Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty in Copenhagen, Claims British Lord Monckton

Reposted from comments on the new Urban Future thread here

Originally from the blog Fightin’ Words

[picapp src=”b/2/3/7/IOC_2016_Olympic_c1a5.jpg?adImageId=5771484&imageId=6683524″ width=”500″ height=”361″ /]

Above: Obama’s last visit to Copenhagen didn’t work out so well for the USA.

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!

http://i43.tinypic.com/xm3btj.jpg
Lord Monckton giving a presentation - photo by Derek Warnecke

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.

[Update: this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don’t want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin’ Words – Anthony]

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)

c) 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].

UPDATE: Thanks to WUWT reader “Michael” who post the URL on another unrelated thread, we now have video of Lord Monckton’s presentation:


Sponsored IT training links:

Join 1z0-053 online course to pass 642-812 exam plus get free link for 642-973 exam material.


0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

347 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Back2Bat
October 16, 2009 5:07 am

Oh, Chris, there is a Biblical precedent too:
Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. James 5:17

Back2Bat
October 16, 2009 5:11 am

Yes, let’s see how far “Don’t burn carbon” will fly when people need to keep warm.

Richard111
October 16, 2009 5:26 am

“”(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. “”
And all of this will somehow result in reduced GLOBAL emissions?
Simply by transfering assets from one country to another is a CURE?

DaveE
October 16, 2009 5:29 am

Monckton is well aware of your constitution.
From the text…

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.

DaveE.

Walter Cronanty
October 16, 2009 5:30 am

cedarhill (04:01:23) : I agree. I fear the regulatory system and cap and trade much more than I do the Copenhagen treaty. I do not believe that 2/3 of the Senate will ratify. I do believe that most of what is desired by way of the treaty will be accomplished through cap and trade and the regulatory process, where the devil is in the details and nobody reads the law except those that write it.

Tim S.
October 16, 2009 5:36 am

If this happens, then the precedent for global taxation will have been set, and more global taxes will follow. And taxes fuel the growth of any government entity. Hello New World Order.

Vincent
October 16, 2009 5:40 am

If Monckton is right that the treaty is about ceding sovereignty to a world government, then the Chinese will not sign it, never mind Obama. Not only that, I doubt the EU would sign. Why would they cede to someone else the very powers they’ve spent years scheming to win for themselves?
We in the UK have already ceded most sovereignty to the EU which is imposed by a series of edicts issued from Brussels, called EU directives. These directives have to be passed into national law by an act of parliament which is a cunning method of disguising their origin from skeptical voters. Not many realise how many acts of parliament are actually edicts issued from unelected bureaucrats.

OceanTwo
October 16, 2009 5:41 am

(E M Smith, one again, you have nailed the situation.)
As far as politics on WUWT, it’s an important piece, here, because weather GW is happening or not, weather AGW is real or not, and weather you believe either of these things or not, AGW is being used as a political and financial force; more importantly create an even greater partisan wedge. For all Obamas rhetoric on creating a bi-partisan atmosphere, the reality is just the opposite.
This current political path is giving greater power and legitimacy to the less stable regimes around the world. Indeed, and I’m afraid to say it, but I suspect that we are at another juncture where a foreign nation will once again invade a sovereign nation, because the US has tied itself economically to a stake in the ground with a short chain. Like it or not, the greatest military might cannot act when it has subjected itself to it’s own attrition.
Simply, the [Anthropogenic Global Warming] facts are irrelevant when politics is playing the game.

savethesharks
October 16, 2009 5:43 am

One type-o in here….anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic.
Although….given the almost mythological tone of the Warmers….perhaps anthropomorphic is an accurate term.
Regardless…thank you for this post. Lord Monkton has alot of ***** continuously standing up against what will go down in one of the biggest scientific errors in human history (and the agenda behind it).
It is now up to us to sound the alarm.
Printing out a copy of this 200 page treaty and reading over the weekend…
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

October 16, 2009 5:49 am

“conspiracy” is such an emotional term. Why not “concerted plan” instead?
If politicians really were interested in the public good and not their own political power, they would be investigating skeptical science, hoping that the scientific “consensus” is wrong, and celebrating the possibility that this whole AGW thing has been a false alarm.
Instead, they are acting in exactly the opposite manner.

RickZ
October 16, 2009 5:52 am

gtrip (00:41:36) :
Is it me or is Lord Monckton becoming the Al Gore of our side? Our president can’t sign any treaty that will mean anything to our country without our Senates approval.
—-
With the current Senate political configuration, you don’t think the Dems could pass such a treaty, thanks to squishy RINOs like Graham, Snowe, Collins, McCain, and the rest? We now have a political aristocracy who no longer take marching orders from we the people, but who rule us by diktat, for our own good, of course, as they know better.
If they can pass a 1,300 page stimulous bill without reading the damn thing, why would they not pass a treaty that Obama wants? To think otherwise is to think we actually have a Constitutional Republic at the moment rather than our current Banana Republic.
—-
gtrip (01:01:49) :
I don’t know where you are from, but the things you speak of are strictly specified in our constitution. I know that our current president is circumstancing some executive limitations by allowing appointed agencies to create dictates (laws), but they are going to have to pass judicial review if challenged.
—-
Treaties are not reviewed by the Judiciary.
—-
ralph (01:01:30) :
Is this why they suddenly gave Obama that ill-deserved Nobel Pize? I wonder…
—-
No wonder required. It’s all of a piece. Obama is the most unqualified President in our Nation’s history, and that’s saying something, yet he was given the D’Oh-bel Peas Prize for his ‘good intentions’. He didn’t campaign for President of the United States, he campaigned for President of the World, what with a campaign stop in Berlin and the Palestineans running phone banks to raise money for his campaign. Also see his sitting in on the UN Security Council, the first President to do such a thing.

wws
October 16, 2009 5:54 am

Back2back, you’ve got a good point.
The history of American Treaties is a history of signing them and then walking away from them as soon as they don’t suit us anymore. Throughout the 19th century, the only treaties we ever stuck with were those with countries we thought might be stronger than us. We did it before, we’ll do it again.
Any law is only as powerful as the police (or army) willing to enforce it. So, with regard to the EU – you and what army are gonna enforce that piece of paper?

Bruce Cobb
October 16, 2009 5:55 am

I find any comparison of Monckton to Gore to be highly offensive and outrageous. Even if Monckton has overstated the danger somewhat, at least as far as the U.S. constitution is concerned, the danger of loss of freedom is a very real one with enormous consequences to humanity. Al Gore isn’t just peddling his Alarmist fear- mongering garbage; he is selling an ideology based on lies, which is the basis for fascism.

John Galt
October 16, 2009 5:57 am

This should be no surprise. Our president is an internationalist. He believes the concept of national sovereignty is obsolete. needs of the international community come first.
Consensus, and going along to get along — at almost any price — are central to this belief. It doesn’t work so well when working with other nations that do not share those beliefs.

MartinGAtkins
October 16, 2009 6:00 am

The Prime Minister of Australia can be trusted to sign anything the UN shoves in front of him. He’s a toady.

Hoi Polloi
October 16, 2009 6:03 am

I’m an AGW skeptic, but I hesitate to use the Lord Mockton for reference as the AGW should refrain from using Al Bore. These people do the case more harm than good. I put Monckton in the same class as Monbiot, politcal activist. I rather refer to scientist like McIntyre, Pielke or Spencer. The less attention to Monckton the better for our case.

TerryBixler
October 16, 2009 6:04 am

Every day take the time to explain to someone that you know or do not know that AGW does not exist. Educate explain that the ice caps are growing and the temperatures are falling. Explain the solar minimum. Facts help, spread facts. CO2 is not a pollutant. Lisa Jackson, Pelosi, Waxman and Obama are wrong. They are trying to do very bad things to the U.S. and the world.

October 16, 2009 6:04 am

Famous last words, like one of your Civil War officers, I forget which, who said something along the lines of “Don’t be ridiculous, they couldn’t possibly hit us from that dist………”!
General John Sedgewick.
Obama can sign the treaty, but Congress must ratify it before it becomes binding — and the mob we have in office at present can’t even decide what the “health care reform” bill actually says.

Jackbequick
October 16, 2009 6:07 am

I read this blog looking for something to balance the global warming debate for me. From the questions you put as relevant I have to ask, are you a birther? If so it gives me great pause at taking this site seriously.
REPLY: No and this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don’t want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin’ Words – Anthony

October 16, 2009 6:09 am

For all of you to know: This is not by any means surprising. My country is negotiating a Free Trade Agreement with the European Union. Everything is OK except they want to oblige us to cede sovereignty in environmental and human rights issues.

Mark
October 16, 2009 6:10 am

Does anybody have the link to the Copenhagen climate agreement?

Deanster
October 16, 2009 6:10 am

BlondieBC
” … it is a failure of the american people, not our system or our leaders. ”
Blondie hits it on the nail … again. This treaty will be signed, it will pass the senate, it will be enforced … not because of Obama, or the Senate, or Pelosi …
It will because the Amerian Public as stooped to such levels of gullibility and stupidity, that they will support such. The American Public has lost its sense of individual responsiblity and accoutability, and as such, has adopted the entitlement mind set and “collectivists” mentality that gives rise to Communistic types of regimes.
We’re toast folks.

P Gosselin
October 16, 2009 6:12 am

The first step to utopia.
This NoKo clip is Obama’s vision of America:
HEROIC WORKERS’ FACTORY:

RobP
October 16, 2009 6:13 am

There are many comments in this thread criticising Anthony for posting this, on the basis that Lord Monckton is exagerrating his claim in the same way the AGW crowd does. While I agree that Lord Monckton has gone over the top (and I personally do not agree with his approach), I applaud Anthony for posting this.
Remember, this is a re-posting from another site and is a perfectly valid subject for WUWT – much of what is posted here does not represent the opinion of the “publisher” I am sure and it is to Anthony’s credit that not only are a range of articles posted, but the restriction of comments is based only on decorum, not opinion.
To those who say this is a science blog only, unfortunately, you can’t keep politics out of the climate debate and there have always been political issues raised here.
The proof of this is the spirited discussion of the veracity of Lord Monckton’s comments on the US constitution here – pointing out the limitations of Presidential authority and whether these really are effective. If nothing else, many people here (such as myself) will have learned something about the US government – surely a justification of the posting in itself.

P Gosselin
October 16, 2009 6:13 am

Wasn’t that cheerful!

Verified by MonsterInsights