Skip to comments.Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord
Posted on 10/15/2009 6:04:37 PM PDT by Yadanuiat
The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.
A detailed summary of Moncktons presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizens focused attention.
Here were Moncktons closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:
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 theyre going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody wont 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 weve been burning CO2 and they havent. Weve been screwing up the climate and they havent. 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 doesnt 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. Hes going to sign it. Hell sign anything. Hes a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course hell sign it.
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you cant resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties And because youll be the biggest paying country, theyre 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. Ive read the treaty. Ive 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.
But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.
So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:
Sail on, O Ship of State! Sail on, O Union, strong and great! Humanity with all its fears, With all the hopes of future years, Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevent to the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty:
Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. Theyre trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe thats his agenda and hell do it.
I dont minimize the difficulty. But on this subject I dont really do politics, because its not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you dont want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.
Question: Is it really irrevocable if that treaty is signed? Suppose its signed by someone who does not have the authority, as I I have some, a high degree of skepticism that we do have a valid president there because I -
I know at least one judge who shares your opinion, sir, yes.
I dont believe it until I see it. Would [Obama's potential illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign as president?
I would be very careful not to rely on things like that. Although there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would be very difficult to prove he wasnt born in Hawaii and therefore we might not be able to get anywhere with that. Besides, once hes signed that treaty, whether or not he signed it validly, once hes signed it and ratified it your Senate ratifies it youre bound by it. But I will say one thing; they know, in the White House, that they wont be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to ratify a treaty of this kind. However, what theyve worked out is this and they actually let it slip during the election campaign, which is how I know about it. They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple majority of both houses. That they can do. But the virtue of that and here you have a point is that is, thank God, reversible. So I want you to pray tonight, and pray hard for your Senate that they utterly refuse to ratify the [new] Treaty of Copenhagen, because if they refuse to ratify it and [Obama] has to push it through as domestic legislation, you can repeal it.
Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.
Edited to add @ 8:31 am:
Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Moncktons assessment of the new entitys purpose: 38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
World Government (heading added) (a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
To Redistribute Wealth (heading added) b) The Conventions financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
With Enforcement Authority (heading added) © The Conventions facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].
If you get a chance, please stop by the FReepathon thread and give it a bump. If you havent donated something yet, please give it some thought...
Already done via the IMF.
people better pay attention
Another Senate fight?
God give speed to Leo Donofrio’s wings.
We need Quo Warrento NOW.
“Treaties are made to be broken” (Bismarck). If the US returns to sanity, a way will be found to ignore or undo this foolishness.
Learn the constitution first. Treaties must be ratified by the Senate. There is no way that many Senators will willfully become obvious domestic enemies to millions of armed veterans.
Treaties need to be approved by two-thirds of the senate.
That treaty is going nowhere.
OF course it is true. But real treaties must be passed by the Senate, I believe.
Still, there are enough idiots (leftists) in the US Senate it could be passed.
Gotta get in line with this one:
Stop Tax and Trade
Stop this Globaloney “treaty”
We’ll see but I imagine it will be taken up by the alternative media...hopefully so.
And many reliable conservatives such as Mike Pence, and Senator Inhoffe will bring attention to it.
But, if they want, the Damnocrats have the votes to pass anything.
Another Senate fight?
. . . . Similar thread.
Would [Obama's potential illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign as president?
I would be very careful not to rely on things like that. Although there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would be very difficult to prove he wasnt born in Hawaii and therefore we might not be able to get anywhere with that.
Besides, once hes signed that treaty, whether or not he signed it validly, once hes signed it and ratified it your Senate ratifies it youre bound by it.
>Learn the constitution first. Treaties must be ratified by the Senate. There is no way that many Senators will willfully become obvious domestic enemies to millions of armed veterans.
I wish the WOULD, as I’m of the opinion that there are domestic enemies that need shot. Furthermore, I hold in contempt the 11th Congress’s willful disregard of the Constitution (No Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto law; retroactive tax LAW targeting CEOs, for one), the fourth amendment, the fifth, the sixth, the ninth, the fourteenth (Charlie Rangle and Tim Geithner are treated just like everyone else when it comes to tax evasion/fraud, right?), and I think the 7th and 8th, but I’d have to re-read them to make sure I’m not mixing them up.
“There’s a storm brewing.”
“But, if they want, the Damnocrats have the votes to pass anything.”
Yes, and it all depends on what they believe is written in the treaty....because we all know they DON’T READ before passing these things. I doubt they’d even question anything that could put a negative light on Obama.
If they see it as being “for the greater good”, they’ll pass it.
If they cared, the Bonus Army would have gone back, reinforced and armed, after no more than a week. NFA would have been immediately repealed. The government wouldn't have tried GCA after hypothetically seeing those consequences.
In short, we'll all bend over and take it like everybody else has for far too long.
“”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: Elliots 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.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.