Will Obama Give Away U S Sovereignty?

Lord Christopher Monckton warns the US:
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.

[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 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....

Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:
38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

World Government (heading added)
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)
b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.

With Enforcement Authority (heading added)
© The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].

Here is an excellent comment that comes after the article.
What Americans truly need to understand in the face of this potential treaty is this:

When the American Revolution occurred, the former colonists wrested the sovereignty of King George III from him, when they drove out the British troops and set up the American Republic.

While not taught in schools, since civics is an unknown subject for most Americans, Americans took on the sovereignty of George III, making every American a sovereign under the common law. In other words, personal sovereignty goes as far as each American’s interest exist in protecting self and family, but not in infringing upon a neighbor who has his or her own sovereignty.

An important principle to always remember is this: Once a person is sovereign, he/she is always sovereign — unless it is volunteered away, by ignorance.

Bottom Line:

Elected officials, while acting as agents for the principals, who are the American people, do not have agency status to transfer sovereignty of their principals to another government, regardless of the language in the Constitution. Remember, the U.S. Constitution was to bind the government, not the American people.

The sovereign American people are higher than the U.S. Constitution. Only government officials who provide an oath or affirmation to support and defend the Constitution come under the criteria of such a document.

So when “Lord” Obama thinks he may transfer the sovereignty of the United States to some foreign government, such an act being a treasonous offense, he does not give away the sovereignty of the American people at large, one whit.

If Obama does sign the treaty, the American people need to call for his impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. Treason defined is waging war against the several states, i.e. “them” (Constitution, Article III, Sect. 3, Clause 1).

The American people constitute “the state in fact” (case cite omitted), so when an act inimical to their best interests, as will be by the signing of a treaty which purportedly subjugates the jurisdiction of the United States under some foreign body, the signer is waging war against the sovereigns. The sovereign Americans need to act to remove the usurper by the means constituted, since such an act of treason cannot be tolerated.

And if the elected officials do not do the peoples’ will, preferring instead to support a fascist state of corporatism (as described by Benito Mussolini), the American people need to fully understand the extended treasonous acts of Congress, and deal with them accordingly.

The spirit of the American Revolution lives on. It is the right pursuant of the Declaration of Independence for Americans to throw off a government which acts contrary to the will of their principals. This understanding includes regaining the lawful currency control, now under the unlawful hands of the Federal Reserve.

Hat Tip Cbullit.

The Alinsky model is going ahead full bore. I have no doubt the Statists are trying to overwhelm us with their activities, so some of them slip through the cracks. I know we are weary from the fight against Obamacare. This issue also seems pressing and important to me. Am I wrong?