While most of us are concerned about the economy, healthcare reform, avoiding the swine flu, and the direction our country is headed under a Democratic Congress and the Obama Adminstration, the revelations of the gravity of the treaty being presented at the December 2009 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change should stimulate every patriot to flood their national legislators throughout our land with phone calls and FAXes that this treaty must not be signed. Under the guise of solving global warming and devastating weather changes, 192 UN member states will be encouraged to sign the climate change treaty being presented resulting in natural resource and wealth redistribution, global taxes and global enforcement. If we allow Obama to sign this treaty, the change on the horizon could be the final nail in the coffin of our Republic.
The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on October 14, 2009. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.
A segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. The concern Monckton speaks to may prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.
“At the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, December 7, weeks away, a [global climate] 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 satisfaction 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.
“And the trouble is this: if that treaty is ratified, and since your Constitution [allows such ratification] to take precedence over your Constitution; and since 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 likely ever 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 prosperity 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 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.
“But I think it is here, in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – that at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful, purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to help it.”
1). The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his agenda and he’ll do it.”
Answer: The correct procedure is for you to get to your representatives, both in the U.S. Senate - where the bill has yet to go through - and in the House, and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president. Tell them about this treaty. A copy of the treaty is available at http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf. Tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, with no scientific basis. Even if there were a problem regarding climate change, we don’t want our democracy taken away.
2). Is it really irrevocable if that treaty is signed? Suppose it’s signed by someone who does not have the authority? I have a high degree of skepticism that we have a valid president. Would Obama’s potential illegitimacy as president give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty he does sign as president?
Answer: At least one judge shares your opinion, but I would be very careful not to rely on that. Although there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would be very difficult to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii. Besides, whether or not he signed it validly, once he’s signed it and ratified it and your Senate ratifies it, you’re bound by it. However, they know in the White House that they probably won’t be able to get 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to ratify a treaty of this kind. What they’ve worked out is this: They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple majority of both houses. That they can do. But the virtue of that is that is reversible. So you better pray hard that the Senate utterly refuses to ratify the Treaty of Copenhagen, because if they refuse to ratify it and Obama has to push it through as domestic legislation, you can repeal it.
Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused by human activity, we do not want to empower a global government. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power to tax Americans without elected representation or any constitutional protections, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. We need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.
Annex I, #38 (p. 18). The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government, facilitative mechanism, and financial mechanism, the basic organization of which will include the following:
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 [global governance].
B. The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (1) an Adaptation window; (2) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components; (3) a Technology window; (4) a Mitigation window; and (5) a REDD [Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation] window, to support a multi-phase process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions [wealth redistribution].
C. The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (1) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (2) a long-term REDD process; (3) a short-term technology action plan; (4) 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 (5) 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 [enforcement].