See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On October 19th, 2009 at 12:14 am, Tennessee Dave said:

   The president can sign any treaty he wants, but it has to be ratified by the Senate the last I heard. This needs to get more sunlight and probably calls and letters to them.

2. #2
   On October 19th, 2009 at 12:20 am, Connie said:

   Why do people hate you?

3. #3
   On October 19th, 2009 at 12:30 am, Connie said:

   I feel like I’m back in 2004 fighting Kerry. Actually, I am.

4. #4
   On October 19th, 2009 at 12:34 am, txvet2 said:

   They may not all be plants, but it’s a safe bet the majority are. That’s the way the left works – fake victims and planted questions. Obama never takes a question he hasn’t cleared in advance, so the answer will pop up promptly on TOTUS.

5. #5
   On October 19th, 2009 at 12:35 am, txvet2 said:

   Oops, that comment was in reponse to Connie’s link, not to Lord Monckton!

6. #6
   On October 19th, 2009 at 12:38 am, txvet2 said:

   The short answer is, of course he intends to cede US sovereignty. He’s been promising to do so ever since he was in diapers.

7. #7
   On October 19th, 2009 at 12:55 am, jamesgreenidge said:

   MM, anyone, exactly what must be done/who to lean on to stop this thing?

   James Greenidge
   Queens NY

8. #8
   On October 19th, 2009 at 12:59 am, purealchemy said:

   http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2101-environmental-agreement-may-cost-1-trillion

   I will be reviewing what the Birch Society has to say on this matter.

9. #9
   On October 19th, 2009 at 1:09 am, Jim C. said:

   Tennessee Dave is right. This is Kyoto redux. Clinton signed, but he didn’t even submit it to the Senate. That’s because they passed a resolution 95-0 saying they wouldn’t ratify any treaty like it.

10. #10
    On October 19th, 2009 at 7:08 am, backwoods conservative said:

    A friend who was in the lower tier of management once told me he attended a business meeting. There was a paper on a table at the entrance to the meeting room for people to sign as they came in. After the meeting started, the man who was giving the presentation told them they had all just signed a paper agreeing to give him their next paycheck, and reminded them of how important it is to read before signing.

    I think 53% of the electorate signed a similar paper when they voted for Obama.

11. #11
    On October 19th, 2009 at 7:11 am, jjmurphy said:

    I really hope the speech by Monckton gets wider coverage. I posted on it several days ago. The lie of human-caused global climate change is bad enough. The proposed treaty is terrible and would be devastating to our freedom and economy.

    I am not sure the Senate and House would stop it. If they pass Cap & Trade, Amnesty, and government health-care, why would they not pass this treaty?

12. #12
    On October 19th, 2009 at 7:19 am, gridlock said:

    When Bill Reilly went down to the Rio Climate Summitt in 1992, the US Senate vote 99-0 to deny him the authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States. Such a resolution should be moved in the US Senate today, to see if they still have the guts to stand up to the Executive Branch.

13. #13
    On October 19th, 2009 at 7:44 am, Rob said:

    Gee, wouldn’t it be cool and fun to elect a black guy?

14. #14
    On October 19th, 2009 at 7:50 am, Lindsay said:

    Thanks, Michelle.

    Is this the global tax Obama sought when he was in the Senate?

15. #15
    On October 19th, 2009 at 7:51 am, fred5676 said:

    By Michelle Malkin • October 19, 2009 12:05 AM

    As usual, up very late or up very early, keeping watch over the Republic. Thanks for all you do, Michelle!!

    BTW, I saw this as the top story at Outraged Patriots yesterday, and forwarded the link to all my email pals.

    Check them out once in a while for news on illegal immigration and national sovereignty issues – most stories I never see anywhere else.

16. #16
    On October 19th, 2009 at 7:52 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    Yesterday was the first significant snow fall in eastern Massachusetts in October since 1988. It was the fourth snowiest October in the period of record dating back to 1892. , (Oct 10 1979 7.5 inches in Worcester). All of the unpoliticized, (i.e. honest), temperature data point to a rapid global cooling period in progress.

    They started theorizing about man-made global warming about – THIRTY YEARS AGO – and their eariliest attempts to get more FUNDING to study ‘the problem’ were based on the idea, “If ONLY we could grab people’s attention with the concept that this might really be a ‘problem’ then we can get more funding to study ‘it’.” The idea worked! …and has kept working ever since.

    Thirty years and 80 BILLION dollars later man-made global warming REMAINS a theory without any measurable scientific evidence whatsoever. In that much time the idea of frightening people to get undeserved additional government funding has expanded to frightening people to advance a COMMUNIST political agenda.

    If they can get away with their unproven theories then why shouldn’t mine be fair game? I say that Al Gore is a COMMUNIST; James Hansen is a COMMUNIST, Michael Mann is a COMMUNIST, Gavin Schmitt is a COMMUNIST, John F’n Kerry is a COMMUNIST, Ed Markey is a COMMUNIST, etc. (way too long a list).

    So that’s MY theory! While I have campaign finance records showing a possible connection between Al Gore and John Kerry to the Red Chinese, (as in this right wing on-line tabloid /sarc) – they still have NOTHING at all in the way of a HOT SPOT to claim ANY linkage between human CO2 and global temperature… ZERO!

    I think that that makes MY theory a LOT more believeable than theirs right?

    What? You’re a skeptic? Don’t believe all those people could all be commies? Well okay, then do the same thing that the man-made global warming crowd expects of skeptics and PROVE THAT THEY ARE NOT COMMIES!!!

17. #17
    On October 19th, 2009 at 7:52 am, fred5676 said:

    Hey! Log out works again!!!

18. #18
    On October 19th, 2009 at 7:57 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    I’m glad he’s working again but who’s ‘log out’?

19. #19
    On October 19th, 2009 at 7:59 am, backwoods conservative said:

    On October 19th, 2009 at 7:57 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    I’m glad he’s working again but who’s ‘log out’?

    He’s a lumberjack in Oregon.

20. #20
    On October 19th, 2009 at 8:00 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    He’s from there but recently seen soliciting in a New York subway station.

21. #21
    On October 19th, 2009 at 8:12 am, cicerokid said:

    That’s Minnesota Flea Market Institute?

22. #22
    On October 19th, 2009 at 8:13 am, fred5676 said:

    Here is Lord Monckton’s ENTIRE 1:35 speech, via Outraged Patriots.

    One window for the video, one for the PDF slide show!!

23. #23
    On October 19th, 2009 at 8:21 am, jangar said:

    Rob said:
    Gee, wouldn’t it be cool and fun to elect a black guy?

    Isn’t that the truth.

    Seriously, 53% could NOT have voted for a person who’s only goal is to dismantle a nation and throw us ALL back into something near the stone age.

    If the media had done their constitutional job and vetted all candidates properly, I really doubt Barak Hussein Obama (mmmmmmmm, mmmmmmmm, mmmmmmmm) would have gotten out of the primaries, let alone the missing documentation qualifying him as a viable candidate.

    Dark days for America continue…

24. #24
    On October 19th, 2009 at 8:32 am, jangar said:

    Just where are we on the historical radar?

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206:12&version=NIV

25. #25
    On October 19th, 2009 at 8:41 am, Ty85719 said:

    The treaty will override the US Constitution? NOTHING can override the US Constitution – especially foreign documents.

    If Mr. Obama and his thug administration attempt to enforce it, they MUST be relieved of command and arrested!

26. #26
    On October 19th, 2009 at 9:00 am, Savage24 said:

    One world government is the aim of all this crap. With this Marxist in the White House and a House and Senate full of corrupt politicians they will suceed unless we stand up and fight for our country.Time is running short!

27. #27
    On October 19th, 2009 at 9:10 am, GraniteMan said:

    We must demand a debate between AlGore and Lord Monckton. AlGore believes polar bears increasing means they are endangered. Go figure.

28. #28
    On October 19th, 2009 at 9:16 am, conservativesRus said:

    How dare Monckton ask “what is truth”. Although he was speaking in the political sphere as to conclusions and actions, a far more important parallel is those of a spiritual nature.
    Luke 16:31 – He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead’. Guess what folks – he did rise from the dead and many still won’t believe.

29. #29
    On October 19th, 2009 at 9:23 am, Thomas said:

    On October 19th, 2009 at 12:30 am, Connie said:
    I feel like I’m back in 2004 fighting Kerry. Actually, I am.

    How dare you. It should be clear that George McBush is a great threat to all conservatives, and we should allow Kerry to become president in 04. It would be best for us all. Click on my link to read my party platform that I wrote up all by myself! I’ve also got video of me playing air guitar for 30 minutes, it’s really cool. Anyway, back to the issue at hand – KERRY. He’s horrible, but he’ll screw us all only slightly less than that traitor McBush. Third party all the way! That’s how we’ll win. We must defeat all republicans – that’s how conservatism will succeed!

    Thomas
    http://www.votethirdpartyandloseeverytime-goodforconservatives.org

30. #30
    On October 19th, 2009 at 9:28 am, jangar said:

    Savage24 said:
    One world government is the aim of all this crap

    Gee, ya think? //sarc

    While we were bantering about which Republican wasn’t a Republican, and conservative not a conservative, paying scant attention to our own local politics, apathetically allowing government controlled education to indoctrinate our kids and, sadly, our selves, and sit idly by for 40 years in front of the boob tube, believing everything that was spoken to us…

    …liberals were waiting in the wings for their own perfect storm. It came, and we were sleeping.

31. #31
    On October 19th, 2009 at 9:40 am, b-cat said:

    Article VI
    All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

    The Constitution can be undone by treaty. This is serious folks. Remember the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment by one vote. A one vote margin upheld the Bill of Rights as constitutional.

32. #32
    On October 19th, 2009 at 9:42 am, On-my-soap-box said:

    By the time people learn what health care and crap ‘n tax will cost them, it will be too late. They will wake up 4 years from now and blame BOOOOOSH.

33. #33
    On October 19th, 2009 at 9:54 am, flyfisher said:

    I’ve read elsewhere that Democrats have promised to enact this treaty as legislation if they cannot get it ratified by the Senate. If they go that route we could eventually overturn it, but I don’t think we can imagine the damage that would be done in the interim.

    We’ve got too many things coming at us at once. Can this country take three more years of this?

34. #34
    On October 19th, 2009 at 10:07 am, spaceycakes said:

    Ain’t that the truth, soap? I tell ya, the more I talk to people, the more I realize that I’m talking at people. They haven’t a clue.

35. #35
    On October 19th, 2009 at 10:19 am, tarpon said:

    As an Englishman, Lord Mockton does not understand America — we are a representative republic, not a democracy. Venezuela is-was a democracy.

    Sovereignty in America belongs to the people … Unlike all other countries in the world, including England. The people’s sovereignty cannot be ceded. Government works for the American people and serves at the pleasure of the people and the consent of the governed.

    Clinton signed Kyoto I and absolutely nothing came of that.

    It’s time America stand up for America, and stand for the US Constitution.

36. #36
    On October 19th, 2009 at 10:20 am, xler8bmw said:

    On October 19th, 2009 at 8:41 am, Ty85719 said:
    The treaty will override the US Constitution? NOTHING can override the US Constitution – especially foreign documents.

    If Mr. Obama and his thug administration attempt to enforce it, they MUST be relieved of command and arrested!

    Correct they’re called CONTRUMPS!

37. #37
    On October 19th, 2009 at 10:26 am, xler8bmw said:

    On October 19th, 2009 at 9:40 am, b-cat said:
    The Constitution can be undone by treaty. This is serious folks. Remember the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment by one vote. A one vote margin upheld the Bill of Rights as constitutional.

    No it can’t they’re called “contrumps”
    No treaty can supersede or alter the Constitution. This fact is thoroughly discussed in the thesis, Limited Federal Government. “Constitution Trumps Treaties” deals with the documentation on the subject of limitation of treaty power.

    Few words by me are needed. The excerpts below say it.

    One will immediately notice that the subject of treaty power versus the Constitution has many points. Of interest is the indefinite line between treaty power and legislative power. This is, indeed, interesting. Another point of contention is whether or not treaties are self executing. It appears that Congress can negate a treaty. It certainly is the wish of this writer that they would test it out on the UN Charter, which a treaty, and a very harmful one.

    Clarification of a clause in the Constitution of the United States is in order here. Article VI, clause 2 declares that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” It is the last clause that is misunderstood, even by attorneys. “… Constitution or Laws of any State …” refers to the Constitutions of the several states, NOT the Constitution of the United States. The Founding Fathers were much too well informed to allow the state Constitutions to alter the United States Constitution. That would have been self defeating. The truth of the matter is that neither treaties nor state laws can supersede or alter the Constitution of the United States. Our national document is etched in stone. It is unfortunate that most Congress Persons do not read stone.

38. #38
    On October 19th, 2009 at 10:33 am, sonofdy said:

    The last defense of the constitution is the US military and militia.

    Every day I see this last line getting closer and closer…

39. #39
    On October 19th, 2009 at 10:33 am, maisy said:

    I saw this last week on Alex Jones site,don’t think for a minute that Obama isn’t poised to do this…
    The question is , have the senate and reps of our country sold their souls so much that they are part of this treasonous act. We shall see….The revolution may be closer at hand than we think…….

40. #40
    On October 19th, 2009 at 10:41 am, happyscrapper said:

    Monckton on Glenn Beck this a.m. Tune in if you can.

41. #41
    On October 19th, 2009 at 10:45 am, happyscrapper said:

    Sovereignty in America belongs to the people … Unlike all other countries in the world, including England. The people’s sovereignty cannot be ceded. Government works for the American people and serves at the pleasure of the people and the consent of the governed.

    We believe this…but the corruptocrats and communists in DC don’t. So, it is up to us to “gently” remind them. Torches and pitchforks are piling up in the garage…”fired up, ready to go! Fired up, ready to go! Fired up, ready to go!”

42. #42
    On October 19th, 2009 at 11:03 am, USMCgramma said:

    I’m thinking the same thing as sonofdy -told our adult children before the election the whole Congress needed to be …. (can’t put it in print) well, gone.

    We live in the Blue Ridge Mountains of NC and it snowed in the higher elevations yesterday. Very unusual for this region.

43. #43
    On October 19th, 2009 at 11:07 am, happyscrapper said:

    Minnesota just experienced one of the coldest summers on record. And now, we have had the earliest snowfall in decades, and a very early frost. Please bring back the global warming! (But leave manbearpig behind for history to judge…He’s got some ‘splainin to do!)

44. #44
    On October 19th, 2009 at 11:21 am, happyscrapper said:

    Lord Monckton is saying some incredible and exciting things right now on Beck. Wow!

45. #45
    On October 19th, 2009 at 11:27 am, Pasadena Phil said:

    You mean an economy that creates no jobs is desirable? Explain again what an economy is? Numbers on paper? Prices of everything going up based on….? Must be two economic systems here and I’m in the wrong one.

46. #46
    On October 19th, 2009 at 11:28 am, letget said:

    I have been listening to Glenn also. Glenn is going to try and get John Bolton along with Lord Monckton on his Fox show. That would be a really great show. Gads this bho and team make me sick!
    L

47. #47
    On October 19th, 2009 at 11:30 am, b-cat said:

    The truth of the matter is that neither treaties nor state laws can supersede or alter the Constitution of the United States. Our national document is etched in stone. It is unfortunate that most Congress Persons do not read stone.

    Or English either for that matter.

    In fact, I believe you and I have read more of our constitution this am than most of our government has combined.

48. #48
    On October 19th, 2009 at 11:53 am, fulldroolcup said:

    xlr8bmwer is right. Monckton doesn’t understand how our constitution is written, perhaps because he comes from a country that doesn’t have one.

    Imagine for a second a President signing a treaty that would, say, violate our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments of our Constitution. Imagine further that Congress would ratify such a document. Does anyone really think such a treaty would truump the Constitution itself? Anyone think any Supreme court would simply roll over and cede their judicial power to people in other countries?

    Anyone NOT think that gun-owning americans would take to the streets by the millions?

    Not a chance.

    So Monckton is wrong on that point. But the rest of his speech is staggering. You should definitely use a split screen to display his Powerpoint presentation. The screen showing him speaking doesn’t really offer much visually.

49. #49
    On October 19th, 2009 at 12:00 pm, xler8bmw said:

    On October 19th, 2009 at 11:53 am, fulldroolcup said:

    Thxs. Also, Senate has NO constitutional authority to sign away our sovereignty. They would be violating the constitution if they chose to ratify this treaty! It would be blatant treason!

50. #50
    On October 19th, 2009 at 12:01 pm, happyscrapper said:

    Anyone NOT think that gun-owning americans would take to the streets by the millions?

    And pitchfork-owning grandmas would join them!

51. #51
    On October 19th, 2009 at 12:05 pm, Flyoverman said:

    Message to Obama:

    Fat chance.

52. #52
    On October 19th, 2009 at 12:06 pm, Flyoverman said:

    And pitchfork-owning grandmas would join them!

    Cold steel……….. WOW!

53. #53
    On October 19th, 2009 at 12:06 pm, xler8bmw said:

    God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

    Thomas Jefferson

54. #54
    On October 19th, 2009 at 12:13 pm, fulldroolcup said:

    This is serious folks. Remember the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment by one vote. A one vote margin upheld the Bill of Rights as constitutional.

    This is incorrect. In the Heller case The Supremes found that gun ownership was an individual right under the Constitution, a right the D.C. government had attempted to quash entirely, by forbidding private gun ownership in homes. They didn’t “uphold” the Second Amendment, because they can’t “reverse” it. Nor did they deal with the “reasonableness” of any other gun-control scheme that puts restrictions, but does not outright ban, gun ownership as DC did.

    Still, it was a great day for pro-gun ownership forces, and the decision resulted in a number of municipalities with absolute gun bans being forced to drop their programs.

    Nor did the court “uphold” the Bill of Rights” in the Heller case, because the other nine amendments were not at issue before them, and in any case thousands of legal cases have defined, refined, and distinguished those rights.

55. #55
    On October 19th, 2009 at 12:16 pm, plymouthacclaim said:

    Crazy conspiracy time:

    Obama knows this and so is putting all our troops in Afghanistan so they can’t defend the Constitution against him.

    Here’s hoping this is just a joke.

56. #56
    On October 19th, 2009 at 12:25 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On October 19th, 2009 at 12:06 pm, xler8bmw said:

    I just printed that out to put on my refrigerator. Thanks!!

57. #57
    On October 19th, 2009 at 12:38 pm, purealchemy said:

    happyscrapper, in case you’re still around, I hope you won’t let a few dramatic types here scare you off as I truly enjoy your contributions.

    Back to topic, Clinton had a Republican majority Congress, didn’t he? Not true this time. Maybe we should be more worried.

58. #58
    On October 19th, 2009 at 12:43 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    Michelle, try to get an FNC one-on-one spot with Lindsey Graham and ask him to define the word ‘sovereignty’ for us. I’d also like to see him read this list of names and explain how he’s scientifically qualified to say that they are all wrong and/or all a bunch of liars.

    Does he have ANY idea of the heavy lifting done by Jim Inhofe who has gathered a tremendous amount of ammunition that annihilates this ‘green’ fraud?

    We have to go after him, McCain and few other anti-Reagan RINOS who bend over backwards to give away our country and want to help enslave us to a global socialist/commie agenda.

59. #59
    On October 19th, 2009 at 12:46 pm, rocketman said:

    ***
    Lord Monckton gets it right–good data, good presentation, good perception of the REAL GREENIE AGENDA in the “Climate Change” Treaty. Comrade Obama (PBUH) and his “democRAT” / liberal / socialist / statist / marxist / communist minions do want the U.S.A. to bow to and join in a new international world order.
    ***
    However, someone should explain the U.S. Constitution’s SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT to this good British gentleman. When the “line in the sand” is crossed he will understand why so many normal Americans are “arming up”. Just see how long you have to wait to buy your guns and ammo.
    ***
    May God forbid that the Messiah’s agenda ever comes to fruition. It will stop at my door.
    ***
    John Bibb
    ***

60. #60
    On October 19th, 2009 at 1:05 pm, b-cat said:

    This is incorrect. In the Heller case The Supremes found that gun ownership was an individual right under the Constitution, a right the D.C. government had attempted to quash entirely, by forbidding private gun ownership in homes. They didn’t “uphold” the Second Amendment, because they can’t “reverse” it. Nor did they deal with the “reasonableness” of any other gun-control scheme that puts restrictions, but does not outright ban, gun ownership as DC did.

    I can assure you, that had the decision gone the other way, every city and township in the country would be considering a DC type of gun control scheme.

61. #61
    On October 19th, 2009 at 1:18 pm, in_awe said:

    If you use the link to get to Monckton’s slides, be sure to click on the “text balloon” in the upper left corner of each slide to see the script he read while presenting the slides.

62. #62
    On October 19th, 2009 at 1:19 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On October 19th, 2009 at 12:38 pm, purealchemy said:
    happyscrapper, in case you’re still around, I hope you won’t let a few dramatic types here scare you off as I truly enjoy your contributions.

    Thank you!! I really appreciate hearing that. And no, I am not scared off. I just will skip the posts of the three who I feel have lost their marbles. That doesn’t include RSS by the way, as he is at least honest in his moonbattery. And I will certainly continue to talk to Chap…an honest liberal with good, informative posts and a great sense of humor. The three over-the-top zealots know who they are and they might try a little “soul-searching”. (except Zero, of course)

63. #63
    On October 19th, 2009 at 1:22 pm, jamesgreenidge said:

    I would not wish the “romance” of armed “revolution” on this country or our children. The brother of my uncle went to Liberia to claim some family legacy in the early seventies and got caught up in their “civil uprising” and after severals escaping into ditches from totally berserk mobs barely got out with the shirt on his back. He said Liberia go keep the fam legacy and that seeing a country come apart is like a trap door under your home swinging open with no where to go. There was absolutely nothing macho-romantic about it and it basically solved nothing but show the ugly underbelly of a nation and one’s own neighbors. Yes, we’ve legitimate gripes here, but I’m reminded of that line in “Seven Days In May” where the (inept) Prez is confiding with the general who wants to do a coup to save the country and says, “you know, what do you think the world and our enemies will think of us — and respond to us — if they saw our country taken over by mob rule?” We’d be a banana republic overnight, all respect and trust in us gone with the wind. You don’t want to have this country literally up in arms today to correct a political situation when there’s a far more bloodless and effective way that — unfortunately — takes way more guts than banishing arms; a total Tax Strike. NO ONE feeds the IRS. Three hundred million tax refusers can’t be jailed. After a week, even corporations would force the pols to their senses. It’d be very effective, preserve our dignity in and out of country, and a better life lesson to the kids, but unfortunately such a radical revolutionary step takes way more guts then keeping powder dry.

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

64. #64
    On October 19th, 2009 at 1:24 pm, in_awe said:

    Please recall that as Senator Obama he annually presented a legislative proposal to obligate the US to end global poverty where we would pay whatever allocation of the global burden was assigned to us by the UN.

    Obama’s redistributionist leanings aren’t limited to domestic goals, but his one world goals as well. This treaty nicely fits into his desire to open the taps.

65. #65
    On October 19th, 2009 at 1:30 pm, fulldroolcup said:

    Back to topic, Clinton had a Republican majority Congress, didn’t he? Not true this time. Maybe we should be more worried.

    The Byrd-Hegel resolution, telling the WH not to bring the Kyoto treaty before them, was passed 95 – 0.

    Lotta Dems voted for it, including its sponsor Robert “Sheets” Byrd.

    Also, treaty ratification Constitutionally requires the vote of “2/3 of Senators present”. Dems don’t have 2/3s of the Senate, and giving up national sovereignty would scare the crap out of a lot of THEM, let alone Republicans.

    “No way” it would pass. But could it result in many Dems fleeing Obama? Calls for impeachment in the House for Obama trying to give up our sovereignty?

    WAY!

66. #66
    On October 19th, 2009 at 1:30 pm, purealchemy said:

    Thank you!! I really appreciate hearing that. And no, I am not scared off. I just will skip the posts of the three who I feel have lost their marbles.

    happy, I had to learn not to take the insults too seriously.
    It’s mostly about boys rough housing. (is that one word or two?).
    As they say, take what you like and leave the rest.

67. #67
    On October 19th, 2009 at 1:31 pm, jjmurphy said:

    On October 19th, 2009 at 12:06 pm, xler8bmw said:

    I had actually never seen the full quote. It is even better in its’ entirety! Thanks for posting it.

68. #68
    On October 19th, 2009 at 1:32 pm, fulldroolcup said:

    In a country with automatic withholding, where most taxpayers have no choice but to watch their $$ disappear from each paycheck, a Total Tax Strike just won’t work.

69. #69
    On October 19th, 2009 at 1:35 pm, in_awe said:

    The text of the proposed treaty can be found at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/03/the-copenhagen-treaty-draft-wealth-transfer-defined-now-with-dignity-penalty/

70. #70
    On October 19th, 2009 at 1:37 pm, TigerLady said:

    “No way” it would pass.

    I wish I could really believe this. After watching the take over of GM, the stimulus bill being passed to spend trillions of dollars, the appointment of czars without vetting….I could go on and on….I’m not sure that this is any more unbelievable than these.

    Jangar said it well–Dark days for America continue…

71. #71
    On October 19th, 2009 at 1:40 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On October 19th, 2009 at 1:30 pm, purealchemy said:
    It’s mostly about boys rough housing. (is that one word or two?).
    As they say, take what you like and leave the rest.

    Well, roughhousing is fine, but personal insults are still wrong. Like a nasty comment about my being an old lady…and implying that somehow that makes my comments irrelevant. I can take it just fine, but it was pretty low.

    O.K. Over and done. No more whining. I am moving on. Thanks for your kind comments and advice. I will heed your words.

72. #72
    On October 19th, 2009 at 1:42 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On October 19th, 2009 at 1:32 pm, fulldroolcup said:
    In a country with automatic withholding, where most taxpayers have no choice but to watch their $$ disappear from each paycheck, a Total Tax Strike just won’t work.

    I was thinking the same thing. We get Social Security. They take the taxes out before we get it. Not much chance to withhold!

73. #73
    On October 19th, 2009 at 1:42 pm, purealchemy said:

    On October 19th, 2009 at 1:37 pm, TigerLady said:

    “No way” it would pass.

    I wish I could really believe this.

    I’m with TigerLady on this one.
    More countries pushing for universal currency. Our worst enemies emboldened by Obama’s apologies.
    There’s a definite trend.

74. #74
    On October 19th, 2009 at 1:43 pm, purealchemy said:

    Well, roughhousing is fine, but personal insults are still wrong. Like a nasty comment about my being an old lady…and implying that somehow that makes my comments irrelevant. I can take it just fine, but it was pretty low.

    Well, I agree with the old lady part. Had I been there at the moment, would have posted a strong protest.

75. #75
    On October 19th, 2009 at 1:53 pm, happyscrapper said:

    FYI…Two comments from right4life on another thread…

    …do you think you own this blog or something?? you’re definately not as intelligent, (as the hostess) and from your writing, much uglier on the outside, and the inside.

    #826158On October 18th, 2009 at 10:53 pm, right4life said:
    oh and let me guess..you’re both a couple of old ladies…sheesh.

    I’m just sayin…

76. #76
    On October 19th, 2009 at 2:01 pm, purealchemy said:

    happy, I’m assuming MM is the hostess?
    So why would they say MM is an old lady?
    Is right4life male or female?
    The ugly inside and outside part is even more crossing a line.

77. #77
    On October 19th, 2009 at 2:09 pm, rambler said:

    I would think that it is a violation of the Constitution to sign a treaty which gives away our sovereignty. If BHO signs it, I’d like impeach him! He really does want to be King of the World.

78. #78
    On October 19th, 2009 at 2:17 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    jamesgreenidge said: ….a far more bloodless and effective way that — unfortunately — takes way more guts than banishing arms; a total Tax Strike. NO ONE feeds the IRS. Three hundred million tax refusers can’t be jailed.

    What 300? A full 86% of federal revenue comes from only the 25% of the top income earners. Just as they are the ones we have to convince, (if we don’t then there’s no point is there?), they are also the ones best prepared to weather the storm because they already have money to live on and all they really need do anyway is stop making profit – not stop producing.

    That’s the Galt way – just make enough to match your expenses and the federal government will starve itself out.

    But then what if the government decides to start seizing assets?

79. #79
    On October 19th, 2009 at 2:17 pm, flyfisher said:

    Earlier in this thread I said this:

    On October 19th, 2009 at 9:54 am, flyfisher said:
    I’ve read elsewhere that Democrats have promised to enact this treaty as legislation if they cannot get it ratified by the Senate. If they go that route we could eventually overturn it, but I don’t think we can imagine the damage that would be done in the interim.

    No one has reacted to that comment. Of course they can’t get it ratified right now, but they only need a simple majority to pass it as legislation. The fact that we have the 2nd Amendment (thank God!) and could almost certainly prevent ratification doesn’t mean this bill isn’t a danger. Just imagine wealth redistribution payments to the third world for the rest of Obama’s term, or longer.

    I suspect Obama is so convinced of the rightness of his cause(s) that he is willing to risk violence to get his way. I don’t want it to get that far.

80. #80
    On October 19th, 2009 at 2:24 pm, xler8bmw said:

    On October 19th, 2009 at 2:09 pm, rambler said:

    He can sign whatever he wants it doesn’t matter! Senate must ratify by 2/3

81. #81
    On October 19th, 2009 at 2:26 pm, xler8bmw said:

    On October 19th, 2009 at 9:54 am, flyfisher said:
    I’ve read elsewhere that Democrats have promised to enact this treaty as legislation if they cannot get it ratified by the Senate. If they go that route we could eventually overturn it, but I don’t think we can imagine the damage that would be done in the interim.

    They can’t do that either because it is a clear violation of the constitution (though that doesn’t matter to these thugs.

    They have no power to sign away or legislate our sovereignty away it would be TREASON and they could be tried as traitors!

82. #82
    On October 19th, 2009 at 2:35 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    rambler said: I would think that it is a violation of the Constitution …

    You would think right but violating the Constitution has become a sporting event for progressives. Federal programs like Social Security are unconstitutional as is graduated income tax, medicare/medicaid, education, banning school prayer, funding abortions, the Kelo decision, yada…

    Our Constitution was written to PROTECT US from government but liberals spend every waking hour of the day figuring out ways to spit on it. Obama HATES the US Constitution and even said so referring it to a collection of ‘negative liberties‘

    The 2001 audio tape of Barack Obama describing the Constitution as a document of “negative liberties” reveals an utterly Orwellian Obama. How can liberty be anything other than negative? Liberty is the absence of external control. Only in our age of collective thinking and untidy language could such a thing as “positive liberty” be conceived. The state power to coerce is not liberty.

    I think Obama meant ‘negative’ from the standpoint of the Constitution ‘unfairly’ restraining the government from having ‘liberty’ … liberty to SCREW US.

83. #83
    On October 19th, 2009 at 2:36 pm, flyfisher said:

    xler8bnmw,

    Treason never stopped a liberal, so I think they would at least try to enact it as legislation.

84. #84
    On October 19th, 2009 at 2:39 pm, xler8bmw said:

    On October 19th, 2009 at 2:36 pm, flyfisher said:
    xler8bnmw,

    Treason never stopped a liberal, so I think they would at least try to enact it as legislation.

    That may be but, if senate doesn’t pass it as a treaty why would they pass it as legislation? They wouldn’t

85. #85
    On October 19th, 2009 at 2:47 pm, flyfisher said:

    I’m not sure you’re following me. They have promised to pass it as legislation (if it fails to be ratified) because it won’t require as many votes. They don’t need Republicans to pass it as legislation.

86. #86
    On October 19th, 2009 at 2:59 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On October 19th, 2009 at 2:01 pm, purealchemy said:
    happy, I’m assuming MM is the hostess?
    So why would they say MM is an old lady?
    Is right4life male or female?
    The ugly inside and outside part is even more crossing a line.

    I think she/he was referring to another poster who defended me. And yes, the “ugly” comment was pretty nasty too. Don’t know if r4l is male or female. Somehow, I get the impression it is a woman…perhaps from other posts. But not sure.

87. #87
    On October 19th, 2009 at 3:40 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    Perfect example for how “truth” is disseminated these days.

    “Coal’s Environmental Damage Costs U.S. $62 Billion, Study Says”
    

    Burning coal to generate electricity in the U.S. causes about $62 billion a year in “hidden costs” for environmental damage, not including expenses related to global warming, the National Academy of Sciences said.

    Really? Details please.

    Burning coal to generate electricity in the U.S. causes about $62 billion a year in “hidden costs” for environmental damage, not including expenses related to global warming, the National Academy of Sciences said.

    But…

    The study calculated the costs of air pollutants from energy on human health, grain crop and timber yields, building materials, recreation and visibility of outdoor vistas. For human health, the report assesses the costs in terms of premature death and disease.

    Since these people believe there are too many people living and that each one is a cancer on the face of the earth, can we assume that premature death and disease is an asset? Or that the health costs are a waste of resources?

    Very subjective study and we already know about the kind of science being practiced today by the National Academy of Sciences.

    Truth is so relative these days.

88. #88
    On October 19th, 2009 at 4:00 pm, USMCgramma said:

    I agree w/Tigerlady that we’ve already seen too many things happen that are beyond belief. As for treason, what acts of treason have been punished to date?

    The oldest of my 3 brothers in WWII was killed. I promised to speak for the voices silenced 2/4/45 (USS Barbel-316). I’m an old lady and proud of it (still married to my first husband AND I own a pitchfork!)

89. #89
    On October 19th, 2009 at 4:08 pm, xler8bmw said:

    On October 19th, 2009 at 2:47 pm, flyfisher said:

    It takes 2/3 to ratify those same 2/3 wouldn’t vote to legislate it either. so 66 out 100 would vote against it. How could it pass?

90. #90
    On October 19th, 2009 at 4:13 pm, happyscrapper said:

    I’m an old lady and proud of it (still married to my first husband AND I own a pitchfork!)

    Describes me to a “T”!! My husband and I will celebrate our 40th anniversary this coming Sunday, October 25th.

91. #91
    On October 19th, 2009 at 4:24 pm, USMCgramma said:

    Congrats and God bless! It’s 56 for us – I had twins when he was in Korea. The youngest of 7 has Downs. We women must stay strong and speak out. Keep up the good work, happyscrapper!

92. #92
    On October 19th, 2009 at 4:28 pm, mattm said:

    Do not forget that they have shifted form “global warming” to “climate change.” Snow covered the field in at Gillette Stadium in Foxborougn MA on on Oct. 18th at the Pats game. If i engage a man-made supporter in debate I will hound them on that issue alone. Never got a answer but got them really panic and to look bad to others gathered around.

93. #93
    On October 19th, 2009 at 4:53 pm, fulldroolcup said:

    Funny how we’re always being told about the “hidden costs” of this or that, but never about “hidden benefits”, such a more comfortable standards of living, and fewer everyday hassles (no one has to load coal into their basement and shovel it into their furnace, as my parents did).

94. #94
    On October 19th, 2009 at 4:57 pm, purealchemy said:

    We women must stay strong and speak out.

    Does being 51 count as old lady?

95. #95
    On October 19th, 2009 at 4:58 pm, chapoutier said:

    My husband and I will celebrate our 40th anniversary this coming Sunday, October 25th.

    Mine is today, actually. A scant 7 years though.

96. #96
    On October 19th, 2009 at 5:24 pm, purealchemy said:

    Chaps!

    HAPPY ANNIVERSARY!

    (beware of the seven year itch)

    So, what do you have planned to make it special?

    Girls like that.

97. #97
    On October 19th, 2009 at 5:33 pm, chapoutier said:

    So, what do you have planned to make it special?

    I am making a chocolate fondue. Also I bought a bottle of the champagne we had the night I proposed.

98. #98
    On October 19th, 2009 at 5:35 pm, flyfisher said:

    On October 19th, 2009 at 4:08 pm, xler8bmw said:
    On October 19th, 2009 at 2:47 pm, flyfisher said:
    It takes 2/3 to ratify those same 2/3 wouldn’t vote to legislate it either. so 66 out 100 would vote against it. How could it pass?

    Daft or employed by the White House?

99. #99
    On October 19th, 2009 at 5:38 pm, purealchemy said:

    On October 19th, 2009 at 5:33 pm, chapoutier said:

    So, what do you have planned to make it special?

    I am making a chocolate fondue. Also I bought a bottle of the champagne we had the night I proposed.

    Good plan, but how do you have time to do all that?

100. #100
     On October 19th, 2009 at 5:40 pm, chapoutier said:

     Good plan, but how do you have time to do all that?

     I work from home. How do you think I have time to make all these comments?