Photo from fOTOGLIF

According to Christopher Monckton, the four countries, of which he calls the “Forthright Four”, (China, India, Brazil, South Africa) demanded the following four conditions.

Point 1. No compulsory limits on carbon emissions.

Point 2. No emissions reductions at all unless the West paid for them.

Point 3. No international monitoring of any emissions reductions not paid for by the West.

Point 4. No use of “global warming” as an excuse to impose protectionist trade restrictions on countries that did not cut their carbon emissions.

And also according to Christopher Monckton, when President Barack Obama got done with showing them a thing or two, here’s what the “Forthright Four” got.

Point 1. No compulsory limits on carbon emissions.

Point 2. No emissions reductions at all unless the West paid for them.

Point 3. No international monitoring of any emissions reductions not paid for by the West.

Point 4. No use of “global warming” as an excuse to impose protectionist trade restrictions on countries that did not cut their carbon emissions.

Monckton further explains what exactly that means.

Ding dong the witch is dead!

Tom Remington

According to Monckton, by signing the treaty the U.S. is admitting that it is the bad boy in the world by generating too much carbon dioxide and therefore we must pay for our sins. The difficulty comes on what happens after we sign this or any other U.N. treaty. (video below the fold)

It is my understanding that the United States president has the power to negotiate treaties with international entities. It takes a super majority in the U.S. Senate to approve this treaty if Obama should decide to sign it and many feel that he will, including Lord Monckton.

According to U.S. law (Article VI of Constitution) “and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;” if Obama signs and Congress approves such a treaty, are we bound by our own Constitution to abide by that treaty? Or does this apply only in terms of negotiated treaties within the several states? Furthermore, when the U.S. signed the United Nations Charter (another treaty I would presume), we agreed to abide by the rules of the Charter and to honor all treaties signed.

According to Monckton (I’ve not been able to confirm this), the only way the U.S. could get out of a signed treaty with the United Nations is if the charter members voted to allow such (and there goes all their money).

In theory it would seem that once the U.S. signs this treaty or any other UN treaty, the only legal way out is through approval of the UN. There is argument that the UN has no means of legal enforcement and that therefore the United States Congress can simply vote to repeal this or any other treaty. Evidently this has been done before.

Any legal experts willing to add their two cents worth, feel free to use the comment section at the bottom of the page. Non experts are also welcome to chime in.

Not so good, I would have to say. The latest in what seems to be a continual dismantling of any and all foreign relations is our long time friends across the pond in the United Kingdom. We are hearing that the Lockerbie terrorist found guilty of the killing of innocents over Scotland, was released back to Libya in exchange for a lucrative oil deal between Great Britain and Libya. We don’t have all the facts but it sure looks like that played a role in Megrahi’s release.

But even to suppose for a moment that that is simply a terrible rumor and Scotland released Megrahi because he was dying of cancer, what we see is more than just troubling. It is common knowledge that Scotland isn’t going to make that decision, nor can they legally from what I have been reading, without the approval of the U.K.. So we can rightfully assume that Gordon Brown and the Brits were well aware that Megrahi was going to be released.

We also have knowledge that the Scots and the Brits had prior knowledge about the release because they knew of the flight of Megrahi back to Libya and reporters were telling us that Libya had promised Scotland there wouldn’t be a big hoopla when Megrahi arrived back in Libya. How did they have that information if they were not told by the Scots/Brits in advance?

Gordon Brown knew Megrahi was going to be released, whether on humanitarian terms or terrorism for oil dealings. Can we not assume then that Brown discussed this information with President Obama?

If Brown did talk with Obama and he signed off on the deal, then Obama continues pandering to the Islamic extremists revealing further to the world where his interests lie. It would also mean that he and Brown are in bed together and are both willing to sell out their countries in exchange for oil, of course believing it to be in the best interest of their countries.

If Brown went solo on this deal, then our relationship with the U.K. is in serious trouble and Barack Obama has a difficult time in finding words to describe such heinous actions of fools. If Brown has the gall to make the deal behind the United State’s back, then what does that tell us about the strength of our Commander in Chief and the relationship he has forged with Great Britain? I contend that no other U.K. leader would have had the nerve to stab the United States in the back. Why now that Barack Obama is president?

It would appear to me that regardless of who knew what and the real reasons for Scotland releasing Megrahi, the U.S. continues to spiral downward and becoming the laughing stock of the world and any trust we once had of Gordon Brown and the U.K. government has essentially dissipated.

This is a prime example of how inexperience, combined with a belief that being friends with your enemies is cool, can destroy a country or at least tear down years of gains made in the spread of peace and democracy.

I suppose this is more of that hope and change voters bought and paid for last November.

Tom Remington