It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dbates
When Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson won the award, they were both well into their second term as President and it was pretty obvious what their opinions were at the time. I have wondered before if the Nobel prize was an attempt to push Woodrow Wilson into getting the U.S. to sign onto a peace treaty with the European nations.
At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.
[laughter]
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.
So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I'm going to say that it doesn't much matter.
I don't much care about a noise violation ticket if my house is on fire. There are much more pressing matters.
Wilson went before Congress in January 1918, to enunciate American war aims--the Fourteen Points, the last of which would establish "A general association of nations...affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike."
But the election of 1918 had shifted the balance in Congress to the Republicans. By seven votes the Versailles Treaty failed in the Senate.
www.whitehouse.gov...
Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
Originally posted by dbates
Well, the award does come with a $1.4 million prize. As the news article points out, Pres. Obama can't even give that to charity in his name since that would give him a huge tax break.
As far as the title of "Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize" I'd say that this was actually better than the title of "Sir" or "Lord" since so very few people actually receive the award. For instance you could use it to boost your reputation and status. Looking at it that way I'm sure even the medal they give out would have to receive the blessing of Congress. We'll just have to wait and see what Congress says.
It isn't a legal title though, I believe that's what the amendment means, like it does in Canada.
For instance, you don't get; "Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize", on your drivers license or anything else. If you're knighted, you're then legally Sir John Smith.
Originally posted by nicholaswa
reply to post by dbates
President Obama isn't the first sitting U.S. President to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. It's happened twice before, and hasn't been ruled unconstitutional. Perhaps they'll rule it unconstitutional this time, though, because he is black.
Originally posted by The Parallelogram
how is this any different than when Roosevelt or Wilson won the prize during their presidencies?
Originally posted by dbates
(visit the link for the full news article)
Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the emolument clause, clearly stipulates: "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."
Originally posted by RoofMonkey
Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at Bethel University in St. Paul
At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.
[laughter]
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.
So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.
Link
Originally posted by The Parallelogram
Originally posted by nicholaswa
reply to post by dbates
President Obama isn't the first sitting U.S. President to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. It's happened twice before, and hasn't been ruled unconstitutional. Perhaps they'll rule it unconstitutional this time, though, because he is black.
still waiting for somebody to acknowledge this post...
how is this any different than when Roosevelt or Wilson won the prize during their presidencies?
this post will be ignored as well, of course. there's no goddamn place for sense or reason on ATS any more.
Originally posted by Roadblockx
Originally posted by piddles
reply to post by NOTurTypical
so someone said something stupid and wrong. happens everyday. Using something stupid that someone said to make a point seems to equate to...hmm lemme think, stupid.
He's obviously not any kind of powerful entity, since he can't fix the economy with like religious miracles.
I don't like you making a useless post that doesn't say anything or add to the conversation.
that is all.
1.Man, someone hurry and make this guy a Super, Super MOD. With that kind of energy, you must be drinking BHO KoolAid non-stop. Put the cup down, it's beginning to blur your vision and thoughts.
2.BTW, if this is such a waste of your time and bandwidth, why not stroll along to some other site that is desperately waiting for someone with your kind of vast wit, knowledge and authority. We will miss you but hopefully signing praises to the great one will help us get over it. Take your KoolAid with you....
3.BHO should see this award as something in the "gray" area and accept the award but delay the actual receiving of it until out of office. That is what a stand up guy would do.
4.But this ghetto-wanna-be thug thinks everything runs like Chicago (and Kenya) so why be a stand-up guy?
If he was really about more then selling the sheeple (cough..piddles..cough) fun words to hang in their mind (remember hope, change??), he would begin to actually be about change. But as long as you fools continue to drink from his trough, you deserve what you get.
5.WU-TANG sux...
Originally posted by buddhasystem
I agree with you on this one, however I'm wondering why you started the issues of "non-constitutional" acceptance of the prize with Mr.Obama, not with Teddy Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson, which in fact do set a historic AND legal precedent. Unless you analyze Roosevelt's case in all detail, you logically should stay away from Obama.
Conservatives argue emolument clause bars Obama from accepting prize
Rotunda, Pham in Wash. Post: Prize "belongs to the United States," should be used for "reducing the deficit." Chapman University Law professor Ronald Rotunda and Peter Pham, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), wrote in an October 16 Washington Post op-ed that Obama "has run afoul of the emolument clause" since "the award of the peace prize is made by a body representing the legislature of a sovereign foreign state," and the Constitution requires congressional consent for such a gift. Rotunda and Pham recommended that the prize money "be applied by Congress to some worthy cause, such as reducing the deficit." They further asserted that Obama's acceptance of "the bejeweled Collar of the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit" from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia violated the Constitution and that the gift should be returned until the Saudis "recogniz[e] the right of Israel to live in peace within secure borders." Rotunda previously advised Ken Starr during the Clinton administration, and Pham now works with FDD, a notably conservative think tank. FDD president Clifford May previously served as communications director for the Republican National Committee. In 2007, May appeared in the media several times to defend the Bush administration's conduct in the Iraq war without disclosing that FDD had received at least $1.2 million in State Department grants, or that he advised then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on democracy promotion.
Washington Examiner's Freire: Prize "is precisely the sort of lobbying the Framers were concerned about." In an October 9 post, J.P. Freire asked, "Can a sitting president receive a Nobel Peace Prize?" Citing both the emolument clause and a section of the U.S. code, Freire concluded that "to play it safe ... [Obama] should have Congress do a quick vote to allow him to accept the award." Freire also stated that "the law definitely appears to discourage this sort of thing" and added in an October 12 post that "y coincidence, Federalist Paper No. 22 uses Sweden as an example of the ability of foreign powers to meddle in domestic affairs. (At various points, Sweden and Norway have shared power, with Sweden running foreign affairs while Norway ran domestic affairs.)"
Politico's Gerstein forwards Bush official's legal "concern[s]." In a Politico blog post, Josh Gerstein wrote that "[g]overnment ethics experts said [Obama] would be ill-advised to keep [the prize money] or even to turn it over to charity." But Gerstein cited only Richard Painter, an ethics counsel under President Bush. Gerstein quoted Painter's statement that "[t]urning the gift over to charity is something we usually would advise against in the Bush Administration," and that the emolument clause "is a concern. ... [S]eems to me if I were giving him counsel I'd say accept the prize without the money." [Politico, 10/9/09]