HumanoidComplex

One of the chief advisors to Margaret Thatcher, Lord Christopher Monckton, was one of the science advisors highered to investigate anthropogenic global warming. He spoke to a packed house at University of Minnesota, breakin' it down:

"... and what are we doing instead? At 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 are going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes around the world, like the EU will rubber stamp it. Viturally nobody won't sign it. I have read that treaty, and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word 'government' acutally appears as othe first of three purposes of this new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the west to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, 'climate debt'... 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 enviromental movement and took over Green Peace so that my friends who founded it, left within a year, because they'd captured it. Now, the apotheosis is 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... He'll sign anything, he's a nobel peace laureate, of course he'll sign. And the trouble is this, if that treaty is signed, your constitution says that it takes precedence over your constitution, and you can't resile from that treaty unless you get the agreement of all the other states partisan, becuase you'll be the biggest paying county. They're not going to let you out. So, thank you America, you were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privaledge 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 prosperity away forever. And niether you nor any subsequent goverment you may elect, will have any power, what so ever, to take it back again. That is how serious this is. I have read the Copenhagen treaty. I have seen the stuff about government, and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or no. But I think it is here, here in you great nation, which I so love and I so admire, it is here, that perhaps at this 11th hour, at the 59th minute and 59th 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 the climate, and even if there were, economically speaking, there is nothing we can do about it. So I end, by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president, at 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!

Thank you."

YouTube - Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?

What are your thoughts?

I say world government is inevitable, and oppressive world government (New World Order) is even more inevitable.
Something to worry about? Probably. But is this treaty the birth of an authentic world government? Probably not.

yustr

Before posting such dribble, I suggest going back to your high school civics class but try to stay awake this time. Article 2 Sec 2 Para 2 of the US Constitution says the Senate must ratify a treaty for it to become effective. The President can sign anything he wishes but its the Senate that has final say. Plus, the President is sworn to defend the Constitution so doing what this idiot says (if true - which it undoubtedly is not) would force the impeachment of the POTUS. Also the Constitution says treaties are "under" the constitution and cannot override its provisions.

This is a bunch of malarkey. I want my 4 minutes back.

djaburg

While I'm not too sure if this guy has seen a treaty, do a quick google search on Climate Debt and see what comes up. Interesting and somewhat concerning. It appears that UN has decided that there is a debt that must be paid from the richest countries to the poorest countries for using more than there share of natural resources. One article cited the EU as being asked to provide 135B Euro towards this Climate Debt. Hmm...

HumanoidComplex

I never said I thought this guy was right, I asked what you thought about it. Thanks yustr for citing the constitution, but sometimes the constitution isn't followed closely on important matters. To me, it sounds like Lord Monckton may be stretching his facts to get peeps motivated against it. I still feel that signing it is a sort of de facto show of conceding U.S. soverenty to a higher power.

Tsona

wow. that was definately a waste of time. this guys sounds like a paranoid nutjob with a degree.

HumanoidComplex

yustr, yes, 2/3 of senate needs to agree/affirm to presidents agreement
as you have stated in article 2 section 2 para 2:

"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

side question: what 'present', as used here, mean?

yustr, i couldn't find any text in the constitution saying treaties are "under" the constitution. I did find this however:

Article VI:

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

I'm not necessarily challenging your statement that "treaties are 'under' the constitution". I'm just trying to clear up where I can find a sort of ranking of authority of the constitution with respect to treaties. the bolded part in article 6 doesn't rank the authority of the constitution and treaties and laws made after the fact. It generally declares them all 'the supreme law of the land'. If you can point me to some text that says the constitution is clearly supreme to treaties i would appreciate it. Thanks. I'm using this link if you want to use it
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...html#articleii

djaburg

I think the underlined text might be the overriding factor to the bolded text.

HumanoidComplex

good.

djaburg

Of course that doesn't mean we all shouldn't be vigilant always. Keep your eyes and ears open for there are too many who don't and suffer from apathy. They trust that our elected officials are looking out for our best interest. The message of a global currency and global governing body is not a new one.

yustr

yustr

The Constitution is supreme. Everything else must therefore fall under its provisions.

LINK

djaburg

Which is exactly why I underlined "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding".

yustr

Which is exactly why I quoted you...

I was mostly just providing the link.

cynidegator

What makes you think the Senate WON'T ratify it???

'Climate Debt' and 'Carbon Credits' are the most contrived scrams ever conceived. In which you pay for a non-existent guilt-based product. Al Gore came up with it, and is now getting richer off it. I can easily see this crap escalating to a global level. It’s no better than a pyramid scheme, in terms of legitimacy.

Canaanabolaanan

Well, your whole post was hyperbolic nonsense. But really? Al Gore is making money off a process which isn't in place charging for something which you say doesn't even exist? Can you have any more self-defeating arguments in one post? I submit that you cannot.

simpswr

My money says he will . . just give him time!!

djaburg

The whole Climate Debt issue is quite concerning to me. Canaanabolaanan or simpswr, have either of you looked at any of the information regarding the push for this? Perhaps you should. Sounds like global socialism to me....take from the haves and give to the have not's.

simpswr

. . and you expectedc something different from the party that W built???

djaburg

Which means?

simpswr

it means that is the Democratic mantra . . and W almost single handedly put them in charge. But, to his credit . . he did create the worse financial climate in our times so that they would have difficulty with implementing their agendas.