On October 14 Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing refutation of the concept of man-caused global warming at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota. He closed his presentation with a stern warning to Americans that President Obama will be signing a new climate change treaty (likely to be known as the Copenhagen Treaty) at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in early December and that this treaty will “impose a communist world government on the world.”

Here’s a four-minute video clip of Monckton's warning:

Click here for the current draft of the Copenhagen Treaty. Here’s a partial transcript of the remarks by Lord Monckton in the video above:

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.

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. [Text slightly revised based on checking transcript against the video.]

The above warning from Lord Monckton is understandably attracting a lot of attention in those conservative circles, including the John Birch Society, where warnings about the threat to American national sovereignty from a progressively strengthened United Nations have been taken very seriously for the past 50 years. In the context of recent House passage of a rigorous cap-and-trade energy tax to combat global warming and an upcoming vote on the UN Law of the Sea Treaty, the momentum is definitely there for the President to sign and the Senate to ratify a UN Copenhagen Treaty to minimize global warming.

Although the Copenhagen Treaty is definitely a real threat to our national sovereignty and personal freedom, it is important to note that Lord Monckton is wrong when he says that “if that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution.” Internationalists have claimed for decades that treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution, and over time many people who are not themselves internationalists have accepted this claim as fact. Yet this claim clashes with the intent of the Founding Fathers, who did not grant an unlimited treaty power enabling a treaty to accomplish what only a constitutional amendment could. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1803 regarding "those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless": "If it is, then we have no Constitution." (For more information on the Constitution's treaty-making power and the intent of the Founding Fathers, see Chapter 6 of Global Tyranny ... Step by Step by William F. Jasper.)

Nonetheless, even though the Constitution does not say that treaties have precedence over it, we know from recent actions by President Obama and the Congress, as well as from the widespread and longstanding disregard for the Constitution by previous administrations and Congresses, that our government  leaders would be only too happy to implement a UN Copenhagen Treaty on climate change within the United States.

The Copenhagen Treaty, the cap-and-trade bills in Congress, the Law of the Sea Treaty, healthcare reform legislation, etc., will continue to threaten our national sovereignty and personal freedom until enough Americans work together to get a majority of constitutionalists elected to Congress.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (17)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Always American said:

... Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land.... [T]reaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, ... can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.2 • Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, April 11, 1952 ALL I CAN SAY IS, RON PAUL WAS RIGHT If you want to keep your liberties in The United States of America then you have a moral obligation to inform and educate as mamy people as possible. Folks, this is serious. Do not wait. Do not be afraid. May God Bless the United States of America and have Mercy on us all for the offenses we have committed against Him.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 19, 2009
Votes: +21

Always American said:

	... The Copenhagen Treaty, the cap-and-trade bills in Congress, the Law of the Sea Treaty, healthcare reform legislation, etc., will continue to threaten our national sovereignty and personal freedom until enough Americans work together to get a majority of constitutionalists elected to Congress.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 19, 2009
Votes: +15

Always American said:

... The period of 1990-99 has been declared by the United Nations General Assembly to be “the United Nations Decade of International Law.”49 As such, it being used to propel additional assaults on national sovereignty. Americans must face up to the reality that our heritage of freedom under the “rule of law” of the Constitution is being replaced piecemeal by the tyrannical “rule of men” under the Charter of the United Nations. We must decide now, while there is yet time, which future we will choose for ourselves and our posterity.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 19, 2009
Votes: +11

Always American said:

	... Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none. Thomas Jefferson
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 19, 2009
Votes: +22

Always American said:

	... It is becoming ever more obvious that the plans of the planet guardians and green globalists we have described have virtually nothing to do with saving endangered species, protecting the ozone layer, or whatever else they are using as cover for their real goal. Instead, their plans have everything to do with forging the chains for a UN-dominated world dictatorship.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 19, 2009 | url
Votes: +13

Bonnie said:

Supreme Law of the Land? Article VI, Section 2 states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ..." This means that any such Law (Act of Congress) which violates the Constitution is automatically made null and void to start with (nullified by the Constitution itself) and therefore cannot be a part of the "supreme Law of the Land". This is also true as it applies to treaties. In addition, a treaty must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate before becoming valid. Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 states: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds pf the Senators present concur; ..." The President alone cannot make treaties. Any actions contrary to the above is 1) null and void, and 2) an impeachable offense. (As to impeachment, the one sticky point may be whether or not someone who may not be legally holding an office can be impeached.)

report abuse vote down vote up

October 19, 2009
Votes: +16

Lee Gonzales said:

Please reread Article VI pertaining to treaties entered into by the US government Always American writes: "Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land.... [T]reaty law can override the Constitution." The US Constitution, article VI,paragraph 2 reads: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance therof; and all treaties made,or which shall be made, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES,(my emphasis) shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound therby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Why would the Founders go to all the trouble to build protections against usurpations of power by the federal government and not protect Americans and States rights from a treaty that usurps power from the people and the states? They didn't overlook treaty law and treaty law does not trump the US Constitution.It cannot if the treaty violates one single principle that is in the Constitution. In addition the first ten amendments ()the Bill of Rights) trumps article VI, paragraph two pertaining to treaty law.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 19, 2009
Votes: +13

Flu-Bird said:

	Reject all UN treaties Its time for america to leave this wretched UN and have the UN evicted from american soil as well The whole UN is not for world peace its a vulture pretending to be a dove
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 19, 2009
Votes: +17

Old timer said:

	Commentors: You forget judges Who will decide? Judges, probably in Brussels, but even if it is our Supreme Court, what hope is there of getting 5 votes against the UN and global "warming". Tell your reps and senators. They will only listen if they hear from thousands/millions of us.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 19, 2009
Votes: +13

KSH said:

Did the founders write in protections from abuses of power? Didn't the founders prepare us in the constitution and bill of rights for this type of overthrow? Since the UN isnt bound by US laws and constitutions, why do we want to be a part of it. If there are those who want that type of country, let them go and be a part of it. For the rest of US, let US stand together and loudly say NO to the UN form of government.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 19, 2009 | url
Votes: +11

Eddington said:

	Debtors don't make the rules - creditors do END THE FED Note: Always American was not saying treaty law is superior to the Constitution. He was pointing out that criminals in our government like Dulles have claimed this
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 20, 2009
Votes: +5

Thomas Paine said:

	Senate controlled by the Banking interest The 2/3 Senate rule does not give me confort as they are bought and sold by the bankers. When the Banksters amended the constitution in 1913 to make Senators an elected office instead of appointed by State Legislatures, it gave them the ability to buy all campains and centralize power.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 20, 2009
Votes: +7

Dan Tolleson said:

Food for thought . . . When Lord Monckton says that the treaty itself does not permit withdrawal of a member nation, which has already ratified the treaty, without the explicit voting consent of the other member nations -- I have to be skeptical. What kind of a treaty would make no provision for unilateral withdrawal of any member? Reminds me of the possible parallel situation of the several states ratifying our Constitution [In what manner and to what extent is the Constitution to be considered a treaty among the several, independent states?]. I have to wonder if the Framers discussed provisions for withdrawal, or reversal of ratification, at the Constitutional Convention [Does anybody know about that?]. If the Framers had provided a mechanism for withdrawal from the Constitution (-- e.g., three-fourth's vote of the state's house of representatives?), wouldn't such a provision have cut the ground out from under the Anti-Federalists' arguments against the Constitution? And wouldn't such a provision have caused the Northern federal legislators in the early 1800s to think very carefully before unfairly taxing Southern states -- an ill-considered oppression which finally culminated in the "Late Unpleasantness" with the North?

report abuse vote down vote up

October 20, 2009
Votes: +3

georgesake said:

... theoretically no treaty can supercede the "supreme law of the land", i.e., the constitution. even if signed, the founders would point out that provisions conflicting with the constitution would be null and void. the problem is, as mark levin points out in MEN IN BLACK, that we have an activist court and judiciary that is bent on making policy outside of its originalist meaning. thus, we have a huge practical problem. we can only do what we all can to demand that the president ratify the treaty and do what we can to make sure that the senate rejects it, utterly.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 25, 2009
Votes: +3

TalkTalkTalk said:

	More Talk Talk Talk...... Somebody with some money in high places had better organize something before it's too late!
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 27, 2009
Votes: +3

Jake Blues said:

ELECT A NON-AMERICAN AND THIS IS WHAT YOU GET Here is a clear example of why our founding fathers made the requirement that our Presidents MUST BE native born. Here you have a man that refuses to produce a legal birth certificate that clearly proves his natural citizenship that would qualify him to hold the highest office in our land. WHY? Because he was bread to take over our nation, this was planned years ago with and infiltration of communist into our school systems. FRIENDS WAKE UP! It's time to recall senators who've sided with Obmanation, it's time to send a clear and present message for Obamanation to focus on issues at home and to stay out of UN dealings. The change Obamanation has brought to our Country was not what "WE" barganed for and now we are paying the price.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 29, 2009
Votes: +3

Rob said:

The Constitution is not a legal document When Bush called the Constitution a so-and-so piece of paper, he was actually right. It has no legal signatories and even if it did, those involved are long dead. The Constitution continues to be held up as a "guideline" and an illusion to make people think they have rights and protections when the only rights are those they are afforded by the whims of the legislators and courts. The only way to escape such a treaty is to publicly, loudly oppose it en mass and not wait for a centuries old document which is not enforceable in court to act as protection.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 02, 2009
Votes: -1