| |
|
| | Post New Topic | | Obama sell out the US? - Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty to the U.N. | Views: 95 | | Oct 17, 2009 5:17 pm | | Obama sell out the US? - Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty to the U.N. | # | 
Ron Sam | |
I was in utter shock reading this news item.
The warning comes from Lord Christopher Walter Monckton,
3rd Viscount of Brenchley who was PM Margret Thatcher's Science
Adviser. He is also a British politician, business
consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, and inventor.
He certainly has the credentials to speak about 'Global Warming'.
This event will happen in December 2009 before the Federal
Court hearing on Obama's birth documents in January 2010. So,
it may not really matter by then.
If you are interested in learning how Obama accomplished not getting
found out, he signed an Exucutive Order the first day in office that
sealed off all his documents and cancelled GW Bush's
Executive order that allowed it. Google
:: Ececutive
Order 13489
Ironic that he promises “transparency” ...
Here
is Lord Monckton’s closing remarks exerpt:
At (the 2009 United Nations
Climate Change Conference in) Copenhagen, this December,
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 satisfaction 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.
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.
con't
Below is the article in Icecap.us |
|
Oct
16, 2009
Obama Poised to
Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord
Republic Broadcasting Network
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!
See post ands Q&A here.
|
Source
with Coments
Global
Warming Myth and Marxism (Pdf) History of how used
by U.N. and Marxists to Wreck. World Economies |
 |
Private Reply to Ron Sam | | Oct 18, 2009 2:08 pm | | re: Obama sell out the US? - Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty to the U.N. | # |
Ron Sam | | Further information:
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40
Delivered it as nobody else could!
On October 14, 2009 Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted climate change skeptic, gave a presentation at Bethel University in St. Paul, MN. In this 4 minute excerpt from his speech, he issues a dire warning to all Americans regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty, scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.
A draft of the petition can be downloaded below.
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.
Copenhagen treaty, this one from an official UN website
unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf
Where is the US news coverage of this speech????
Ron
Private Reply to Ron Sam | | Oct 20, 2009 2:03 pm | | re: re: Obama sell out the US? - Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty to the U.N. | # |
Ron Sam | |
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/?p=572
excerpt:
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.
Time Magazine 1953 Story -- BrickerAmendment
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,806676-1,00.html
Full length Speech -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
He's a good speaker - easy to understand.
Bricker Amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricker_Amendment#Aftermath
Private Reply to Ron Sam | | Oct 20, 2009 3:13 pm | | re: re: re: Obama sell out the US? - Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty to the U.N. | # |
Ron Sam | | Just posted on a FB discussion (Our Country Deserves Better)
December is right around the block. Before it's too late, I'd like to know what would be the most effective measure against such a signing, (if any). At this point, I'm not going to entertain any conjecture unless you can scuttle any of what L. Monckton has laid out.
I did signed the petition here: http://www.globalclimatescam.com/?page_id=560
However, I do not believe a petition is enough to get in the way of Obama signing the UN treaty.
Copy of my letter.
October 20, 2009
Dear Representative Watson,
Dear Senator Boxer,
Dear Senator Feinstein,
WHEREAS the proposed United Nations Global Climate Treaty intends to establish an un-democratic world government which would override our United States Constitution and surrender our national sovereignty; and
WHEREAS the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade bill, also known as ACES (the American Clean Energy and Security Act - HR 2454), will essentially impose an 'energy tax' on all goods and services produced in the United States; and
WHEREAS gasoline and electricity prices will, in President Obama’s own words, “necessarily skyrocket” under a cap-and-trade scheme; and
WHEREAS cap-and-trade schemes are projected to cost US taxpayers over $1 trillion per year; and
WHEREAS the adoption of cap-and-trade would result in millions of additional US job losses; and
WHEREAS the U.S. economy is already in deep recession and cap-and-trade schemes could result in an additional $7 trillion loss in our Gross Domestic Product; and
WHEREAS the claims of carbon-driven anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are unproven and are, in fact, contested by over 31,000 scientists (compared to fewer than 50 on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who claim AGW is a serious and immediate problem); and
WHEREAS global temperatures have not risen since 2000 and data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration demonstrates that the earth has actually been cooling for the last 4 years; and
WHEREAS new research from MIT has dispelled one of the key underpinnings of anthropogenic global warming theory (the notion that more long-wave radiation is trapped in the earth’s atmosphere when temperature rises); and
WHEREAS the touted, climate benefit of cap-and-trade schemes is that global surface temperatures will be one-tenth-of-one-degree cooler than currently projected in one hundred years, if one even accepted the contested claims of AGW.
THEREFORE I petition President Obama not to sign the United Nations Climate Treaty. I also petition my US Senators to forcefully oppose ratification of the treaty and Congress to oppose any legislation that would create a cap-and-trade scheme in United States law.
Cap-and-trade would benefit a select group of wealthy individuals on the backs of hard-working American families who will see absolutely no benefit, not even after paying for a cap-and-trade scheme for 100 years.
Say "NO" to all cap-and-trade schemes.
Sincerely,
Mr. Ron Sam
Culver City, CA 90231
Private Reply to Ron Sam | | Oct 23, 2009 11:58 pm | | re: re: re: re: Obama sell out the US? - Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty to the U.N. | # |
Ron Sam | |
China,
India Cancel Out Copenhagen
Posted
06:44 PM ET
Climate
Change: With less than two months to go before the big Copenhagen
Conference on global warming, two major nations have said "no thanks"
to the no-growth agenda. For that reason alone, so should we.
Following
a deal signed late Thursday between China and India, anything we might
agree to do in Copenhagen is likely moot anyway. The two mega-nations —
which together account for nearly a third of the world's population —
said they won't go along with a new climate treaty being drafted in
Copenhagen to replace the Kyoto Protocol that expires in 2012.
They're
basically saying no to anything that forces them to impose mandatory
limits on their output of greenhouse gas emissions. Other developing
nations, including Mexico, Brazil and South Africa, will likely reject
any proposals as well.
The
deal was already in trouble. Three
weeks ago, the Group of 77 developing nations met in Thailand to
discuss what they wanted to do about global warming. Their answer:
nothing.
William
Hawkins, writing in the American Thinker,
quotes a piece in China's Science Times journal that sums up how China
— and other developing nations — feel:
"Why
do the developed
countries put an arguable scientific problem on the international
negotiations table?" the article's author, Wang Jin, asks. "The real
intention is not for the global temperature increase, but for the
restriction of the economic development of the developing countries."
They
see clearly what the rest of us seem to miss — that, for all its bad
science, the Copenhagen Conference is about the world's Lilliputians
tying down its Gullivers, not about global warming at all.
So,
thanks to China and India, Copenhagen is dead — just as Kyoto was when
it was signed in 1992, though no one knew it at the time. Without them,
no global treaty on climate change will be workable.
The
two
nations are not only the world's most populous (with, together, more
than 2 billion people), they are also the fastest-growing major
countries. China is now the world's No. 1 emitter of greenhouse gases,
and India is catching up fast.
Even
with their participation,
Copenhagen should have been a non-starter for the U.S. Indeed, the main
reason for the greenhouse gas deal, all but admitted to by its major
participants, is to cripple the U.S. economy — the most successful
economy in the world.
True
enough, as green critics keep saying,
we produce nearly 20% of the world's CO2 and other greenhouse gases
with just 5% of the world's population. But our GDP of roughly $14
trillion is nearly 25% of the world's total — in line with our gas
output.
We
provide jobs and consumption not just for Americans,
but for tens of millions of people overseas whose livelihoods depend on
satisfying the massive American market.
In
case you're still
worried about warming, stop. Since 1998, the data show global
temperatures have fallen. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
says this can't be happening. None of the IPCC's models shows a
possibility of rising CO2 output and declining temperature.
But
even Paul Hudson, the pro-warming-theory BBC climate correspondent,
recently had to admit: "For the last 11 years, we have not observed any
increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not
forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be
responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise."
Yet,
the IPCC estimates that "remediation" of the warming trend will cost
about 1.7% of world GDP. In the U.S., that's about $240 billion a year.
For the entire world, it's about $1 trillion a year — or $71 trillion
over the next 70 years or so.
Proposals
to slash CO2 won't work
anyway. Department of Energy estimates indicate that 97% of all CO2
emissions would continue even if humans didn't exist.
Even
so,
climatologist Chip Knappenberger estimates that laws like the recent
Waxman-Markey bill would, if fully enacted, reduce future warming by
just 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100 — not enough even to measure
accurately.
Can
the world really afford to give up $71 trillion in the coming decades
to solve a phantom problem?
Given
the shoddiness of the science behind warming claims and the refusal of
the biggest CO2 emitters to play along with the climate change sham, it
would be economically ruinous for the U.S. to do anything other than
wish the rest of the world a nice day, and go about our business.
http://3.ly/BqG
Private Reply to Ron Sam | | Oct 25, 2009 2:48 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: Obama sell out the US? - Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty to the U.N. | # |
Ron Sam | |
|
From The
Times
October 24, 2009
Barack Obama will be in
Oslo for his Nobel ceremony, but not Copenhagen
Giles Whittell, Washington
President Obama will almost certainly not travel to the
Copenhagen
climate change summit in December and may instead use his Nobel Peace
Prize acceptance speech to set out US environmental goals, The
Times has learnt.
With healthcare reform clogging his domestic agenda and
no prospect
of a comprehensive climate treaty in Copenhagen, Mr Obama may
disappoint campaigners and foreign leaders, including Gordon Brown and
Ed Miliband, who have urged him to attend to boost the hopes of a
breakthrough.
The White House would not comment on Mr Obama’s travel
plans
yesterday, but administration officials have said privately that “Oslo
is plenty close” — a reference to the Nobel ceremony that falls on
December 10, two days into the Copenhagen meeting.
The White House confirmed that the President would be in
Oslo to
accept the prize, but a source close to the Administration said it was
“hard to see the benefit” of his going to Copenhagen if there was no
comprehensive deal for him to close or sign. Another expert, who did
not want to be named, said he would be “really, really shocked” if Mr
Obama went to Copenhagen, adding that European hopes about the power of
his Administration to transform the climate change debate in a matter
of months bore little relation to reality. The comprehensive climate
change treaty that for years has been the goal of the Copenhagen
conference was now an “unrealistic” prospect, Yvo de Boer, the UN
official guiding the process, said last week.
Chinese and Indian resistance to mandatory carbon
emission limits
has so far proved an insurmountable obstacle to crafting a successor to
the Kyoto Protocol that is acceptable to the US. America has also
slowed the process through its reluctance to accept climate change
science or the carbon cap-and-trade mechanism to combat global warming.
Only 57 per cent of Americans believe that there is
strong evidence
that the world has grown warmer in recent decades, down from 71 per
cent a year ago, according to a new poll. Partly as a result, the White
House is having to wage a vote-by-vote battle in Congress for a climate
change Bill that would embrace cap-and-trade. The Bill will not be
signed into law until next year at the earliest but is considered
essential for any global deal.
Mr Obama flew to Boston yesterday to make the case for a
wholesale
American switch to clean energy, and to launch a six-week drive to
persuade the world that the US is at last serious about joining
international efforts to combat climate change.
He will have his work cut out. As a presidential
candidate, he held
out the hope of signing a cap-and-trade Bill in time for Copenhagen.
Since then, a deep recession and months of delays on healthcare reform
have pushed climate change into third place on the domestic US agenda,
after financial regulatory reform. That reform is seen as essential for
cap-and-trade because of the need to rebuild trust in complex financial
instruments after “an incredible nativist backlash against new markets”
caused by the banking crisis, according to Paul Bledsoe, a former White
House official at the National Commission on Energy Policy.
For Mr Obama to travel to Copenhagen would be
“completely out of
keeping” with the American political climate and with precedent, Mr
Bledsoe said. The most senior White House official to attend a past UN
climate conference was Vice-President Al Gore in 1997. He signed the
Kyoto Protocol, but the failure by Congress to ratify it since has been
a defining theme of a decade of climate change talks.
In Mr Obama’s absence, the US delegation will be led by
Todd Stern,
the Administration’s special envoy on climate change. Analysts believe
Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, could fly in at the last
moment, but as one analyst said of both Mrs Clinton and Vice-President
Joe Biden: “They only want to be associated with success, not failure.”
The gap between hopes of what Mr Obama can do and
reality was on
show this week when another Nobel Peace Prize winner, Rajendra Pachauri
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said he thought the
President should be doing more. Instead, the Obama Administration is
seeking to lower expectations before Copenhagen by drawing attention to
its short tenure in office, the long years of US foot-dragging on
climate change under his predecessor and recent progress on domestic
climate change legislation.
|
|
|
|
Private Reply to Ron Sam |  | |
| |
|
