembassy.gov/en/download/pdf/kyoto.pdf
The Administration’s position was not uniformly accepted in the U.S. For example, Paul Krugman noted that the target 18% reduction in carbon intensity is still actually an increase in overall emissions. The White House has also come under criticism for downplaying reports that link human activity and greenhouse gas emissions to climate change and that a White House official, former oil industry advocate and current Exxon Mobil officer, Philip Cooney, watered down descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists, charges the White House denies. Critics point to the Bush administration’s close ties to the oil and gas industries. In June 2005, State Department papers showed the administration thanking Exxon executives for the company’s “active involvement” in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor.
In 2002, Congressional researchers who examined the legal status of the Protocol advised that signature of the UNFCCC imposes an obligation to refrain from undermining the Protocol’s object and purpose, and that while the President probably cannot implement the Protocol alone, Congress can create compatible laws on its own initiative.
Treaties http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties made by the executive branch.
President George W. Bush did not submit the treaty for Senate ratification based on the exemption granted to China (now the world’s largest gross emitter of carbon dioxide, although emission is low per capita). Bush opposed the treaty because of the strain he believed the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasized the uncertainties which he believed were present in the scientific evidence. Furthermore, the U.S. was concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For example, the U.S. did not support the split between annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:
This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world’s. The world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People’s Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto … America’s unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change … Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.”
In June 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency released the “Climate Action Report 2002”. Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol.[citation needed] At the G8 meeting in June 2005 administration officials expressed a desire for “practical commitments industrialized countries can meet without damaging their economies”. According to those same officials, the United States is on track to fulfill its pledge to reduce its carbon intensity 18% by 2012. The United States has signed the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, a pact that allows those countries to set their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions individually, but with no enforcement mechanism. Supporters of the pact see it as complementing the Kyoto Protocol while being more flexible.
Here is the official document: http://vienna.usembassy.gov/en/download/pdf/kyoto.pdf
The Administration’s position was not uniformly accepted in the U.S. For example, Paul Krugman noted that the target 18% reduction in carbon intensity is still actually an increase in overall emissions. The White House has also come under criticism for downplaying reports that link human activity and greenhouse gas emissions to climate change and that a White House official, former oil industry advocate and current Exxon Mobil officer, Philip Cooney, watered down descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists, charges the White House denies. Critics point to the Bush administration’s close ties to the oil and gas industries. In June 2005, State Department papers showed the administration thanking Exxon executives for the company’s “active involvement” in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor.
In 2002, Congressional researchers who examined the legal status of the Protocol advised that signature of the UNFCCC imposes an obligation to refrain from undermining the Protocol’s object and purpose, and that while the President probably cannot implement the Protocol alone, Congress can create compatible laws on its own initiative.
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
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.
Status as Law
By virtue of the Constitution’s supremacy clause (Article VI, clause 2) a treaty that is concluded compatibly with applicable constitutional requirements may have status as the “supreme law of the land,” along with federal statutes and the Constitution itself. A treaty does not become effective as U.S. domestic law automatically, however, upon its entry into force on the international level. Instead, this occurs only where the instrument is “self-executing” and operates without any necessity for implementing legislation.
When the Constitution created an executive branch and a president of the United States, it gave him no unchecked or unconditional powers. The Constitution made treatymaking a concurrent power. The United States Senate has carefully guarded its share of this power for two hundred years.
The vast majority of treaties have been ratified by the Senate. Since 1789, only twenty-one treaties have been rejected by the full Senate.
WHAT CAN WE DO TO STOP THIS? PLEASE ACT NOW!
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt EMAIL YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AS WELL AS LEADERSHIP TODAY – CALL THEM MONDAY – Here’s the directory
Amerikeith’s site has Congressional Twitter links posted if you would rather tweet them:http://amerikeith.wordpress.com/contact-congress/congress-on-twitter/
Bring this to the attention to your local media and national media outlets – TELL THEM YOU KNOW http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/media/
For Further Information:
Full Hour and a half speech by Lord Mockton at Free Market Institute This week
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
Link to Free Market Institute website
Here is a previous column on the subject http://wp.me/pxG9Z-ak
At link above you will find the 225 page 2009 Minority Report “..Scientists Debunk Global Warming Crisis”
FoxieNews also disusses this on her site http://foxienews.com/blog/?p=145
Soldier For Liberty 
Very important information. We must take action now to spread this beyond the internet. We can and must build the numbers of informed and active people. The field of our society is ripe with people who think they are alone in their fear of a rapidly growing oppression.
DeserveLiberty
October 17, 2009
I know I am not alone but when I look around at the dullards, I have to wonder this: What will wake the sheeple up?
Sharon Zecchinelli
October 17, 2009
[…] Obama poised to cede US Sovereignty? (http://www.soldierforliberty.wordpress.com/) […]
Obama poised to cede US Sovereignty to the UN
October 17, 2009
[…] Tweets about this great post on TwittLink.com […]
TwittLink - Your headlines on Twitter
October 17, 2009
Strength through knowledge. Very very good site and great research. Keep the Flag flying….high! We can keep pressure on our elected officials; we can get back to basics and sound governance. Let’s do it! Together!
Audrey Howard from Baltimore, MD
October 18, 2009
Which is why NAFTA & GATT are “Agreements” and not classified as Treatys’ because they REQUIRE 2/3 vote for ratification.
Joe Sixpacka
October 18, 2009
Informed Scientists are acutely aware that CO2 levels are NOT correlated with climate change/global warming. The correlation is between sunspots which indirectly increase temperature by sweeping away cosmic rays which otherwise induce cloud formation, hence cooling. The evidence goes back hundreds of thousands of years for which cosmic radiation and temperature follow the same up and down patterns. CO2 is NOT the culprit! The misinformation will cost wasted $trillions. SSK, Ph.D. Professor (ret)
John Adams
October 19, 2009
Signing this as a treaty or accord must be grounds for a charge of treason.
Sue
October 30, 2009
Impeach Obama before he sells out our contry completely!!
http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/
Sharon Rutland
November 15, 2009
You’ve done an excellent job pointing out the “unsavory” agenda of those in our government. It’s obvious you understand that every bit of this is gearing America towards bankruptcy, and eventual control over the population. Those in our government want our money…ALL of it. One aspect of the “health-care” bill that is not recognized is the fact, in reality many Americans pay around $10,000 per year for health care coverage. Obama and his group of thugs realize this and they want to force people to buy government controlled health care and, ‘voila’ … big bucks for the government, not to mention complete contol of the coverage we get. Even this is simply one step towards the New World Order that has been voiced for decades now. Obama is in the perfect position to usher this in, being president of the U.S. and (illegally), chairman of the U.N. Security Council. It’s elementary to see why the hurry to implement his policies while the Democrats are in control; also he realizes he probably won’t be re-elected.
Anyway, I didn’t mean to intrude on your blog. I just wanted to say I thought your post was very good, informative, factual and thorough.
Here’ a link you might find interesting. Very inclusive, perhaps not all credible; but you can look through the other links and find much that lines up with what’s happening as we “speak”.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_sociopol_nwo.htm
steve
December 17, 2009
Cloward and Piven. Obama studied it, taught it, and now is enforcing it.
pj
October 6, 2010
[…] December 2009 could spell the end of US Sovereignty « Soldier For …Oct 17, 2009 … I just finished watching the premier of the new movie Not Evil Just Wrong. This is a must for anyone who loves this country and the freedom … […]
Spell sovernty | Bloomdigit
September 4, 2012