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!
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.
I don’t think that the Senate will ratify the treaty – it won’t happen, but let’s say that it does. We also have a free trade agreement – NAFTA, but did that stop our government from preventing Mexican trucks on our highways? No.
Come to think of it there were quite a few American Indian nations that had treaties with the US government, I say “were” because most don’t exist anymore. Treaties that aren’t in the US interest don’t quite carry the weight of “supreme law” although It’s a nice thing to tell the people you are signing a treaty with. It’s hard enough to get our Government to follow the Constitution itself, how are foriegn governments supposed to inforce a treaty?
This speaks quite explicitly of wealth transfer. It is from Nicholas Stern’s presentation last year aimed at producing the blueprint for a treaty at Copenhagen.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/granthamInstitute/publications/KeyElementsOfAGlobalDeal_30Apr08.pdf
Developed countries will need to take on immediate and binding national
emissions targets, demonstrate that they can achieve low carbon growth, and
transfer resources and technologies to developing countries, before developing countries take on binding national targets of their own by 2020.
Existing international institutions will need to evolve in order to deal with the nature and scale of the challenge, coordinate global financial flows, and support vulnerable countries in adapting to the impact of climate change. In the longer term it might be necessary to design and create new institutions.
How many of you have read the draft of the treaty provided by Anthony at the top of the post?
On page 133, concerning the provision of financial resources to promote equity and justice, Option 1, Alternative 1 states:
“An assessed contribution from developed country Parties based on the principles of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities, respective capabilities, GDP, GDP per capita, the polluter pays principle historical responsibility of Annex I Parties, historical climate debt, including adaptation debt, amounting to [[0.5–1][0.8][2] per cent of gross national product] at least [0.5–1 per cent of GDP]].”
In the worst case scenario, for the U.S., this amounts to ~$284 billion per year. Every year.
Historical responsibility? This amounts to nothing more than a demand that we pay reparations to other parts of the world for being more industrious, and getting farther ahead than they. We are supposed to pay other nations because they couldn’t get their acts together? This is absolutely nuts. This must be stopped.
Any of you sitting there thinking; “Oh, that won’t happen.”, think again. If you just sit there and do nothing, you deserve whatever is foisted upon you.
Are you concerned yet?
An Inquirer (11:51:04) :
For Lord Monckton to accept a “birther” question and discuss it — that is disappointing and lowers my estimation of his judgement. (I do not know why Obama doesn’t simply obtain and display a copy of his actual birth certificate rather than a summary of it, and I do not know why he defers the question to a doctor who says that he has seen the actual certificate but cannot display it due to privacy practices. Nevertheless, there is no traction to be gained in the “birther” issue.)
I agree – however there is a very good answer to the question of why Obama doesn’t release his real birth certifcate. It lists his real father as Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was a notorious black communist who was at the University of Hawaii at the same time as Stanley Ann Durham, his mother. It isn’t a coincidence that Obama was born 9 months after JFKs inauguration, big party that night. I don’t like conspiracy theories, but I’ve seen photos of his Mom, BHO sr, and Davis side by side. Obama doesn’t look anything like BHO Sr. , But he has a very strong resemblance to Davis.It’s the gaunt face and the eyes. Also remember that Durham never lived with BHO sr. after jr. was born. He was just a cover for Davis.
Unfortunately, if it would come out that he’s not actually BHO jr. it would ruin his carefully constructed personal narrative, and “Dream’s from my Father” would be seen as fiction.
I do not know why Obama doesn’t simply obtain and display a copy of his actual birth certificate rather than a summary of it, and I do not know why he defers the question to a doctor who says that he has seen the actual certificate but cannot display it due to privacy practices.
I do. It’s great politics and makes the far right look really bad whenever the matter comes up. If it were me, I’d slide out and burn my birth certificate. I wouldn’t want the matter EVER to be put to rest: It’s a far-right circular firing squad.
The birth was announced in the local papers according to O’Reilly, who is not exactly the biggest liberal on the block. Unless that is disproven, I consider the matter closed. So far as who his father is or is not, that is beside the point as to his eligibility to serve.
jeez (13:45:25) :
Whether or not the Vienna Convention obligates the US to have the US Constitution overriden is likely to be irrelevant, as it is likely the US Senate does not have the right via treaty or international convention for the assignation of those rights. Overriding the Constitution requires a constitutional amendment whatever the wording of the treaties signed. This would have to be dragged through the courts and whether or not a court case gets any traction would likely depend on who is raising the issue, but I think more of US sovereignty rights may be protected than many fear.
————————————————————-
There are three Articles of the Constitution at play here: Article 2, Section 2, paragraph 2, the presidential power to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; Article 5, the amendment process; and Article 6, paragraph 2, the 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.
The individual’s innate rights, as specified in the Bill of Rights, are not given by the Constitution, but presumeably protected by the Constitution, should not be subject to a treaty. History causes me to be uncomfortable with the belief that our government will protect our sovereign rights.
smrstrauss (10:27:03) :
Treaties require a two-thirds vote of the Senate.
REPLY: Recall that Gore signed Kyoto, without such vote. – Anthony
Kyoto was never even submitted to the Senate for ratification, President Clinton was too smart to bang his head against wall. President Obama knows that the Copenhagen treaty is very unlikely to be ratified, the adminstration is trying to come up with some terminology like “international commitment” that would allow him to implement the agreement without the formality of treaty ratification, based just on his signature. He’s going to try an end run.
While I agree with others commenting here that it would be good to keep political discussions to the minimum, I appreciate Anthony posting on this matter. I also appreciate Lord Monckton taking the time to respond to WUWT readers, and his great effort in climate debate in general.
Many would like to focus only the numerous and serious problems with the science of global warming, but is the politicization of science that brought these problems into existence. That politics is part of the picture is inescapable. However it is my hope that those behind the AGW hoax can be defeated by the very tool they sought to corrupt for their political ends – science.
I knew a frog bathing in a pan of warm water, gradually the water got hotter and hotter, and the frog said not to worry the water’s fine…
Mighty good frog legs, tasted yum yum yum…
evanmjones (16:40:35)
The birth was announced in the local papers according to O’Reilly, who is not exactly the biggest liberal on the block. Unless that is disproven, I consider the matter closed. So far as who his father is or is not, that is beside the point as to his eligibility to serve.
Evan, I agree he is eligibile to serve. But I’m a little confused why seeing his name in the paper is proof of anything. There was never any doubt that a Hawaiian Birth certificate was issued (and would generate a newpaper announcement). The problem was that it was issued three days after his birth, very strange. The birthers believed that he was born in Kenya, and was then brought to the US and a birth cert. requested. Regardless it would be in the paper. I am not a Birther, I am a “Daviser”. Do a search on Frank Marshell Davis. Put his picture along side Stanley Ann Durham and Pres. Obama, see what you think. Davis was a US citizen, even if BHO jr. was born in Kenya, he would still be a native born US citizen, unlike Durham, Davis was old enough to confer US citizenship on his offspring.
Douglas DC (06:28:13) :
I don’t have confidence in the US Government-I’m part Cherokee.However this is not going to go down with out one heck of fight. Here in the US we have a curious breed of Democratic Pol called a “Blue Dog.”They are fiscally conservative and usually represent conservative areas.Nominally the South and Mid West,they are, for the most part squeamish when it comes to a lot of this stuff as they are worried about their seats.
The Cap and Tax bill isn’t even on the table,in the senate-yet and may not make it before Copenhagen.Even in the Blue side of Oregon Pete DeFazio isn’t drinking that kool-aid.He’s a Warmist but somewhat luke warm, he sees this as the next big bubble to burst.Our Senatoral contingent is hopeless,but they too are looking at the polls. and polling is that people are really,really mad.latch on to your Congresscritter and Senator.You might not think you can do any good- but sometimes a Jack Russell can get the best of the Rottweiler it takes a grip on the right spot…”
Douglas, be aware of the “luke warm”, they are the most dangerous ones.
Obama would need 67 votes in the Senate to pass the treaty. I doubt that he could get that many.
DGallagher (17:00:28) :
Regardless, I’d drop the matter for purposes of political strategy, if nothing else. The way I see it, the GOP is up for a big comeback–unless they blow it.
Ed Scott (16:42:52) :
The individual’s innate rights, as specified in the Bill of Rights, are not given by the Constitution, but presumeably protected by the Constitution, should not be subject to a treaty.
Ed there is no such document as “the bill of rights”, the first 10 amendments to the US constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, are referred to as “The Bill of Rights” as they specifically limit the power of the Federal Government in regards to citizens, however the enumerated rights are part of the Constitution itself.
Are you concerned yet?
Yet? The smell of this has been hanging around for quite some time.
The unsavory doings besides the point, it’s going to cost the USA a lot more than $.25T. It will cost us any hope of recovery and rub salt into the wounds inflicted by back to back to back popped bubbles + big bailouts.
What was it the pundits were saying last week?
Oh yes, it’s that something boils deep down in the American psyche.
Something unnamed.
“The way I see it, the GOP is up for a big comeback–unless they blow it.” evan
Well, Obama will be left holding the bag for the economy and bailing out the banksters, fruitlessly. Afghanistan will continue to chew up our military until it is 4 for 4 (Alexander the Great, Britain, Russia, soon the USA) so GOP armchair warriors will look like the fools they are.
So, my prediction is Ron Paul or the Rapture.
I can’t lose.
The problem I believe is that Treaties can trump state laws, not the Bill of Rights per se. For example, Education is one important area where state laws define educational freedom and parental rights. Yet there is no actual language in the Constitution concerning these rights, so the point I am trying to make is that treaties are every bit as threatening to our sovereignty and self-rule as Article VI shows on its face.
If I am incorrect about Treaties trumping state law, please advise.
I doubt it will come to that.
(And please let’s not get started on US involvement in the Mideast!)
Let’s face the facts.
The Chinese have managed to control 1.3 billion Chinese and slowly turned them into productive consumers.
Our Corporates have been watching this process with envy.
Not only because of the cheap labor, but because of the lack of legal fuzz and red tape.
No questions asked.
In China, construction projects that take 10 up to 15 years in the US and Europe can be realized within a single year.
Our corporates live by the rule of “time is money”.
That is the flexibility that makes China incredibly attractive compared to the West.
The concept of Global Governance currently pushed by the UN and our political establishment is aimed at the transformation into such a society on a Global scale.
The health bill, the regulation of CO2 via the Clean Air and Clean Water Act, the Nationalization of all our water and the land grabs is a pure act of communism.
It happens although these acts are in conflict with the US Constitution.
The honoring of Marxist thugs like Che and Castro (Hero of the Year) is part of the new cult.
The Climate Change Hoax will be the “Green Trap” that will cover the process and the result will be that we will lose our civil rights and our freedom.
Lord Moncton has clearly explained how, why and when the stage will be set.
We will see Corporatism (the neat translation of fascism) rule the world and human kind will be reduced to a consuming asset, pushed, meddled and lied to, from the cradle to the grave.
You only have to read the Lisbon Treaty to see where we are heading in Europe and watch the actions of Obama (the first Global President) to see how the world will look like in 10 years.
This is not the world I want to live in so I will fight this to the bone.
Our experiences introducing democracy in the world have failed with Arab Nations, Russia had it’s “Glasnost” until Putin shut it down and China is ready to take the lead as the power of the free world declines.
Corporatism has decided for us and we are slowly put in green shackles with no place to go.
Vaclav Klaus, the Chech President knows it and resists the full brunt of the EU and it’s corrupt leaders with all his might, refusing to sign the Lisbon Treaty.
The American people are waking up at their Tea Parties in opposition to Obama policies, but they don’t see the big trap of Copenhagen.
Who believes in conspiracy theories?
But this is our future, take it or leave it.
The USA currently is the last bastion to fall as Europe hangs on a single threat.
If we lose in the Senate and Obama signs, there will be war.
With this said, please keep calling those Senators, every vote counts.
Call them every day, write them, fax them, e-mail them, make your voices heard.
Send them a copy of Lord Moncton’s speech.
Get organized and do what you can to stop this debacle.
We are still in relative calm waters.
We still can communicate and travel.
If the power grab is successful, this will change very quickly. We will face car free zones like we now have in some of the European Cities. Traveling will be restricted and our cities will be turned into jails. Opposition will be faced with armed force before you know it. Just think. Population regulation is part of the objective…
I have seen this happen before, just did not expect to live the day to see it happen again.
What I want to state clearly is that any resistance to the current process performed under the current circumstances will be like a walk in the park compared to the opposition after a successful coup by the UN.
Those who oppose these Loons are going risk their very lives.
Just think of it.
This treaty will be adhered to….with or without Senate ratification. Obama despises America……
The “science” of global warming doesn’t even enter his consciousness……only a means to justify his ideological agenda. Senate ratification is only a slight bend in the road.
He sees America as a rich, pampered, bully that needs to be “put in its place”. His agenda is to marginalize the United States to the point of weakness where the country will be on the same level economically, politically and militarily as every other nation on the planet in the name of “fairness”, “social justice” and “leveling the playing field”………..he’ll achieve it subtly and incrementally if he has his way.
He does not believe in American exceptionalism. He sees himself as a “world citizen“ first and foremost, not an American.
His agenda is not to elevate the less fortunate……..his agenda is to forcibly confiscate personal property and create uniform financial/economic mediocrity where no one has more than anyone else…….. a global, militarily, economic, political, shade of gray……..He sees the world as the haves and have nots and is determined to take from the haves and redistribute their property to the have nots…….and personally believes that he has been chosen to carry out this undertaking.
I know this sounds harsh, dark………sinister………however, his writings, his actions and his personal choices for administrators are disturbingly prophetic regarding his goal(s).
I pray that I’m wrong.
Mike86 (06:37:28) :
Yes it could be, but as Monckton says, in that case it is reversible if passed by a simple majority.
DaveE.
What people in America fail to grasp, is that regardless of where he was born, he was raised during his formative years in a poor third world country. The rest of the world, especially 3rd world countries look at the US very differently. Beliefs that flow from this would be that the US is just one nation among all the nations of the world and should not have a bigger say or dominate other countries. The belief that the US “owes” the rest of the world for exploiting their resources and cheap labor. I think this is why he doesn’t want any illegal aliens prosecuted, this is why he wants to offer them citizenship and free health care. We owe them. The way he apologizes for this country without ever listing our good points.
What the poor in America don’ t realize is compared to what he grew up around they are rich. The social justice he is talking about is global social justice.
Yes, he spent his later years in America, under the influence of communists and radicals, but this world view of his was made in Indonesia.
RE: jorgekafkazar (11:11:12) : “Has your coffee tasted like watermelon, lately?”
Watt is this supposed to mean? This is an amazing thread.
evanmjones (17:08:28) :
Yes, I agree, it makes no difference from a political standpoint. However i do believe that it is the explanation for why it hasn’t been released, and why those, like the Hawaiian Governor, who has seen the document say that he meets the constitutional requirements.
It’s not his citizenship that is bogus, it’s the whole son of a Kenyan herdsman story that’s a crock, I can understand why he wouldn’t address the issue.
Zeke (17:41:20) :
If I am incorrect about Treaties trumping state law, please advise.
In theory, it should never be an issue. The Constitution grants the Federal Government power over defense and foreign relations, as well as the power to regulate interstate commerce. All other powers are retained by the states or people. In other words, the only purpose of the Federal government is to do those things that states can’t do themselves, independent of the other states. There was a clear demarcation between the powers of the Federal and State governments. Also remember that the Senate (which must ratify treaties) wasn’t elected by the people of each state, Senators were selected by the state governments, and as such, Senators represented the individual state governments, rather than the people. That’s gone now, state governments have no representation at the Federal level.
That was the theory. In practice, the Federal Government has taken over so many aspects of governence, that the States have had most of their power “stolen”. Many of these changes initially took place in the FDR’s New deal. Now almost anything qualifies as interstate commerce and it is very rare that the Supreme Court steps in and tells Congress that they don’t have authority to do whatever they want.
A few years ago, SCOTUS threw out a Federal law that made it a crime to have a gun within 500 feet of a school. The court ruled that the Constitution did not grant the Federal Government the power to pass such a law, only States could do so. The Government argued that effective commerce requires educated people, and that a gun in the area could possibly interfere with children’s education, and that the commerce clause gave the Federal Government the authority. The court ruled that if such an argument was valid, then the commerce clause would give the Fed. Gov. control over every aspects of peoples lives.
In fact, the Congress feels that it does have authority over everything, they have torn up the Constitution so completely that the entire premise of limited Government is gone. It get’s worse all the time. JFK was more conservative than the average Republican Congressman at this point.