Lord Monckton: Don’t Allow Obama To Sign Climate Change Treaty
by Tom Remington | October 19, 2009
Below is a video of former British adviser to Margaret Thatcher, Lord Christopher Monckton, urging Americans to not allow President Obama to sign the U.N. Climate Change Treaty this December in Copenhagen. Claiming to have read the treaty, Monckton says that signing the treaty will allow for the flow of millions of American dollars out of our country and into the hands of other countries, probably third world countries. This, combined with the goal he claims is explicitly written in the agreement to form a one world government, will readily put an end to United States’ sovereignty.
According to Monckton, by signing the treaty the U.S. is admitting that it is the bad boy in the world by generating too much carbon dioxide and therefore we must pay for our sins. The difficulty comes on what happens after we sign this or any other U.N. treaty.
It is my understanding that the United States president has the power to negotiate treaties with international entities. It takes a super majority in the U.S. Senate to approve this treaty if Obama should decide to sign it and many feel that he will, including Lord Monckton.
According to U.S. law (Article VI of Constitution) “and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;” if Obama signs and Congress approves such a treaty, are we bound by our own Constitution to abide by that treaty? Or does this apply only in terms of negotiated treaties within the several states? Furthermore, when the U.S. signed the United Nations Charter (another treaty I would presume), we agreed to abide by the rules of the Charter and to honor all treaties signed.
According to Monckton (I’ve not been able to confirm this), the only way the U.S. could get out of a signed treaty with the United Nations is if the charter members voted to allow such (and there goes all their money).
In theory it would seem that once the U.S. signs this treaty or any other UN treaty, the only legal way out is through approval of the UN. There is argument that the UN has no means of legal enforcement and that therefore the United States Congress can simply vote to repeal this or any other treaty. Evidently this has been done before.
Any legal experts willing to add their two cents worth, feel free to use the comment section at the bottom of the page. Non experts are also welcome to chime in.
Christopher Monckton is a Knight of Malta.
Of course Obama likely will do this, he has no more Constitutional authority to do this than Monckton does, as well neither of these two have a full understanding of the correct version of the Constitution which allows the American persons the Liberty and freedoms of the original contractual agreement which those first Ten Amendments represent, that legal aspect of the agreement has been illegally superseded by de-facto amendments and codes. The 14th, the 16th, and the 17th specifically. Of course those three amendments alone would never survive the challenge of their legal ratification procedures in a real court of law, a court of honest men, not bought off by the tyrants, nor in threat of financial ruin and career ruin, a court of men quite frankly operating under no duress of any kind except to finfd the facts supported by truths and expose them. Never going to happen in this Roman polluted quagmire we suffer with today. The Constitution does not allow for this treatise and it never did. The subverted sections do so, this is why those sections were added, to subvert those sections which do not allow this nonsense. Mockton is in error, why should this surprise anyone, he a European Aristocrat..
During the Constitutional Convention, from May to September 1787, delegates from the colonies were to gather together for the express purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation to form a “more perfect union” (NOT a completely different union!). The men that met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were under direct and limited orders from their states to attend the Federal Convention explicitly to preserve the federation and State rights and to correct the errors of the existing federal government for the limited purposes of handling foreign affairs, commerce among the states and common defense.
America has been duped into accepting a national government, not by interpolation, but by deceptive “construction.” If the federal government has the power to usurp its powers without a countermanding power checking its encroachments, where is the genius in our framers’ form of government? Was this form of government the form that best secured our happiness and freedom? And if our framers in fact bequeathed to us a federal system, whereby the states were co-equal with the federal government in sovereignty and power regarding their powers, then where comes the notion that we now have a national system, whereby the states are mere corporate branches of the federal government? Where were the constitutional debates on that subject? Where was the surrendering of sovereignty by the states, which can only be done through expressed and voluntary consent? Where was the right of the people to establish the form of government most likely to effect their safety and happiness? Do we just accept the fact that our form of government can change over time without express and legal action being taken to effect that change? God forbid!
In 1776, the colonies rejected the European (nationalist) form of government. In the UNITED STATES, the people of the states ardently believed that their freedoms would be best protected if each of their agents (State and federal) possessed equal power to check the other against encroachments of power and freedom. This was the “more perfect union” of the US Constitution. How could the founders have suggested that the US Constitution was a “more perfect union” as a nationalist system, when the nationalist system was the very system they seceded from and rejected? That is nonsense!
Ironically, the very document that was designed to perpetuate these principles of federalism has in fact been de-constructed to destroy those same principles, leaving us with the very form of government that our framers and the Constitution’s ratifiers rejected. In the end, if the people of the states do not once again reject this national form of government and assert and defend the principles of federalism–the principles upon which America was founded–then this supposed federal power of constitutional “construction” will in fact be our freedom’s destruction.
And that destruction was and still is Rome’s 14th Red Amendment, setting up the use of the 6th plank of the communist manifesto which is the 16th Amendment and thus using their 17th Amendment to steal states rights of suffrage and Representation in the Senate. This stole our vote to say to Obama NO to these United Nations Treatises you Scoundrel.. Unfortunately they have gotten away with this for far to long..
I could go on and on here, the evidence is miles long, obviously the people of this nation do not care at all..
Being born into this era for me must be a punishment, I love being called a nut, and being banished from friend ships in this shit hole we live in. To much knowledge is a burden.