« California Ecofascists Target Television Sets | Main | Hero Fired for Stopping Bank Robber »

October 16, 2009

Lord Monckton Warns of Obama's Copenhagen Threat

Posted by Van Helsing at October 16, 2009 9:23 AM

Lord Christopher Monckton is one of the last true Britons, a countermoonbat who has been eviscerating the global warming hoax for years. At a speech at the Minnesota Free Market Institute Wednesday, he warned of what Comrade Obama is planning to do to us in Copenhagen. From the transcript at Watt's Up With That:

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 regimes 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.

The country that will be looted the most aggressively on behalf of socialist Third-World dictators for the greater glory of the radical left agenda will of course be the financially staggering USA.

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.

Even the BBC is now admitting not only that economic freedom doesn't make it be too hot out, but that the climate has been cooling despite rising levels of harmless CO2. But by the time awareness that the grand global warming crisis is a complete and absolute farce fully penetrates the public, the socialists who have taken control of our country will have us locked into this treaty, subjugating American sovereignty to unaccountable, anti-democratic global entities and subjecting American taxpayers to slavery not just to generate wealth for the bloated pigs in Washington, but to buy palaces for Robert Mugabe types around the world.

Here's where we find out if we deserve to call ourselves Americans. If the radicals running the government aren't stopped, we don't.

On a tip from SnowSnake.


Good thing for the USA. The Senate is the only governing body that can enter a treaty. If I remember correctly clinton signed on to koyoto, but the Senate refused to ratify it, so it never happened.

I sure can see the limp d*ck noble holder doing something like this.

Posted by: Stephana at October 16, 2009 9:35 AM

A treaty, such as described, will lead to world war.

Posted by: Kevin R. at October 16, 2009 9:45 AM

Madness, how long are we going to take this? The guy is on a race to destroy the country!

Posted by: Jay B at October 16, 2009 10:09 AM

Stephana, except for those done by Executive agreement. It's very complicated. There are withdrawal and denunciation processes in place, should we ever get sane people back in. In addition, for any behavior or action to change internally, it would need 2/3 of both house and senate. Otherwise, it's just some blowhard prez blowing smoke up everyone's asses.

Posted by: Karin at October 16, 2009 10:17 AM

Copenhagen threat? What's smokless tobacco got to do with anything!?

Posted by: Graycat at October 16, 2009 11:08 AM

Another reason to defund the UN of US taxpayer money. Let it wilt on the vine then cut it loose.

Additionally, since treaties become essentially part of the Constitution, it would be unconstitutional to join any type of 'government' that does not guarantee a republican form of government to the states.

The concept is getting lost that our government is just an agent of the states and it it time the federal government is not the supreme power of our national structure. If they do something we collectively object to we can always 'neuter them', through Article V and call a constitutional convention to remove some of their power since they have effectively breached the contract.

Posted by: IOpian at October 16, 2009 11:09 AM

I'm going to try and e-mail this to everyone I can.

Posted by: JoeShmoe at October 16, 2009 11:39 AM

Actually Iopian, the treaty modifies the Constitution. While I agree that this travesty runs counter to our Constitution and the intent of the Founders, if it was ratified, it would trump the Constitution. Ve-r-r-y bad.

Posted by: chuck in st paul at October 16, 2009 11:48 AM

We have weapons and we have willing patriots, but we DO NOT HAVE LEADERS! There will be no revolution unless the commies fire first and chances are that they know this.

Posted by: KHarn at October 16, 2009 11:51 AM

treaties, treaties everywhere...

are ANY of them in our best interests now? what's the timeline on the Law of the Sea Treaty ratification that Secy Hillary said would be her priority?

seems that magic number 60 in the Senate still don't mean a damn thing to the Leftists. thank God for that.

Posted by: reeko at October 16, 2009 12:24 PM

chuck, where in the Constitution does it state that a treaty can "modify" the Constitution?

Posted by: Kevin R. at October 16, 2009 12:25 PM

I think treaties supersede our domestic laws but they can't supersede our Constitution.

Posted by: Judith M. at October 16, 2009 12:57 PM

It is sad to watch a great nation being shit on by our enemies, ask why did so many die in world war two? ask why did so many die in the great war?
ask why did so many die in and all the other wars from 1951-53 to 1963-1973 ask why its all a show?

read the KGB Files and it all comes together on who obama really is working for.

Our enemies are inside the gate and its up to the guys who love this nation to stop our enemies like we did in world war two.

Posted by: Fred Dawes at October 16, 2009 1:00 PM

IOpian sounds good but you forgot the civil war and the power was handed over to a fed government.
all power is now in the hands of one monkey.
If the states call for a constitutional convention the fed would call that reballion against the union and shot anyone who calls for that convention, and article 5 would be used to attack Americans in fact obama could call on UN Troops to be used against Americans.

The U.S. Miliatry would fall in line and would attack Americans who stand against obamas power and with 40 percent and soon to be 60 percent foreign born he could call any who stand against his racists and with 60 to 80 percent whites would back the mass murder of Americans, it worked at waco when bill called the people at waco racists whites the sad fact is most of the poor murdered people at waco happened to be not white was and is over looked by Americans.

Posted by: Fred Dawes at October 16, 2009 1:16 PM

Secy Hillary

Speaking of which, is it just me or has Hills been conspicuously absent of late?

LOL, I'd almost feel sorry for her except she asked for it by getting in bed with a Marxist thugadministration.

Gotta say this much for the ol' Obamafia: they've got "eliminate the competition" down to an art form. Which is par for the course for the Narcissist-in-Chief and his cronies: get rid of anyone who makes you look worse in comparison.

Posted by: Nunya at October 16, 2009 2:57 PM

And every one of the UN pigs came in their O-Zone depleting atmosphear contaminating gulfstream and leer jets and were chaufered there in their gas guzzling 4 mpg limos and HOT AIRHEAD AL GORE was there to

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at October 16, 2009 3:08 PM

Amazing somehow, that we mulled over the idea of impeaching one president for lying to a grand jury about gleefully bouncing around the oval office enjoying sordid sexual high-jinks and another for darkly trying to cover up a petty break-in by pretend-spies for no gain whatsoever. Yet we seem to have no grounds for impeachment of a president that conspires to intentionally destroy the country.

Which brings up the question as to what purpose and motivation the Democrats in congress have, to go along with BO's wantonly destructive programs? Other than the well-established principle that liberals cannot build and thus are compelled to destroy.

But this seems to be unprecedented in history; the decline of the Roman Empire was gradual, although a loss of civic virtue and handing over administration to professional thieves, as did the Romans, seems to have a likely parallel in BO and his administration.

Still, no country in history seems to have willfully put into place a leader so antithetical to its principles as the U.S. has done with BO.

Posted by: Fiberal at October 16, 2009 4:07 PM

IOpian at October 16, 2009 11:09 AM

Particulars about the Constitution is sounding more and more like a one-way discussion among citizens in the absence of government.

After decades of states' violation of the second amendment and PC suppression of free-speech, along with the more recent eminent domain free-for-all ruling, then given the BO administration and their sneering disregard for a lawful society, I wouldn't count on the Constitution to make a difference.

Posted by: Fiberal at October 16, 2009 4:20 PM

Constitution of the United States of America - quote:
Article II; Section 2; Paragraph 2;

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;

Posted by: Eric at October 16, 2009 4:29 PM

Still, no country in history seems to have willfully put into place a leader so antithetical to its principles as the U.S. has done with BO.
~ Fiberal

The great majority of people that voted for this knucklehead didn't vote for him because they thought he was antithetical to the principles of the U.S. They thought just the opposite. I know people, and I'm sure you too must know people, that are so confused on the issues as to really believe that George Bush was a tyrannical hitler wanna-be trampling on the Constitution and that Obama as President would bring sanity and Constitutional government back and thus save the country from tyranny.

That's why a lot of people voted for him. The old bait and switch.

It wasn't willful on the part of most people. Obama and the Reds are gambling that the great majority of people aren't going understand and see who they are until it's too late to do anything about it.

Posted by: Kevin R. at October 16, 2009 5:05 PM

I don't think Obama has two-thirds of the Senate in his pocket at the present, and he certainly won't next year, so it seems unlikely he'll be able to ratify any such treaty during his first(hopefully his last) term.

Posted by: Judith M. at October 16, 2009 7:21 PM

Public Law 87-297

Posted by: chairman soetoro's oprichniki at October 16, 2009 7:26 PM


The great majority of people that voted for this knucklehead didn't vote for him because they thought he was antithetical to the principles of the U.S. They thought just the opposite.

...Couldn't disagree more. To vote for BO as someone that would bring back the "basic principles" of the U.S. (that GW Bush had "destroyed") simply defies imagination.

Most of those who voted for BO did so willfully in two different ways: One was proximate--They pulled a lever (so to speak) bc they either hated Bush (and used the Iraqi war as a vehicle), wanted to stick it to the rich, voted for skin color or were manifestly stupid. (Granted, there was a good argument for voting for BO to keep McCain out since that disaster would have cost the republicans 20 years of general exclusion). The other way that the vote for BO was willful was ultimate: which takes the form of the metaphysical freedom to choose a leader as we have defined the rules of the democratic process.

Antithetical is a matter of degree of intent that varies with how much a voter projected onto BO vs testing reality.

Learning about BO before voting for him was not a necessary criteria that voters needed to put him into office. To vote for BO, the minimum you needed was a liberal outlook. Here, liberals tenaciously buy into reward systems to serve undeserving people, regardless of the consequences. Liberals defend heaping adulation and wealth onto marginal people who would never invite them to sit down at the table. This was a priority for voters who were clearly elevating BO to the level of a Messiah.

Trying to say that voters fell for a bait and switch operation or excusing voters for being naive or hopeful is a way of excusing ignorance and bad judgement. A lot of voters bought into the meme of Bush as an evil villain bc they wanted an evil villain. (Now of course, they have Rush.) But probably more than anything else, liberals wanted global appeasement.

Against this phony, diminished cognitive narrative, they intentionally went out and voted for a radical, narcissistic, unqualified, manipulative racist (at a time of fiscal fragility) who is now doing just what you would expect a person with such a resume like that would do.

I can't see how such a voter could rationally think they were upholding the "principles" of the U.S.

Posted by: Fiberal at October 16, 2009 8:17 PM

>> 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.

I find it ironic that a Lord from Britain is warning us about our president and praising us about our country. At one time, not that long ago, Revolutionary Patriots were a threat to the British king. We won our freedom from them (with the help of the French, of all countries!). Now, the British stand beside us, literally and figuratively, and are warning us that we are about to lose all we have fought for because some twit with a pen has the power to sign our freedoms away. Maybe we can all move in with the Queen?

So, what are our options here? When we finally get him out of office on a technicality (since there are so many to choose from), does that negate anything he did and all those he appointed? How can we stop this "Copenhagen Threat"?

And btw - as far as this whole "racist" thing goes, the last time I checked, "half" means "equal parts" ... as in "50-50" ... and the last time I checked, only his father was black. His mother was white. He is EQUALLY as white as he is black ... so how could either side be called "racist"? As far as I'm concerned, he's RED -- through and through. Pinko Commie in the White House. And it takes a Blue Blood Brit to point that out. (God love the British!!)

Posted by: Title of Liberty at October 16, 2009 9:08 PM

The Executive Branch can not solely commit the US to a binding treaty without the Congressional approval.

The Executive Branch can, however, make yet another big mistake and pile more shit onto the Congress to deal with.

Much like the 'straw', this could prove to be the last shit that broke the Donkey's back.

Posted by: Oiao at October 16, 2009 11:51 PM

For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to help it.

This is one of the points about the whole MMGW bit that really burns my toast.

Ok, so resolved: It's asserted beyond any shadow of doubt that the Earth IS getting warmer, that man IS responsible, and that the consequences of this warming WILL BE catastrophic for humanity. now what? I've heard many even among the alarmist loons admit that Kyoto and other treaties under consideration won't do any good, that it is "already too late." So what's the point of killing our economy along with the planet?

Posted by: Cylar at October 17, 2009 8:56 PM

His speech is on video here:

Posted by: NikFromNYC at October 18, 2009 11:39 PM