Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord
Wordpress Fighting Words Blog ^ | 15 OCT 2009 | Walter @ Fightin' Words

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 Monckton’s 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 citizen’s focused attention.

Here were Monckton’s 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 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.

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. They’re 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 that’s his agenda and he’ll do it.

I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s 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 don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.

Question: Is it really irrevocable if that treaty is signed? Suppose it’s 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 don’t 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 wasn’t born in Hawaii and therefore we might not be able to get anywhere with that. Besides, once he’s signed that treaty, whether or not he signed it validly, once he’s signed it and ratified it – your Senate ratifies it – you’re bound by it. But I will say one thing; they know, in the White House, that they won’t 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 they’ve 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 Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s 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 Convention’s 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 Convention’s 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].


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government
KEYWORDS: agenda; bho44; bhonwo; climatechange; copenhagen; lordmonckton; monckton; sovereignty; treaty; untitednations
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last
To: LucyT

Bump Dat...


21 posted on 10/15/2009 6:41:45 PM PDT by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
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.

Not this treasonous SCOTUS.
It cannot recognize: ethics, codes of ethics, Constitution, sworn Oaths, or Honor.


22 posted on 10/15/2009 6:47:38 PM PDT by Diogenesis ("Those who go below the surface do so at their peril" - Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom

“Treaties need to be approved by two-thirds of the senate.”

True.

They are trying an end-around with cap and trade without Kyoto, and agreeing by legislation to international schemes.


23 posted on 10/15/2009 6:49:49 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Yadanuiat

Anyone else find it disturbing that people from the British and Canadian and Australian governments and media seem to understand and care more about the future of our country than our own government officials and media???

Daily these people, our friends in the world community, are warning us, shouting from the rooftops, WAKE UP AMERICA! and most Americans are too busy watching America’s Got Talent.....(shaking head)


24 posted on 10/15/2009 6:50:05 PM PDT by uncitizen (I'm mad as hell and i'm not gonna take it anymore!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

True, but that doesn’t mean this guy’s statement about our Constitution allowing a treaty to supercede itself is correct.


25 posted on 10/15/2009 6:53:51 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Yadanuiat
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.

They are about to impose a communist world government on the world.

We see this, Beck is exposing it, Obama is only one man, where are the checks and balance?

26 posted on 10/15/2009 6:59:42 PM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Constitution?

Was not aware that was operative today, FRiend.


27 posted on 10/15/2009 7:05:49 PM PDT by Diogenesis ("Those who go below the surface do so at their peril" - Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Yadanuiat; Desdemona; rdl6989; Little Bill; IrishCatholic; Normandy; ...
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

28 posted on 10/15/2009 7:07:14 PM PDT by steelyourfaith (Limit all U.S. politicians to two terms: One in office and one in prison!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yadanuiat

The 2nd amendment defines who ultimately holds sovereignty in this country


29 posted on 10/15/2009 7:12:26 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Buck Ofama!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yadanuiat

How?


30 posted on 10/15/2009 7:33:06 PM PDT by Marysecretary (GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ButThreeLeftsDo

As far as I know the Constitution is the Supreme Law of Land and even treaties cannot trump it’s provisions.

The preamble even state the Constitution is made for the people.


31 posted on 10/15/2009 7:35:42 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

We need a group to file a lawsuit and get whatever they do ruled Unconstitutional. Cap and Trade will waste so much and bankrupt business. Would love to shove it in Graham’s face.


32 posted on 10/15/2009 8:13:27 PM PDT by PhiKapMom (Mary Fallin - OK Gov/Coburn - Senate 2010 ! Take Back the House/Senate! Stop ZERO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

You’re right. Treaties don’t supersede the Constitution, but once they are ratified, they do become the law of the land.

Wiki has a decent article about the Constitution and Treaties and how they are amended, superseded or repealed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause


33 posted on 10/15/2009 8:14:11 PM PDT by Yadanuiat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Yadanuiat

No surprise.


34 posted on 10/15/2009 8:59:02 PM PDT by b4its2late (Ignorance allows liberalism to prosper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yadanuiat
Doesn't the Senate have to confirm any treaty signed by the President?
Oh, never mind. ;o(
35 posted on 10/15/2009 9:15:08 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Bump


36 posted on 10/15/2009 9:37:11 PM PDT by Museum Twenty (Exceptional Progress is never generated by committee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Bump


37 posted on 10/15/2009 10:42:43 PM PDT by Museum Twenty (Exceptional Progress is never generated by committee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Yadanuiat

Jst curious, but will the russians or the chinese be sigining away their sovereignity in this treaty?


38 posted on 10/15/2009 10:57:32 PM PDT by Always Independent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yadanuiat
if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution

Fortunately, it doesn't. Treaties must be made "Under the Authority of the United States". The United States (government) only has that authority granted to it by the Constitution.

Besides which that is missreading of the Treaty suppremacy clause:

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.

A treaty is supreme over the (Constitution or Laws) of any state. Not over (the Constitution) or (Laws of any state). It's *state* Constitutions that are potentially subservient to treaties made under the authority of the United States. Not the Federal/US Constitution.

Now that said, it would not supprise me if Obummer didn't try to pull this off. The Senate must ratify treaties before they bind the US and the states, a provision left over from the time when the Senators represented their states, not merely the people who live there. It should probably be amended to require a vote of the state legislatures to ratify a treaty, since they are bound by it once it's ratified.

39 posted on 10/15/2009 11:09:07 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom

My reply to a similar sentiment expressed elsewhere:

I agree with you on principle. However, there is a flaw in passively relying on the “limitations” built into the executive office. Those limitations really only exist if enforced. Like any law, if there is no one policing to detect and deter violations, it has no meaning. A cursory examination of American history reveals numerous examples of the built-in limitations of government being violently abused or ignored. At the end of the day we are the limitation on the executive. We are the Law. We have to keep this from happening.


40 posted on 10/16/2009 12:53:08 AM PDT by Walter Scott Hudson (fightinwords.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson