|
Take That, Al Baby! Monckton Makes It to the Glenn Beck Radio Program...and Beyond Glenn Beck's third hour of radio this morning delivered a significant blow to the international treaty President Obama is expected to sign in Copenhagen in early December. Mr. Beck spoke for approximately fifteen minutes with Lord Christoper Monckton. A former advisor on science policy to Lady Margaret Thatcher, Monckton has become known around the world as the "Anti Al Gore."
Beck and Monckton clearly have an easy conversational rapport. The two have spoken in the past, and both possess an excellent sense of humor. A few humorous moments aside, though, the seriousness of the subject before them was clearly driving the discussion part 1, discussion part 2 .
Monckton began with some backstory on the treaty President Obama is expected to sign in a few weeks' time. The plan it contains was apparently worked out in large measure at the 2007 Conference of the States' Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bali, Indonesia. It's is the same conference that will reconvene in Copenhagen on-how oddly symbolic-December 7th of this year. Let's not pretend. George W. Bush failed repeatedly to protect our southern border in any meaningful way. That said, he was no friend to the UNFCCC. One has to give the man credit for rightly maintaining during his eight years in office that the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and any international agreement that smelled like it, remained an exceptionally bad idea for U.S. business and, um, what's that word again...? Oh yes...sovereignty. So, the UNFCCC has been biding its time. Now that W. is out of the way, they're ready to push ahead with the aims he inconveniently refused to share. What precisely are the UNFCCC's aims where the Copenhagen treaty is concerned? Monckton summarized plainly: "There will be a new, vast, interlocking, bureaucratic entity created at huge expense to you and me, and that bureaucratic entity will have three purposes, the first of which is twice stated to be government."* The second purpose, Monckton continued, involves the broad transfer of wealth from first-world countries like the U.S. and Western European nations to the Third World for what is described as "climate debt." Here, then, is the reparations scam about which I wrote a few days ago. Billed as horrible, nasty, wasty polluters, we will be forced to pay up 2% of our GDP as payment for having ruined the earth for the people of poorer nations around the world. Never mind that we've now largely cleaned up after ourselves. Also, one needs to ignore the fact that some of the very nations to which our "we're-so-sorry-we've-been-horrible-monsters" money will go are now entering their own industrial periods and have begun belching out "dangerous" carbon emissions in precisely the same manner we used to do. Something is distinctly rotten in the State of Denmark. The third task the treaty lays out is enforcement. The new government the document establishes will have the power to force countries to pay their specified contributions whether they like it or not. I have not yet perused the treaty closely enough to understand fully the nature of the enforcement program or the degree to which it is has been laid out. However, Monckton did explain that it describes "a series of interlocking, technical panels that will have the right directly to intervene in the economies and the environments of individual countries over the heads of their elected governments" (emphasis mine) Monckton made no bones as to his assessment. The Copenhagen treaty, he asserts, goes much further than any previous document. It amounts to a fledgling communist world government. Anyone who follows me on Twitter will know that just after President Obama received his Nobel Peace Prize, I alluded to it as a form of political bribery or graft. Monckton similarly labeled it during last week's dinner conversation and reiterated that opinion today in speaking with Mr. Beck: "The danger is, now that he's been given his Nobel Peace Prize, if he goes to Copenhagen with Al Gore at one elbow and [NASA's] Jim Hansen at the other, in front the keening zombies in their tens of thousands, he'll sign anything," Monckton remarked. "And he won't have read the small print. Nobody seems to have read the small print until I picked it up. It's quite extraordinary that this has got as far as it has with nobody noticing." Monckton continued by identifying one of the treaties key origins: "Morris Strong, a Canadian bureaucrat who originally set up the structure of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) some 20-odd years ago...always wanted [it] to transmogrify into a world government, and he's now going to get his way far faster than any of us had realized unless we can stop him." Beck and Monckton then launched into a discussion of how Congress will respond to the Copenhagen treaty. The Constitution's treaty clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) states that "[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." Monckton seemed quite doubtful that President Obama could count on a super-majority of that nature for this treaty. Consequently, his Lordship strongly suspects that the administration would make an end run around the two-thirds rule by pushing for a simple majority in both houses of Congress. Far more likely to succeed, this strategy would enact the Copenhagen treaty into U.S. domestic, as opposed to international, law. Unlike a foreign treaty-from which it would be extremely difficult to resile-domestic legislation could potentially be repealed. Theoretically, that's a slightly less disastrous scenario. But for realists, the handwriting is on the wall: Should Congress enact such sweeping policy, even on a domestic level, the last finger will have been pulled from the protective dike that is U.S. sovereignty. It would not take long for that fact to become formally recognized. In response to Monckton's conjectures about the way the treaty would be maneuvered into passage, Beck aptly noted that when the Left cannot get Congress to pass its cherished agendas, it has a history of enlisting cities and states to litigate those matters in court. Such actions have the effect of leaving a wide swath of judicial record-and often a very false impression about the movement of the country on those issues. Should the U.S. Supreme Court decide to rule on any related matters, such "movement" would likely prove a factor in deliberations. Beck's fears on this score are unquestionably well founded. Nevertheless, Monckton cited an important obstacle that now lies in the Left's path if it attempts this sort of litigious route... Richard Lindzen of MIT, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Planetary and Atmospheric Sciences, has in the last two months, released a salient (understatement of the year) study on climate feedbacks. Simple in concept but meticulous in execution, Lindzen's study measures the escape of outgoing radiation into space. Al Gore and those with whom the former vice president aligns himself claim, of course, that such radiation becomes trapped within the earth's atmosphere, leading to precipitous and disastrous warming. Yet Lindzen's study finds quite the opposite: such radiation has continued escaping out into space at rates that would seem finally to put an end the global warming scare. Results indicate, in fact, that the effects of CO2 on temperature over the course of the next century will remain well below 2° F, possibly as low as 1° F. These projections amount to less than one sixth of what the U.N. claims and are, quite simply, negligible. Better still, where all previous projections were based solely on computer modeling-much of it wildly biased-Lindzen's projections are based on hard data accumulated over the course of 20 years. Monckton had actually published a paper last year that arrived at the same conclusions from a theoretical perspective. Now Lindzen's rigorously conducted science backs him up. Naturally, others will want to examine and test Linden's findings. But once his study and the careful workmanship with which he executed it gain wider exposure-and it shouldn't take long-Congress will find it much harder to justify any treaty that attempts to leverage the exposed lie of anthropogenic climate change. Be watching everyone. Mr. Beck is not done with this topic. He's invited Lord Monckton to spend a full hour on his Fox News television program. Expect further discussion around the treaty's content, the political maneuvering involved in positioning it, and the implications for all of us should it be enacted in any manner. And look for former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton to be present for that discussion as well. No date has yet been announced, but Monckton will be in range of New York later this week. *See paragraphs 36 and 38 of the treaty. -----------------------------------------
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Trackback(0)
Comments (15)
  written by Philiip Andrews, October 20, 2009
What effect does the water vapour in vehicle exhaust have on the atmosphere? Burning a UK gallon of petrol produces 8.3 pints of water, burning a gallon of diesel produces 9.1 pints of water - but no-one's prepared to talk about that. Why not?
 written by Wayne Mcdonald, October 20, 2009
I will pray for you Mr. Beck. Keep up the good work.
 written by JAMES RAIDER, October 20, 2009 Obama’s upcoming acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize and the invisible strings attached to it, may prove to be an enormously expensive exercise for all taxpayers on this continent. The “Copenhagen” supporters on the Nobel Committee, on the other hand, are counting on it. http://pacificgatepost.com/2009/10/obama-nobel-is-not-about-peace.html The Copenhagen meeting in December will require that the United States and Canada annually transfer billions of dollars to the developing world as “climate debt” for past transgressions in their emissions of CO2. ---
 written by Paula Westbrook, October 20, 2009
I just viewed (on UTube) Lord Monckton's speech regarding President Obama signing the treaty in Copenhagen in early December, 2009, signing away the sovereignty of the US. Why are we allowing this? Basically, he will be signing away our lives.
Please pick up the pace. December is merely ONE month from now, and our Constitution MUST be preserved. Why would anyone in their right mind do something so WRONG?
 written by Brendan Burns, October 20, 2009
Click here for the current draft of the Copenhagen Treaty.http://wattsupwiththat.files.w...n-2009.pdf
 written by TT, October 20, 2009 Read the treaty for yourself - there is no mention of any sort of communistic global government. This is all BS.Oh, yes it does. Point 38 on page 18 from the link above: 38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three
 written by B. Johnson1, October 20, 2009
Given that the federal Constitution is silent about climate issues, the 10th Amendment automatically reserves government power to regulate and lay taxes for climate issues to the states, not the Oval Office and Congress. So what affirmative action space-cadet Obama evidently doesn't understand is that he cannot use his power to negotiate treaties as a back door to exercising constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers.
Thomas Jefferson put it this way. "Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." --Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. http://www.constitution.org/tj/tj-mpp.htm In fact, here's Jefferson's remedy for people like Obama who unthinkingly exercise constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers. "Where powers are a*sumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo
 written by Lorianne, October 20, 2009
Climate bill aids authors' states
http://washingtontimes.com/new...eadlines#
 written by Tigercubby, October 21, 2009
Annex I, paragraph 38 subparagraph a of this treaty authorizes a 'Government'. I don't care how you want to read this, interpret this or hypothesize about its intent, if you let the camel's nose under the tent, the rest of his body is sure to follow. One point for you people who so desperately believe that that the redisitribution of wealth from rich to poor is all part of social justice, if you live in the US this treat just made you part of the rich irrespective of whether you live in a one room crack-house with no plumbing in the middle of harlem. . . You just been promoted to the east side.
 written by Michael Ramey, October 27, 2009
For B.Johnson1, Oct 20: Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), the Court declared, "To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their power to the National Government and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier." Only the actual text of the Constitution is safe from the treaty power. This is also why the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child poses such a threat to Parental Rights. Fortunately, there's no way this protocol would get a 2/3 Senate vote.
 written by Walter Climpton, October 27, 2009
A corporation has a governing body. A charity has a governing body. A financial trust has a governing body. Getting all hyped up about the word government is not the right response. I am not a fan of this treaty, but this treaty challenges US sovreignity no less than any other treaty. Additionally, the "government" is administered by the Conference of the Parties, which includes the United States as a party, so the argument this is some 'communistic' thing that does a full end run around the voting system of the US is false. What you have here is a very clever and well spoken man who speaks with an accent that amuses even Glenn Beck. This man is creating scare tactics in order to attempt to quash a treaty he disagrees with. Please, disagree with the treaty, please be critical of it and bureaucratic waste, but please, don't base your decision soley on the word "government" being stated over and over again seductively by a man with a British accent.
 written by alexG, November 23, 2009
It will not be only bureaucracy , it is the official demise of the USA democracy !
 written by Lawrence Lyons, February 03, 2010
I am concerned about the environment but I am more concerned that the emotional potency of everyone that wants to so desperately protect our planet may be misused to create a one world government, the members of which are not elected by the people of the world. In Australia we are talking referendum because it is about time that our politicians started to listen to us the people instead of pretending to be our mummy and daddy telling us what is good for us their children.
Recently I began writing to our politicians and newspapers with the same message…. Are we a nation of Sheepeople or are we a nation of thinking People? The wisdom of Benjamin Franklin in his 1722 essay was “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” may be said to mean that if we sacrifice liberty for security, we risk losing both. To my knowledge no government anywhere has had the fortitude to ask its citizens their permission to be a subject of the emerging invasive security controls of electronic fingerprinting, scanning of the retina of the eye, and the naked body scanning of the ma*ses – every man, woman, and child identified and numbered. You may disagree with these treatments, however if you wish to engage in certain ‘FREEDOMS’ such as ‘travel’ than you may be granted the ‘PRIVILEGE’ provided you give up your ‘RIGHT’ to your ‘privacy and dignity’. Our nation began with people being transported as if all were criminals deserving of the treatments of those times, and today can be liken to the past because as free citizens our permission is not being sought for the treatments reserved for each of us. If there is one country in the world where its citizens will demand a referendum than perhaps that country is Australia. At the very least, we will show the world that Australians do not so easily succumb to a siege mentality without publicly debating their options. Kind regards from Australia Lawrence Lyons Author "The Joke by 4040" www.thejoke.com.au
Write comment
|
| Last Updated on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 07:06 |
Those who read my previous article, or who have now seen the video of Lord Monckton's 
Kirsten Lombard - Wordsmith, Editor & Transcriptionist - visit Kirsten's website
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Login Form
Search the RSN Database of 7,000+ Articles
