UN Boss Trusts Obama to Bypass Congress on “Climate” Agenda
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (shown) celebrated the Obama administration’s attempt to bypass Congress on imposing the controversial UN “climate” regime, an agreement to redistribute wealth and restrict energy inked by governments and dictators in Paris last year. But in the process, the UN chief inadvertently blew up Obama’s bizarre arguments for the illegal maneuver, which would cut the U.S. Senate out of the treaty-ratification process by using quack legalistic and semantic gimmicks. Ban also demanded gargantuan sums of money, described by top climate experts as a subsidy for kleptocracy. But despite the UN boss celebrating Obama’s imaginary „executive powers” to impose treaties, Congress, the courts, and the next president can still quash the whole agenda effortlessly.
Along with praising Obama, Ban celebrated the efforts of brutal Communist Chinese dictator Xi Jinping, who partnered with Obama to forge the UN “climate” agreement. In essence, the pseudo-treaty, set to be formally signed at UN headquarters on “Earth Day” next week, purports to bind humanity to a UN-run climate regime that will get progressively more draconian, while redistributing trillions of dollars in Western taxpayer wealth to Third World governments and dictators. The UN scheme also calls for strict government limits on economic activity, especially in the West, under the guise of regulating carbon dioxide. The crucial gas, exhaled by humans, required by plants, and known to scientists as the gas of life, is ludicrously described by the UN and Obama as “pollution.”
The UN boss, who recently declared the scandal-plagued outfit he leads to be the “Parliament of Humanity,” also praised Obama’s lawless decrees purporting to limit energy use and regulate carbon dioxide across America. The UN leader also said much more money would have to be forthcoming to placate Third World governments responsible for keeping their populations in poverty, supposedly a form of “climate reparations.” “The initial promise by the OECD countries and big developed countries was to provide $100 billion by 2020,” Ban said. “When it comes to 2020, there will have to be a firm commitment, as well as a road map, framework, how $100 billion per year will have to be provided to developing countries [governments]. After that, there should be more than $100 billion.”
Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, Ban admitted to being “concerned” about Republican and American opposition to the sweeping deal. “But I do appreciate President Obama’s strong commitment,” said the UN chief, whose tenure has been plagued by all manner of scandals ranging from child-raping UN troops running wild to the ongoing and systematic persecution of whistleblowers who expose UN corruption and crime. “He knew that, with all this opposition of the Republican Party’s stance, he may not be able to have all this legally — through a legal process. But he also has executive power. He will do whatever he can under his executive power.”
Of course, unlike in many of the dictatorships that dominate the UN’s membership roster, in the United States, there is no “executive power” to impose treaties. Instead, the U.S. Constitution requires that all treaties be properly ratified by two thirds of the Senate. And even then, as the framers and the Supreme Court have pointed out repeatedly, those treaties must be constitutional. In a half-baked effort to circumvent the Constitution, though, Obama, the UN, and foreign governments have been twisting themselves into legal pretzels, claiming the “climate” treaty is not actually a legally binding treaty and so does not require ratification.
That is, of course, beyond absurd, and not just because they claim the treaty is binding in the next breath. Obama, Ban, and foreign powers are trying to have their cake and eat it, too. “This is an international agreement; thus, it’s obligatory,” Ban told the Journal, contradicting himself and debunking Obama’s argument that the climate regime does not require Senate ratification. “It’s not that all the clauses, all the articles, are obligatory. But core elements are.” So in other words, it is legally binding when the UN and Obama say it is, but it is not legally binding when it comes to determining whether or not the Senate must approve it for it to have even a pretense of validity.
Among other elements of the plot, Ban pointed to the “national targets,” known as “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions,” or INDCs, as an example of provisions that he said “are not binding.” Those INDCs announced for the United States by Obama include his “Clean Power Plan” decrees, which the Supreme Court has blocked for now amid a massive lawsuit by more than half of American states. The scheme is aimed at regulating and limiting Americans’ insignificant emissions of the gas of life under the guise of controlling the global climate. “But every five years, this will be monitored and reviewed, and in 2018, the parties will gather to review what happened from 2015 until 2018,” Ban said, as if the “dictators club” he leads had the power to oversee American policy based on Obama’s pseudo-treaty.
Then, there are other parts of the Paris agreement that Ban claimed were binding on the United States and the American people. “From then on, every five years there will be monitoring and reporting,” he told the Journal. “This is mandatory. And there is much, much more possibility that member states will have an opportunity to verify which country has done how much. This is an obligatory clause.” He did not explain how Obama could impose a treaty purporting to impose mandatory provisions and obligations on the people of the United States without, at the very least, proper ratification of the agreement by the U.S. Senate, as required by the Constitution for all treaties.
Ban also revealed his disdain for America’s constitutional system of self-government, and self-government in general, blasting the notion that the American people and their elected representatives would have a say in the UN’s “climate” agenda. “As the largest economy in the world, I believe that this climate change issue should not be a subject of a political debate,” he explained, echoing previous comments by UN climate czar Christiana Figueres who blasted the U.S. political system and praised Communist China’s in the alleged fight against alleged man-made global warming. State attorneys general hoping to prosecute those who disagree with the theory underpinning the effort are already working on that angle. But still, just 40 percent of Americans believe the theory, according to a Pew poll.
When the UN boss was reminded that Obama’s draconian climate agenda was, in fact, subject to political debate in America, Ban reluctantly acknowledged it. “Unfortunately,” he said. “I’m concerned.” If Obama’s domestic decrees restricting energy and sending U.S. wealth to Third World despots falls apart, the entire global agreement would crumble, too. “But I believe President Obama’s assurances that he will do whatever he can do under his presidential executive power,” Ban said, adding that the high court case and the ongoing U.S. opposition had given the “international community” a “certain negative wave.”
Even the Journal, which by establishment media standards is less statist than the ultra-leftist “mainstream” press, used the same misleading terminology employed by the UN and its supporters to create a false impression of what is happening. For example, in the sub-headline and repeatedly after that, the paper discussed “countries” honoring “their commitments” under the pseudo treaty. Of course, neither Obama, Castro, Mugabe, Hollande, or any other UN member government leaders and despots are “countries,” regardless of what the UN would like people to believe. “More countries than ever have pledged significant carbon cuts,” the Journalclaimed in its introduction. “Yet in many people’s views, those pledges fall far short of what a lot of scientists say is necessary.”
Ban is certainly not the first globalist in a position of power to encourage the Obama administration to defy the Constitution and Congress in their supposed war on the gas of life. The Socialist Party-run French government, which hosted the UN climate talks in December, even demanded before the summit that the agreement not be presented to the U.S. Senate for ratification. Obama officials have also being tying themselves into logical knots trying to explain why the treaty is not a treaty and why it is binding but not binding. So far they have failed.
Ultimately, then, the entire foundation of the UN’s sought-after “climate” regime is now built on quicksand and lies. That is good news for the American people and indeed, all of humanity. The scheme can be smashed even easier than it was imposed, using multiple potential avenues to accomplish that. However, for the coercive UN “climate” apparatus to crumble completely before it wreaks real havoc, the lies and usurpations underpinning it must continue to be exposed.