Josh on lying for 'the cause'

Greg House says:
February 3, 2013 at 8:18 pm
Scientists when acting as scientists never find themselves in those circumstances.

LT,
Relax dude….. we still have a catastrophe.

Actually I’m not even sure that it is science’s job to be involved with “saving the world” through influencing politicians. However, I guess that is probably unrealistic.
We went from Einstein convincing FDR to pursue the A-bomb to a ham n’ egger like Mikey Mann trying to re-engineer the worldwide economy.

john robertson says:
February 3, 2013 at 4:41 pm
… Then they retreat under questioning to, “Respect my authority”, yet do not see the problem.
What the IPCC, UN, our bureaucrats and governments have communicated, is their mendacity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
H. L. Mencken had it right. “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
I see nothing in the actions of the Regulating Class to make me think this is not the actual goal, especially when you add in the words of Pascal Lamy, Director General of the World Trade Organization.

“Global governance requires localising global issues” — Lamy
… Europe scores in my view rather highly. Thanks to the primacy of EU law over national law. Thanks to the work of the European Court of Justice in ensuring enforcement and respect for the rule of law. And thanks to a clear articulation between the Commission, the Parliament, and the European Court of Justice. It also scores highly from the point of view of redistribution policies….

It is very clear the ultimate goal is “a new international order” based on the European Union Model ( Also see Global Governance: Lessons from Europe )

Pascal Lamy: Whither Globalization?
…All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty — rooted in freedom, openness, prosperity and interdependence.
…The profound shock of the recent financial crisis, our inability to face (let alone solve) global warming, the failure to halt nuclear proliferation, even the WTO’s stalled Doha negotiations illustrate that the status quo is no longer good enough….
The challenges posed by globalization are far from simple….
In the same way, climate change negotiations are not just about the global environment but global economics as well — the way that technology, costs and growth are to be distributed and shared. Can we maintain an open trading system without a more coordinated financial system?
Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life? These may be complex questions, but they demand answers.
At the same time, globalization is blurring the line between national and world issues, redefining our notions of space, sovereignty and identity.
To improve the way the international system works, we must “network” global governance in a better way…. To improve policy coherence, we need to build consensus.….To achieve consensus, we need to strengthen the system’s legitimacy by better reflecting the interests and concerns of citizens…. civil society and citizens need to ensure that the issues debated on the global stage are echoed and explained at the grassroots….

The money quote is “…To improve policy coherence, we need to build consensus…..To achieve consensus, we need to strengthen the system’s legitimacy by better reflecting the interests and concerns of citizens…. civil society and citizens need to ensure that the issues debated on the global stage are echoed and explained at the grassroots…” That is where the Global Warming and the environment come in. As Mencken also said
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. “
The question now becomes whether or not treaties can be used to get around the U.S. Constitution and essentially make the USA a subject state of the UN.

For decades, apostles of one-world government have endeavored to convince the American people that treaties, rather than the Constitution, embody the supreme law of the land. In 1952, Secretary of State and Council on Foreign Relations member John Foster Dulles told the American Bar Association that “Treaty law can override the Constitution.” “Treaties for example…can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.”
Source

Supreme Court to rule on whether treaties break constitutional bonds
Treaties as Law of the Land
Acknowledge That Treaties Are Laws

Treaties Do Not Supersede the Constitution
The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: “Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution”.
The Second follow-up lie is this one: “A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside”….
“This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

“… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’
“There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…
“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).
“In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”

An act being unconstitutional however has never stopped the Progressives from using the Supreme Court to override the actual meaning of the Constitution. The classic case is FDR’s threat to pack the Supreme Court to dilute the influence of the uncooperative “nine old men,” so the Federal government could claim greater power than the Constitution allows.
The Commerce Clause: Route to Omnipotent Government

Gail Combs says:
February 4, 2013 at 11:24 am
Good materials you provided. Yes the goal is control. The goal of communism has always been control. If these people are not communists then they are useful idiots.

We need to learn continuously who is trustworthy and not, we should not attempt to set up a profession as “trusted” based on a static point and stop examining it.
Such a profession would be the first place the untrustworthy would go. People should be at least a little skeptical of every profession.