Monday, October 19th, 2009 | Author:

What could possibly be wrong with Obama signing the United Nations Climate Change Treaty in December in Copenhagen? According to Lord Christopher Monckton in this video, it will create a world government and give away our sovereignty. Following this 4-minute excerpt is the explanation given in the description on Youtube.

Is anybody listening?


On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton gave a presentation in St. Paul, MN on the subject of global warming. In this 4-minute excerpt from his speech, he issues a dire warning to all Americans regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty that is scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.

A draft of the treaty can be read here:
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/docu…

Page 18: Section 38 of the “Share vision for long-term cooperation action plan” contains the text for forming the new government.

Page 40: Section 46 Subsection H of the “Objectives, scope, and guiding principles” contains the text for enforcement and establishment of the rule of law.

There has been considerable debate raised about Monckton’s conclusion that the Copenhagen Treaty would cede US sovereignty. His comments appear to be based upon his interpretation of the The Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 2). This clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. TREATIES as the supreme law of the land. Concerns have been raised in the past that a particularly ambitious treaty may supersede the US Constitution. In the 1950s, a constitutional amendment, known as the Bricker Amendment, was proposed in response to such fears, but it failed to pass. You can read more about the Bricker Amendment in a 1953 Time Magazine article:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/art…,9171,806676-1,00.html

Update 10/20: This link is no longer valid. Try this instead:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,806676,00.html

If that doesn’t work, from the error page try searching Time’s archives for Bricker Amendment. If that doesn’t work, they’re trying to re-write history. [H/T to Rebecca.]

Lord Monckton served as a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher. He has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to a debate to which Gore has refused. Monckton sued to stop Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” from being shown in British schools due to its inaccuracies. The judge found in-favor of Monckton, ordering 9 serious errors in the film to be corrected. Lord Monckton travels internationally in an attempt to educating the public about the myth of global warming.

Share
Category: constitution, Obama
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
13 Responses
  1. Jim Wetzel says:

    You know, I would worry more about foreigners ruling us, if not for the fact that foreigners already do, in effect. I really can't think of a less American place than DC. And our so-called "representatives" … no matter how they start out, after they've been there for a few terms, they're so foreign, they seem like space aliens.

  2. Rebecca says:

    Can you believe the TIME magazine article has been removed?!?!?!

    INSANE this is.

  3. akaGaGa says:

    Well, it was there yesterday.

    From the error page, I did a search in their archives for Bricker Amendment and came up with a few. I think this is the most relevant, but if this winds up missing, too, try your own search:

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,806676,00.html

    Unless, of course, they're going to take down all of their archives and completely rewrite history.

    Thanks for letting me know.

  4. akaGaGa says:

    @Jim Hmmm … space aliens … maybe that's why they can't understand the will of the people.

  5. itsmecissy says:

    There are at least FOUR very substantial blocks to Barack Obama signing over Our Sovereignty to the new world order in December:

    1. Even if BO does sign the treaty, the treaty will not be binding unless ratified by a 3/4’s majority of the US Senate.

    2. Even if BO signs and 3/4's of the senate ratify it, the treaty will not be valid and binding upon this Nation because the City State Washington DC, over which BO and the senate preside, cannot legally or constitutionally enter into Treaties with Foreign Nations or Powers, any more than any other of the several States can.

    3. Even if BO signs and the Senate ratifies the treaty, the Supreme Court will overturn the Treaty, because it is not legally possible for US Government to surrender the Sovereignty of this Nation to any foreign government, or foreign power by treaty or by any means whatsoever.

    4. If BO signs and if the Senate ratifies the treaty and if the Supreme Court refuses to overturn and nullify the treaty, the American People will then be justified in exerting every force we are capable of to restore our REPUBLIC and to remove all the traitors from office and to render unto them the due fruits of their labors.

    This is the problem with free speech. Any fool can tell lies and the uneducated masses will follow along.

  6. Cato says:

    To Itsmecissy:

    This is the problem with those who criticize free speech and start slandering bloggers as fools: that BO and any other of his cronies or Washington traitors can even THINK about doing something like this while we peons are expected to sit docilely and quietly while the Great and Mighty Leaders handle the "important work."

    If there is no threat to U.S. sovereignty, why on earth has the U.S. ceded authority to the U.N. with some of our forestland and parks?

    If there is no threat to U.S. sovereignty because the Super Heroes in the Supreme Court will save us, please explain to me the sharply leftward tilt some our the justices ar etaking, unapologetically. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html

    Maybe you ought to consider the words of one of our founders instead of spewing up a smokescreen of deception:

    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. Patrick Henry

  7. Rebecca says:

    Yay, Cato! Couldn't have said it better myself, HAHA!!

    (that's just too funny, isn't it, Jean???)

    To ItsMeCissy– It's wrong to marginalize the people who inform us of such information. Hello? Our leaders are ELECTED and take an OATH:

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    BUT, who has been keeping their oaths, I'd like to know?? They are protecting their special interests and the big fat taxpayer-paid butts, its historical fact. There is no way I'm going to "trust" in those "blocks" as you put it. These people have no integrity, what the heck is the Constitution to them but a piece of paper? You think that's going to hold them back? The only point you mentioned that makes any sense is Point 4, and I have my doubts about the possibility of that, even.

    There's A LOT to be worried about. There's a LOT to make a big stink about.

  8. akaGaGa says:

    As Cato and Rebecca have more than adequately handled itsmecissy's comment, I'll just add this:

    It seems to me that trying to prevent a problem is a lot better than waiting 'til it's a fait accompli – and then grabbing the guns.

  9. itsmecissy says:

    "As Cato and Rebecca have more than adequately handled itsmecissy's comment…"

    Opposing comments have to be "handled?" So much for thoughtful discourse. It's too bad you are unable to keep your emotions in check in order to treat others in a dignified way, as all people deserve to be treated, as well as to avoid escalating tensions when feelings inevitably get bruised in the tussle between competing opinions.

  10. akaGaGa says:

    @itsmecissy M'dear, you ruled out "thoughtful discourse" when you ended your first comment this way:

    This is the problem with free speech. Any fool can tell lies and the uneducated masses will follow along.

    If you'd like to start over, I'd be more than happy to discuss the issues – provided you can avoid name-calling.

  11. itsmecissy says:

    I called no one here a fool. My word use was a generalization, the same as Jim's use of the words 'space aliens." No difference.

    As for starting over, no thanks. "There is little room for wisdom when one is full of judgement." – Malcolm Hein

    Take care.

  12. akaGaGa says:

    @itsmecissy Well, I must be especially dense today. See, I read Jim's use of "space aliens" in context, and in clearly applies to reps in DC.

    But I just can't seem to figure out who your "fools" applies to … unless it's somebody around here.

    But that's okay. I've been called a lot worse.

  13. itsmecissy says:

    I if you and your other followers had read my comment without reacting to my political bent first, you'd see that the fool I was referring to were lunatics like Monckton, as they are a dime a dozen. And yes, we have them on the Left as well as the Right.

    BTW, calling our reps in DC 'space aliens' isn't name-calling? Guess it isn't since you agree with him.
    Wonder what you would have said if he had used the word fools instead.

    "Yeah, right," your blog is aptly named. Have a nice day.