By R. A. Sprinkle

This YouTube video records the presentation Lord Christopher Monckton gave in St. Paul, MN on October the 14th of this year. At the time of this blog post 12 days later, it had been viewed over 1,100,000 times. The subject of his speech was global warming and the United Nations Climate Change Treaty which is scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in early December of this year. The seriousness of the threat of this treaty cannot be understated. It effectively creates a global government, supposedly preempting the U.S. Constitution by making US sovereignty subject to international law.

As the news spreads of the December meeting in Copenhagen and the potential consequences of ratifying such a treaty, it is now being reported that Obama is unlikely to attended. From the UK Timesonline today we get this headline: President Obama won’t talk climate change in Copenhagen. Quoting from the article:

President Obama will almost certainly not travel to the Copenhagen climate change summit in December and may instead use his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to set out US environmental goals, The Times has learnt.

With healthcare reform clogging his domestic agenda and no prospect of a comprehensive climate treaty in Copenhagen, Mr Obama may disappoint campaigners and foreign leaders, including Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, who have urged him to attend to boost the hopes of a breakthrough.

The White House would not comment on Mr Obama’s travel plans yesterday, but administration officials have said privately that “Oslo is plenty close” — a reference to the Nobel ceremony that falls on December 10, two days into the Copenhagen meeting.

The White House confirmed that the President would be in Oslo to accept the prize…

Here is my concern: Are articles like these a ruse? Being that Obama will be in Europe when he goes to Oslo to receive his Nobel two days before the meeting, he could easily jaunt over to sign the treaty. Indeed, if there is a “last minute decision” to attend on his part, he avoids a fight until after the treaty is signed. The benefit of having stories put out like this one in the Timesonline, stating he “likely will not attend,” preempts debate and stymies scrutiny. But, the Obama administration wouldn’t feign he is not going, then at the last moment have him go stating that circumstances had changed… would they? They are not that cunning or low down… are they?

Still, any such treaty would require ratification by a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Although, the United States House of Representatives would not have a vote on it at all. Even so, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democracies to ratify international treaties. Nonetheless, considering the current crop of politicians currently in Washington, there is less comfort in that now than in times passed.

Still, this is not the first attempt at this type of maneuver. In 2000, another treaty relinquishing US sovereignty was signed, as time expired, by then US President Bill Clinton.

Clinton Signs Treaty Just Before Deadline
Tuesday, January 02, 2001

US President Bill Clinton on Sunday signed the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC), just hours before the 31 December signature deadline. The action is seen as a tactical maneuver to keep the United States involved in negotiations over the court’s potential establishment, the Washington Post reports. Sunday was the last day nations could sign the treaty without first having ratified it.

“We do so to reaffirm our strong support for international accountability,” Clinton said in a statement. “We do so as well because we wish to remain engaged in making the ICC an instrument of impartial and effective justice.”

Clinton added, however, that his administration still has “concerns about significant flaws in the treaty,” in particular that the Hague-based court could claim jurisdiction over citizens from countries that do not ratify the treaty, which may include the United States. These were the same concerns that had been expressed by US conservatives and the Pentagon in their objections to the US signing the treaty…”

Fortunately, The Rome Statute never came before the US Senate for ratification and the incoming Bush administration opposed the treaty.

Be advised America, this is the means by which the US Constitution is being proposed to be overthrown.

---

---

Related: Constitution, Law, Political Correctness, United Nations (UN)

---