[sphinx]

When Obama signs the Climate Change Treaty in Denmark next month, he is signing an agreement to subvert American sovereignty permanently. Of course, the US government senate will have to ratify the treaty for it to have the force of law, officially, but unofficially the executive branch will implement the treaty regardless of senate approval.

As I've said many times, in this forum, the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hoax is nothing more than a ploy by progressives and other sociofascists around the world, as a method of achieving their goals, totalitarian control of everyone and every activity of human kind.

So, unless your state is willing to engage in Interposition, Nullification, or Secession your lives will be irrevocably affected for the worse, much worse.

Climate Change Treaty a Precursor to Global Government?



by Chuck Baldwin



Writing for World Net Daily, Dr. Jerome Corsi states, "A former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says the real purpose of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on Dec. 7–18 is to use global warming hype as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world government."

Corsi quotes Lord Christopher Monckton as telling a Minnesota Free Market Institute audience at Bethel University in St. Paul, "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 regimes from the European Union will rubberstamp it. Virtually nobody won't sign it."

Corsi quotes Monckton as also saying, "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."

My research of the Climate Change document that Monckton references found the following: it is a 181-page working document that does not mention the words "ballot," "elected official," or "vote" anywhere in it. In my opinion, Lord Monckton did not exaggerate; if anything, he may have understated the situation. The document does indeed appear to be the institutional framework for an unelected supreme communist-style world government.

By signing this document, the United States (and other industrial nations) will forever take responsibility for the ills of backwards and third-world countries. And, according to Lord Monckton, this would include China and India, along with the countries of Africa. Notice:
Page 6, "PP.15 Further acknowledging that developed countries have a historical responsibility for their disproportionate contribution to the causes and consequences of climate change, reflecting their disproportionate historical use of a shared global carbon space since 1850 as well as their proposed continuing disproportional use of the remaining global carbon space . . . Warming of the climate system, as a consequence of human activity, is unequivocal."

Page 38, "28. The adverse effects of climate change and response measures, due to the historical cumulative GHG emissions of developed countries, constitute an additional burden on all developing country Parties (particularly low-lying and other small island countries, countries with low-lying coastal, arid and semi-arid areas or areas liable to floods, drought and desertification, and developing countries with fragile mountainous ecosystems) in reducing poverty, developing strategies to address social vulnerabilities and attaining sustainable development and a threat to achieving the United Nations Millennium Development Goals."

Page 122, "17. (a) Compensate for damage to the LDC's economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity . . ."

"(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses . . ."

By signing and being party to this document, we are accepting legal financial responsibility to support non-developed countries FOREVER.

Page 27, "(b) Particularly vulnerable populations, groups and communities, [or] All vulnerable groups whose adaptive capacity is low, [or] Groups requiring special protection . . ."

Page 43, "41. (a) Assessed contributions of at least 0.7% of annual GDP of developed country Parties." These funds will go directly to governments and "community organizations."

Page 39, "33. [The financial burden] must be at least USD 67 billion (in the range of USD 70–140 billion) per year." The commitments of the developed countries are "economy wide."

Page 58, "7. (a) Mitigation commitments by all developed countries are legally binding economy wide and absolute quantified emission reduction commitments."
"(b) Mitigation actions by developing countries are VOLUNTARY . . ." (Emphasis added.)

The system appears to be loaded to ensure that the world body overseeing this document is granted total control for the enforcement of the requirements of this document throughout all developed countries. Penalties for non-compliance by developed countries are scattered throughout the document.

It appears that what a U.S. President and Congress (Republican or Democratic) could not do through the constitutional legislative process, they are attempting to do through international treaty. Therefore, it is my studied opinion that Lord Monckton's assessment that this upcoming Climate Change Convention in Copenhagen is a "pretext" for the establishment of one world government is "spot-on."

It does seem to be getting clearer and clearer that if the elected civil magistrates in Washington, D.C., do not quickly grow some backbone and develop some sagacity as to the direction these globalists are taking our country, resistance will be forced (in one way or another) upon the States and the People, because it is not possible for the policies and financial burden that are – and will be – levied upon the backs of the American people to be sustained without the surrender of independence, the abridgment of constitutional government, and the loss of liberty. Stay tuned.

Climate Change Treaty a Precursor to Global Government?

[BlackArtemis]

Did I mention my 10 year plan involves not living in America? Yeah...

[sphinx]

Originally Posted by BlackArtemis

Did I mention my 10 year plan involves not living in America? Yeah...

the real purpose of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on Dec. 7–18 is to use global warming hype as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world government."

You can run but you can't hide.

[BlackArtemis]

Originally Posted by sphinx

You can run but you can't hide.

Yeah.... Thailand doesn't really care nor listen to the rest of the world. An example would be the copying of HIV meds and turning it into a generic form despite being told not to.

[GT40XStang9]

It won't happen. He won't sign it. Some will be crushed. Those that understand sovereignty and our constitution will be elated.

[grey5.0beast]

too bad it will probably get signed. Welcome to the NWO mother****ers...

[jikelly]

Meh, if you hate the NWO so much why do you support the FED and continue to use un-backed paper currency??

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by Christopher Monckton

If President Obama signs the Copenhagen climate change treaty, he "will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your prosperity away forever — and neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect would have any power whatsoever to take it back again."

-Wednesday, October 14th, 2009 in a speech in St. Paul, Minn.

PolitFact checked this statement out, and then gave him a "Pants on Fire" rating.

— The Obama administration has publicly pledged that it will not sign an agreement unacceptable to Congress. According to the New York Times, the chief American climate negotiator, Todd Stern, and his deputy, Jonathan Pershing, have both affirmed this position. “We are not going to be part of an agreement we cannot meet,” Pershing said at a recent negotiators’ meeting in Bangkok.

— The negotiators are aware of sovereignty concerns and are weighing options that would limit intrusiveness. Nigel Purvis, a former State Department negotiator under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, said that the Copenhagen negotiations "are premised on the idea that each nation would create its own low- carbon economic growth strategy," adding that the degree of international enforcement is very much in play. Most experts, he said, "agree that punitive noncompliance measures are highly unlikely. Thus, the approach is really quite decentralized and respectful of national sovereignty — the opposite of being subject to a command-and-control U.N. agency."

— Even if the United States does eventually cede some sovereignty on climate change, "freedom" and "democracy" are not at stake. John H. Knox, a law professor at Wake Forest University, calls Monckton's notion "silly."

"Any treaty limits the freedom of the parties, of course, just as any contract limits the freedom of its parties," Knox said. "But none of the proposals on the table, and none that could conceivably be suggested, would deny the United States freedom to keep a democratic system of government, and no such agreement could imaginably be signed or ratified by the United States. And no treaty can override the provisions of the U.S. Constitution in any event."

Now, for Monckton's second claim, that "neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect would have any power whatsoever to take it back again."

Our experts say it's nonsense. Either a country can exit a treaty using a procedure described in the treaty itself — usually involving formal notice, a delay and the forefeit of rights to have a further say in implementing or shaping the treaty in question — or it can simply walk away. Doing either would likely entail consequences for the departing country, but they would most likely be "soft" penalties such as loss of international esteem.

"There's nothing in any of the documents for Copenhagen that talk about any greater penalties than those," said Jake Schmidt, the international climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.

Of course, other countries could react to a withdrawal by pursuing bilateral or multilateral action, such as a trade embargo or a cutoff of diplomatic contacts. But they could take such actions today, even without a climate change agreement.

"Even if a new climate treaty were ratified and the United States thus became a party to it, the United States could later choose to withdraw from it," Knox said. "Withdrawing from a treaty is perfectly acceptable under international law unless the treaty itself precludes it. Even in that case, the United States could always choose not to comply with the treaty, just as a person can choose to violate a domestic law, with the important difference that the international community does not have a police force standing by to arrest wrongdoing nations. The United States would not suddenly lose its discretion to decide whether to comply with the treaty, in other words."

Steven Groves, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, acknowledges that Monckton's claims are "perhaps overstated a bit." But he argues that being vigilant on the sovereignty consequences of a Copenhagen agreement is still important.

Groves suggests that it's possible to devise an agreement that protects national sovereignty, perhaps by eliminating an international enforcement mechanism and relying instead on self-regulation by member countries. But doing so would mean instituting an agreement without much teeth, because it would require trusting countries with little transparency and a lot of self-interest to evade the rules. On the other hand, implementing a more forceful international oversight regime would likely run into more problems on the sovereignty front.

"For a treaty to be effective in ratcheting down emissions, you would need some sort of enforcement mechanism with real teeth, and that raises legitimate sovereignty concerns," said Ben Lieberman, another Heritage fellow.

PolitiFact | British climate-change skeptic says Copenhagen treaty threatens "democracy," "freedom"

Let me guess though, they are part of the NWO and everything is going according to plan.

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by jikelly

Meh, if you hate the NWO so much why do you support the FED and continue to use un-backed paper currency??

Most people have no idea what the FED works. I tried explaining to a friend how it's better for the government to just take more money away from you (via higher taxes) then printing it like they currently do.

I want my gold standard back.

[grey5.0beast]

Originally Posted by jikelly

Meh, if you hate the NWO so much why do you support the FED and continue to use un-backed paper currency??

I'mnot republican kelly. I do not support the fed in the least.

[grey5.0beast]

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

Most people have no idea what the FED works. I tried explaining to a friend how it's better for the government to just take more money away from you (via higher taxes) then printing it like they currently do.

I want my gold standard back.

Or they could lower taxes, cut bull**** federal spending, and return power to the states. I can't understand how people can support the government and pretend they are using logic and reason to do so. Read 1984, if you have read it, read it again. While you're at it read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Get it while its hot, b/c pretty soon they will be meaningless shreds of paper. And "righties": I am not just against Obama and his cronies, everyone in Washington and politics should be thrown out and revamped with the power to the PEOPLE, not the people in office or the organizations they are in debt to. This definitely goes both ways and republicans are just as greedy and corrupt as the other side.

[strtrcr50]

In NJ, we refer to it as G.R.I.P.
Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians. Unfortunately, it usually doesn't go anywhere.
http://www.johnatuttle.com/grip.html

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by grey5.0beast

Or they could lower taxes, cut bull**** federal spending, and return power to the states. I can't understand how people can support the government and pretend they are using logic and reason to do so. Read 1984, if you have read it, read it again. While you're at it read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Get it while its hot, b/c pretty soon they will be meaningless shreds of paper. And "righties": I am not just against Obama and his cronies, everyone in Washington and politics should be thrown out and revamped with the power to the PEOPLE, not the people in office or the organizations they are in debt to. This definitely goes both ways and republicans are just as greedy and corrupt as the other side.

Umm, I really don't see how any of that relates to what I said.

To make it simpler:
The FED needs to be shut down and we need to go back to a gold standard.

[grey5.0beast]

You said it was better for them to pull money from the system via higher taxes, problem being they will only print more while continuing to tax a larger percentage on our worthless currency

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by grey5.0beast

You said it was better for them to pull money from the system via higher taxes, problem being they will only print more while continuing to tax a larger percentage on our worthless currency

If I was given the choice between having more money taken out of my pay check each week, or having the government print more, then I would pick having them take more out.

When they print more money, it not only devalues my money, but it also devalues the standing of our money in the world economy. So, in a sense, by printing more money they are taking money away from you, myself, and from the rest of the world.

For example, if you felt that we should of gone to war in Iraq, then you would need to pick between being taxed more, or having the FED print more (which is what they did). I'd choose the former.

[grey5.0beast]

You're missing the point that they do both regardless. Our rape as a society by our government is just getting worse, they increase taxes so we bring home less money and they print more to fund purposeless programs which makes the money we bring home worth even less. I don't feel we should have gone to war in Iraq as a matter of fact.