Push Back, or Lose Freedom

Over the weekend, I received nearly 100 e-mail messages pointing me toward this video, which shows a little more than four minutes of a speech on climate reality given by Lord Christopher Monckton, science advisor to former British PM Margaret Thatcher, last week to folks at the Minnesota Free Market Institute at Bethel University in St. Paul.

In his speech, Lord Monckton warns of the consequences of America signing the global climate change treaty at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December, specifically in the loss of liberty and compromise of American sovereignty which will result.

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’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 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 they 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, your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution, 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 prosparity 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 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!

I share Lord Monckton’s sentiment that we absolutely need to wake up. More and more, though, as polls show that Americans care less and less about global warming and other related concerns, I believe that we are.

Overall, we’re awakening to the expanding reach of the federal government, whether it be through measures like health care reform or cap-and-trade, and to the underlying socialist agenda of world leaders like President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Americans are seeing that the environmental movement is less about the environment and more about control.

And we’re winning. We can see it when people like Brown get desperate and warn us about how we only have 50 days left to save the planet. We can see it when those who champion the enviro-socialist movement start getting angry, and take extra steps to stifle debate.

And we can see it in works like this, a new feature-length documentary entitled Not Evil, Just Wrong:

The question is whether or not we are waking up quickly enough. I certainly hope we are, though I doubt any amount of petitioning from everyday Americans will sway President Obama away from signing anything in Copenhagen. After all, he’s going to want to leave that city with head held high for once — and, when it comes to Barack Obama, nothing makes him happier than taking imperialist America down a peg.

Share

Comments

  1. bigal says:

    Can the US Government do something by treaty that it cannot do under the Constitution?

    See discussion

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15969

    The author is a strict constructionist, and today's crop of judges seem to believe that the US Constitution is applicable only when convenient to a political aganda.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Thanks Jeff for your continued attention to relevant information. I wanted to add I just read an article on the American Spectator entitled "FCC-Church Conspiracy to Silence Talk Radio". This tactic is to recruit the Churches to speak from the pulpit to chastise people for listening to Fox and those they deem out of line with the status quo. This was written by an invitee to the initial event. Here is a quote: "Leading this charge or involved in some capacity are at least one Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, seven national churches, one left-wing billionaire (George Soros)who helps as always with the funding –and last but certainly not least, the White House. Specifically that would be Messrs. Emanuel, Axelrod and Ms. Dunn."

  3. Bodenzee says:

    bigal,

    I would say no based on the Covert opinion,

    Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957),

    but since I'm not an attorney (and I didn't even spend last night at a Holiday Inn Express) I'd appreciate the thoughts of someone with more knowledge. Jeff??

  4. Anonymous says:

    This article makes me want to Puke. I believe the saving grace will be, that when he does sign and is ultimately found to be a fraud we can negate the treaty because it was signed by an illigitimate president.

  5. JEFF SCHREIBER says:

    Actually, Lord Monckton was asked about that.

    Q: Would [Obama's potential illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign as president?

    A: I would be very careful not to rely on things like that. Although there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would be very difficult to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii and therefore we might not be able to get anywhere with that. Besides, once he’s signed that treaty, whether or not he signed it validly, once he’s signed it and ratified it – your Senate ratifies it – you’re bound by it. But I will say one thing; they know, in the White House, that they won’t be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to ratify a treaty of this kind. However, what they’ve worked out is this – and they actually let it slip during the election campaign, which is how I know about it. They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple majority of both houses. That they can do. But the virtue of that – and here you have a point – is that is, thank God, reversible. So I want you to pray tonight, and pray hard for your Senate that they utterly refuse to ratify the [new] Treaty of Copenhagen, because if they refuse to ratify it and [Obama] has to push it through as domestic legislation, you can repeal it.

  6. Anonymous says:

    One thing I have never seen clarified about the birth certificate issue is a higher level question than where Obama was born – that being how can he prove who is mother is without the original long form birth certificate? He claims citizenship through his mother, but we cannot verify who his mother was without documentation since all relatives are deceased. We must remember that his mother was involved with an odd assortment of characters in a period that did not call for checking and double checking documents as today. Could an American woman in the 60’s submit high level paperwork to claim a child without actually being its mother? Remember, there is no evidence of her being pregnant, being admitted to a hospital, no relatives with pictures of her pregnant, etc; The revealed record as it exists today documents a woman who just showed up with a baby one day. As we slip further into the madness of this administration, every action should be pursued to stop this fraud. There has to be something to hide if we taxpayers are footing a $1.5 million dollar legal bill to keep this information coming to light. (and why do we have to pay this bill? Let’s start a movement for Obama to personally pay these fees if he wants to play coy!)

  7. Ian Thorpe says:

    Obama poised to sign away sovereignty? But he already has done that, hdn't you hear over there? No? Was it not reported by mainstream media? I'm shocked.

    Mea Culpa, I should have mentioned it but after 12 years of having an internationalist Labour Government cede our sovereignty to supra national organisations we hardly notice these things any more in Britain.

    A while ago, a few months now I think, Obama threw America's considerable economic weight behind an agreement brokered by the Bank Of International Settlements based in Basel, Switzerland to create a new international reserve currency. Thus the $ will no longer be the world's trading curency. And if nations no longer need dollars America has no leverage in international negotiations.

    Obama sure could use Don Corleone as his global economics Czar. "If we let one person shaft us everybody will think they can do it."

  8. Chuck in San Diego says:

    After reading the link posted by "bigal" I'm beginning to wonder if the existing "Cap & Trade" (aka "Waxman-Markey", aka "HR 2454") legislation opens "a door of U.S. law" for this treaty to be "constitutional" because the U.S. government would have ruled they have authority to "control these resources".

    Without an existing U.S. law would the treaty not have any real entry point under U.S. law?

    If "Cap & Trade" were enacted then an existing law passed by Congress using its authority under the Constitution would dovetail nicely into this Copenhagen treaty.

    About the only method to get out from under this treaty would be for Congress to dissolve the treaty (unlikely), OR, the Supreme Court would rule that "Cap & Trade" is unconstitutional therefore closing the door on the Copenhagen treaty having an entry point into U.S. law.

    Any thoughts by laymen and experts out there?

    Verification word: quiters
    A word not in my vocabulary – someone please explain.

  9. Gail B says:

    I emailed all my Congressional reps and asked them to STOP Obama/Soetoro from signing the treaty. Also included the article from Right Soup.

  10. Lisa says:

    The only thing an international treaty needs is ratification of 2/3 of the Senate.

    Go read Article 6…it's in there.

    Lisa in TX

  11. Rix says:

    And that's how it ends. Sixty seven votes? No problem – you'd be surprised how flexible can a Senator be after he "receives an offer he cannot refuse". Wake up folk, lock and load before it is too late.

  12. Landslide says:

    Can the peace prize be tied to this treaty?? Beck spoke of a major finding to overthrow the administration, once he get the ducks lined up. Could it be Obama's real birth place documentation or a major broadcast on this treaty with facts lined up??? Let hope he produces news that will be on all the real news stations.

  13. USA 2.0 says:

    All treaties are meaningless after our revolution for a new republic.

    Now taking applications for platoon leaders.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Great article, but I have a question or two maybe someone can answer. How long has this Copenhagen meeting/treaty signing crapola been in the works? Has this always been the end game of the Obama admin. and has this been the goal since before his inept admin took over? Many thoughts go through my mind right now but it is all making some sense like never before. When in history has it been possible for a nation to be reduced to brutal tyranny when their lives are good, when they have personal freedom and when they are prosperous? Seems to me in my perusal of history that every single one of the tyrants, dictators, commisars etc. have only been able to rise to power when there is economic and personal uncertainties/hardships. So if I were to connect the dots I can see that Obama and his ilk have purposefully wrecked our economy and have begun in earnest the reduction of our personal freedoms so that when the mechanism for a world gov't is in place he will be ready to assume dictatorial control of the state. The greatest nation on the planet past or present, the United States, will be reduced to only a shadow of itself, but by his design Obama will be there to "remake" us into his statist utopia, he will master of all he surveys (or so he thinks I bet).

    I aint the brightest bulb in the box but now I have some questions that come to mind. Am I alone in this or are others seeing what I see?
    1. will our economy and freedoms completely tank before or soon after the meeting & signing party? I see this as one mechanism for Obama to assume control of America… aka the use of martial law to control a panicked & desperate population.
    2. Is it possible in the wake of collapse that Obama could use martial law and suspension of rights to unilateraly commit the USA to this treaty. Several of you wondered as I do that Congress may never go for it. But what if all control has devolved to one man – the President of the United States? Isn't that what in essence martial law is – the suspension of normal government channels of operation so that all command & control and decision making fall to one official? Sorry if I sound like a conspiracy nut on this but everything in our country seems to be inside out & upside down. I am no longer sure what to expect from our so called leaders and I feel that if we have a US President who would even consider such a move as this treaty all things are possible for him to make sure he gets that control to remake America.
    3. For Jeff and other legal scholars, How long would it take for the workings of the treaty and its enforcement to go into real time effect? Days, weeks, months or years? Just curious because I fear time is not on our side, as Lord Monckton suggests . If what he says is correct the damage may be irreversible now as much as that pains me to say. I love this country and used to believe our republican form of gov't could withstand any assault but I see this as an end run on the whole system and it threatens to derail us completely.

    God bless you Jeff for your time in keeping us informed,
    War Eagle – Rob from Alabama

  15. Anonymous says:

    Information is half the battle, using it is the other half. It's time to let your Senators and Representatives that you will not stand for this. There are some very intelligent comments on here, and some more from the hip. I do believe time is running out to correct the upside down and wrong state of affairs in our Federally Elected Government. I truly hope we can exert the influence before it is too late. But America which could not be taken down from the outside, has been taken down by brash and unpunished corruption, crime and criminal negligence.

    I wish us all luck and the strength to stare down the dragons of corruption, it won't be easy, it is deeply entrenched. It's ashame we don't have a recall and no confidence system in the United States, at least not that I am aware of. We sure need it right now.

  16. Anonymous says:

    I agree with you anonymus – time may not be on our side for this one. This weekend I am going to write all my representatives to let them know how I feel, as I have on other occasions. They must be made aware of the dangers presented by this conference/treaty. But I fear we have those in the halls of power who have no qualms about going against the stated will of the people. What then? What would we do in the case of an international treaty like the one mentioned in this article that becomes binding on any US administration that follows? Is there any way other than impeachment to remove the abusers of their position?

    USA2.0 – please remember our Founding Fathers exhausted all legal & peaceful channels to protest King George's treatment of the colonies BEFORE they began an armed revolution. They then enumerated their cause very specifically in the Dec. of Independence. They did this to show the world that they had real issues that the King refused to address and to give their cause legitimacy. I fear a revolution by force of arms at this point would be premature, maybe even illegal & certainly more deadly than you can imagine. I can and will defend myself against criminal elements who may try to take advantage of any economic or political/societal upheaval – that is my duty to my wife and children. But I would be a fool to take on the most well equipped, best trained military in the world should they be called in to quell an (illegal?)armed rebellion. If however armed revolution was necessary because all legal means were used to no avail and if proper goals and leadership were provided for the revolution then I would join the cause, I would put my life on the line. BUt it must be legal, it must be well thought out and it must occupy the high ground both morally and politically. And by that I mean it must take us back to the Constitution, nothing more nothing less.

    My 2 cents, Rob from Alabama

Speak Your Mind

*