WATCH IT MR. PRESIDENT YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE SUCKERED

The ONLY important Deal Obama will sign is to give our government over to the UN.

oh gawd

lol Lori...that was my thought exactly...followed by intense extreme laughter.

Yep the laughter...eye rolling...laughter...eye rolling...and on and on.

When you make a treaty that obligates you to pay extremely large amounts of money and give a third party jurisdiction to enforce that agreement you automatically turn over control of your government at the same time.

The One World Government is the goal and has been pushed by the very people who have pushed global warming. One in partricular is Al Gore.

You're right, Col. George, and it's also something Obama has embraced for years. He has been campaigning for king of the world for years as well. I'm sure he wants a place in that one world government.

HAHAHAHAHA!! Funny!

Marilyn, He will not get it but he thinks he will most likely.

George, I don't even have to think to reach your level of intelligence if you honestly believe this junk. lol

I'm with Lori and Bryan on this. Good joke though.

Sorry, got here by accident. Didn't realize it wasn't intended to be a spoof.

The One World Government has been the goal for the power hungry and the Communists for the longest time. British Intelligence infiltrated Communist cells in Germany back in 1919, just after the First World War with a lot of these same goals in mind.

All of you come back After you read the Copenhagen Treaty. Talk to me then With some intelligence.

Charles, that is absolutely right and we are facing it again with a different angle.

Let me guess George... We never went to the moon... Bigfoot lives in your Garage.. You truly can pray away the gay. I would imagine you subscribe to these too? The Obama haters will find anything they want to see in anything they read or see. Doesnt matter if its true or false. The same things have been said before and will be said again and again..... and again.

Brian what in the world are you ranting about? You make no sence at all. How about letting me have a little of what every you are drinking? I could use a good drunk.

Only bad things can come out of this Copenhagen summit

I read this just this morning ... and unless the President has bribed someone big time not sure he's gonna be happy at Copenhagen. Orrr, this article is completely wrong (except I think I read something similar somewhere else recently...)

An international treaty to combat global warming almost certainly won’t be reached this year, despite U.N. and climate change extremists’ insistence that agreement on worldwide greenhouse gas emission limits must be reached at December’s 190-nation climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark.

As proposed, the treaty would impose economy-crippling emission caps worldwide, and require billions in wealth transfers from developed nations like the United States to developing nations like China. The problem is, the world isn’t going along with the plan. Neither is the climate cooperating.

“For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures,” conceded BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson.

Meanwhile, China and India, accounting for nearly a third of the world’s population, signed a deal last month saying they won’t go along with a treaty that forces them to impose greenhouse gas emission limits, reported Investor’s Business Daily. Other developing nations, including Mexico, Brazil and South Africa, also are likely to reject such a proposal.

Weeks earlier, the Group of 77 developing nations discussed “what they wanted to do about global warming. Their answer: nothing,” the publication reported. Some developing nations view emission capping as an attempt to restrict their economic growth and competition. Read more here.

Thanks Lee

More things to ponder about this Administration.

For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures,” conceded BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson.


We have not had a year where the global average annual temperature has been as hot as 1998. But every year back to the mid 1980's has had an average annual temperature that is hotter than normal. The claim that there has not been an increase in global temperatures is false. Global temperatures have risen in 4 of the last 5 years. All 5 of those years had average annual global temperatures above normal.

RF... science cant even agree on what actually the global temperature IS...much less the average over a year AND reaching back to 1902.

Give me 5 scientists and I'll give you 5 global temperatures.
~M

The scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have no trouble agreeing on what global temperature is or what the annual average global temperatures have been.

Col. Some of the governments of the world are slowly consolidating. We also have seen the entire former Soviet Union fall apart. The former Yugoslavia disintegrated. Kurds in Iraq continue their efforts break from that country. You'll never see a one world government in your lifetime. Your grandchildren will never see it either.

I sincerely hope you are right, but will we still have our Constitution and Bill of Rights? Will the US have an "overseer"? NO change will happen quickly except the devistating expense the Treaty puts on us with the tremendous tax burden.

When our government agrees to pay money for any reason it is our money and our taxes. Can WE carry the burden of all the undeveloped countries as well as the health plan and all the national debt. I don't think so.

"give a third party jurisdiction to enforce that agreement, you automatically turn over control of your government"

YEP!

Oh, I just heard that India is buying up mega amounts of gold and saying Good bye American Dollar.

Better start melting your gold jewelry folks!

Nora, best check on who controls the bank in India.

This comment is to let you know that this content has reached at least ten comments, and as such has been removed from Comment Speedway! Congratulations!

THere was a time, I would not have given this much thought, and passed it up. But watching out Government for a few decades, I now see this a a valid concern. Obama does have a Marxist background to the Communist issue would not be out of line with him. On the other hand, the Democrats have been willing to let someone else run this country because they have the notion that it could be done better. I see this attitude in Obama, Pelosi, and others in line.
To refuse to accept this as a concernm is to ignore facts, but then supporters of Obama have been doing so for some time now...

Agree, perhaps we have a case of "The Emperor's New Clothes"...

History does repeat itself when people ignore it!

Exactly. And they are ignoring everything with Obama...

I agree! I agree!

Col. We don't have to give up the Constitution to enter into treaties with other nations. There is a process for entering into treaties outlined in the Constitution. We do no have to give up sovereignty to enter into treaties with other countries and entering into treaties with other countries does not by itself mean we are giving up sovereignty. We have signed on to many treaties in the past and there are plenty of examples of us reneging on those treaties when we thought it in our best interest to do so.

There is no third party that can force us to live up to a treaty unless we want to. The US is a member of the UN Security Council and as such can veto any action others in the UN may want to take. These are the facts.

In entering a treaty to pay other nations for a phoney or real CO2 polution and turning over the enforcement of that agreement to the UN, you are in essence throwing our laws out the window. It gives the UN authority over every citizen and what they do every day. What it boils down to is a tax on breathing.

Col. thank you for isolating the issues by saying "phoney or real" regarding global warming. That allows us to put aside our differences on that issue and focus on the UN's possible role in the execution of a possible treaty.

Nation's that sign on to a treaty have obligated themselves to do something in return for something. In the case of global warming, nations would be agreeing to negotiated obligations to help meet the goal of addressing a real or percieved common threat to the entire planet. It makes sense that some entity would oversee such an undertaking. The UN seems the logical choice. Having the UN oversee such a global project doesn't give them power to do anything but check to see everyone is complying with such a treaty. Will the UN have the power to impose sanctions? Again, remember that before any sanctions can be imposed they would be voted on by the Security Council where we can veto them.

If we agree to be bound by a treaty to pay some price for polluting, then we should pay it. Just as any other country that agrees to the treaty should pay a price for their transgressions. Ultimately, for members of the Security Council the imposition of sanctions against any one of them relies on the country that is to be sanctioned agreeing to having those sanctions imposed. In reality, the UN would have no power at all over the Security Council member countries.

I understand your concern about investing authority in the UN. As governments have more universal concerns, some body like the UN will have to have some level of authority. It's kind of the nature of how things have worked over the ages. A few hundred years ago, nobody cared or knew what was going on on the other side of a mountain range and nothing those people were doing over there was likely to have an effect on them. So you needed no government common to the two groups. When concerns and interests start to overlap and become complex governments start to grow. Before there was the Constitution there was the Articles of Confereation. But the Articles formed too weak a central government to address all the concerns of the young nation. Before the Articles there were seperate colonies ultimately under the king of England. Before that there were the Native American tribes which in most cases were even smaller governments. The nature and size of government has almost always been determined by need and interest. Smaller groups give up something to get the benefits of belonging to a larger group. It's clear that the US is not a country that needs to rely on the benefits derived from belonging to the UN as much as many other countries. But only because it is arguably the strongest and richest nation. However there are times when it is reasonable to join the rest of the world (or a large part of it anyway) when our interests are best served by doing so.

Before you pay for something don't you first want to know beyond a doubt it exists?

If you're talking about global warming, Col. I'm already convinced it exists. You're not convinced. It's certainly valid to oppose paying for actions to do away with something you don't think exists.

There is more at stake than a climate change as devistating as it could be if true. There is the existance of this and every other nation. A One World Government will as planned be a Socialist Oligarchy run by the UN. No thinking person would like that. For one thing all our talk on the net would cease if it don't meet goverment approval. No more voting. No more representatives in government. In essince a commitee King telling us what to do and think.

Life on Earth is dependant on Four things. Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Water, and Sun. If anyone can control ONE of those four they control Life. We have an organization attempting to control CO2, Carbon Dioxide. What does that tell you?

For most of the left, that is to hard a question. Maybe 1/10000000 could figure it out.

I believe you are right Dan but they must before they are given the answer by the UN.

Nobody is going to have the power to take CO2 away from you, Col. You'll have more than you need for centuries.

If that's the case R.F. why this treaty that imposes limits on the amount of CO2 you produce? It amounts to control in the absolute sense and a tax on breathing.

But if there is too much of it and it poses a danger, and many credible people believe there is too much CO2 and that it does pose a danger, then doing something about it is reasonable. The best argument for controlling the production of CO2 is that by doing so we all benefit whether or not there is such a thing as man made global warming. Actions to reduce CO2 would also reduce other pollutants, exploit renewable energy sources, increase national security for many countries, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and the regimes that control the oil, foster greeen technologies that can be the engine of economic growth and employment, etc. There are too many good reasons to go down this road and not too many risks.

CO2 poses no danger to the plants. They love it. We as humans need it to live and when we exhale we exhale CO2. Plants give off Oxygen so we can live. Have normally more tropical plants began to migrate to traditionally colder climates? Are the plants growing faster? Are trees doubling in size year to year?

They claim the CO2 is in the upper atmosphere but CO2 is heaver than air so how does it get up there? Even if you agree that some of it goes to the upper atmosphere you must agree that most of it stays on the surface. That would cause an unusual groth rate for all plants. Not happening.

All that aside. It is no excuse to turn our country and freedoms over to the UN and that is exactly what the Copenhgen Treaty is actually all about. The are selling fixing a climate change panic but will deliver bondage.

Col. there are plenty of indications among plants that there is global warming going on and that plants are growing more abundantly. Here's a link to a very graphic display of how global warming has affected the hardiness zones in the US. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2008-04-23-gardening-map_N.htm
I used to live in hardiness zone 6. Now I am in hardiness zone 7 and I didn't move.

Here's an explanation that explains how CO2 gets into upper layers of the atmosphere:

"True, CO2 is heavier than air. But when it comes to the behavior of gases, the effect of gravity is tiny.

Gases DIFFUSE. Even if a heavy gas is spread out along the floor, it will eventually rise up to spread evenly throughout the whole room....otherwise we'd all be walking around in a layer of CO2 with the oxygen and nitrogen in their different layers. Gases mix..."

Col. feathers float and they are heavier than air. As long as there is any turbulence in the air, CO2 which is only slightly heavier than air will stay in the atmosphere.

I agree that we should not turn over our country or freedom over to the UN but I don't believe that is what any treaty that we will sign on to will do.

I suggest you put Copenhagen Treaty in your search engine and read it R. F.

Thanks for that link it should be interesting.

There is no treaty, Col.

Thre is a draft treaty that will be finalized at the Copenhagen Conference.

Well, then we have to see the final treaty before we know if it will violate our interests.

Have you read the draft?

R. F. Your reasoning, "Col. feathers float and they are heavier than air. As long as there is any turbulence in the air, CO2 which is only slightly heavier than air will stay in the atmosphere."

If that were the case the C02 would be evenly distributed or nearly so and not accumulating in the stratisphere. Up there, there is no air. Gravety keeps it all around our planet.

Thanks for posting Col. George
featured at Purely Political
with many thanks
Mark

Thank You Mark.

So far I have gotten no good reason for Obama to sign that treaty.

There is no treaty. :-)

We are all in a heap of do do.