printI have only a minor quibble with the superlative Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, in his dire warnings about the imminent loss of US sovereignty:
“The US Constitution is the thin edge of the wedge that has allowed U.S. governments to cede the rights of Americans to the UN. Specifically, the ‘Supremacy Clause’ in Article VI states that all treaties made by government shall be ‘the supreme Law of the Land,’ and shall usurp state law. Article VI has thus further compounded the loss of individual rights in the U.S.” It needs repealing, among others.
This via Walter Scott Hudson of the blog Fightin’ Words:
“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.”
“…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 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.
[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 prosperity 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!
Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience….”
The man speaks English as only an Englishman can.
Update: Thanks to Steve, the Monckton lecture in its glorious entirety. Sheer genius.
Wow. He did that without a teleprompter? [And that’s only a snippet of the lecture.]
Monckton for… President?
Here you have the problem: the great majority of the great wide franchise doesn’t know what the hell Lord Monckton and his rare ability to speak coherently is going on about. Those with an inability to compile a sentence let alone express a meaningful thought (such as Ivy League Masters Bush and Obama) have learned to make their overtures to the mis-educated masses in little more than grunts and no more than clichés – and it seems to be working. The debasement of language is more than correlative to our predicament – and it is just one predicament after another, isn’t it?
Article II of the Constitution:
“He [the President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;…”
So Obama cannot sign away our freedoms without the active collusion of 67 Senators. [And that’s an obstacle?]
There are 58 Democrats in the Senate, 40 Republicans, 1 Independent Democrat (Lieberman) and 1 Socialist (Sanders).
The margin between liberty and slavery has never been so slim.
When I was in Jr Hi back in the 50’s I learned from my father and some of my uncles the concept of “Get the US out of the UN and get the UN out of the US”. My Dad saw this sort of thing coming. He, of course, was considered a crackpot as I am now. But he knew what he was talking about and I think I do too.
State coercion via the vehicle of science is not a new M.O. Sadly we forget these lessons of history, or in the case of our government schools, we never learn the historical lessons. A major concern is the status we grant anything labeled “scientific.” A classic read on this issue is Michael Polanyi’s The Logic of Liberty. He addresses in that work the necessity of separating government from scientific inquiry. Although Polanyi’s work has been usurped by postmodernists, The Logic of Liberty is a good read. Hayek’s The Counter-Revolution of Science is another important work. His distinction of science from scientism is readily applicable to environmental studies today. Hayek addressed what he considered a misuse of the methods of physical science when applied to the social sciences. He considered it an “abuse of reason.” Environmentalism today uses the status of “science” to engineer a social agenda. The abuse of reason is in full bloom.
It is frightening. Also, Obama and Pelosi and Reid can just ignore the 2/3 requirement of the Constitution if the President and Congress will go along by fiat (majority). It is like fighting wars without a declaration of War … if the branches do not object, the damage is done.
The real limitation is the economy tanking – but should that happen, everything is in play.
I believe it’s worse than one might expect. In Article II, “… provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…” the operative and lunatitc word is present . The implications roil the imagination.
I watched the entire presentation a few weeks ago. The man knows his stuff. No wonder the likes of Al Gore won’t debate him. Monckton would make him look like the fraud that he is. [Send a link to the entire thing.]
I have a better idea than this treaty. How about the US cut off all foreign aid to these third-world countries and the UN? Then, since we’re using evil green house gas fuel to grow food, we’ll have to cut off the food aid for them as well and let them starve. This will reduce the global CO2 output by quite a bit wouldn’t it?
I don’t believe that the US is being punished and expected to pay money to these third world “countries” when they use so much of our bounty to enrich their corrupt leaders and feed their own populations. The UN is a truly evil organization. I hope to live to see the day that it is destroyed.
A link to Monckton’s entire talk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0&feature=player_embedded
I found another version that has the slides he’s talking to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8&NR=1
Now I wonder who stands to benefit from the carbon trading schemes that the watermelons have been pushing, certainly not politically connected organizations and individuals!
It is clever albeit sinister; tax the productive classes of the first world to pay your cronies in the third world and take a little off the top.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528
Come the cold,
I will be happy.
With global alarmists
I will be snappy.
They will cry;
not I;
their frozen tears
shall join the sky’s.
Sigh!
The earth is quite dangerous,
the Universe too;
for many dangers there’s nothing to do
(If there’s no God
we’re simply screwed).
But with CO2
it’s simple indeed;
no burning of carbon
and please do not breath)