Haul me to Heaven
New Member
November 16, 2009 by Bob Livingston
(Posted from email received)
With assaults on our nation’s freedoms and liberties coming from so many directions at the same time it is difficult to characterize one as being more dangerous than another. But a United Nations (U.N.) gathering scheduled for Dec. 7 – 18 may hold more lasting ramifications to U.S. sovereignty than anything the republic has ever faced.
That’s when the first overt attempt at establishing the framework of a One World Government will occur.
The U.N. Climate Change Conference is currently drafting a treaty that, if signed by President Barack Obama and ratified by the U.S. senate, would place the U.S. under an unelected, undemocratic world body that could impose taxes and place limits on industry, transportation, mining and energy production in order to limit carbon emissions.
Global warming zealots from around the world are scheduled to gather in Copenhagen, Denmark to try and suck billions of dollars from the U.S. economy and the economies of other industrialized nations and spread that money around to developing countries, all in the name of saving the planet.
As The Washington Times editorialized on Oct. 27:
“The treaty’s text is not yet finalized but its principles are aimed at regulating all economic activity in the name of climate security, with a side effect that billions of dollars would be transferred from productive countries to the unproductive.
“The control lever is the regulation of carbon emissions, which some purport are causing global warming. The treaty would establish a carbon market Regulatory Agency and “global carbon budget for each country.
“In effect, this would allow the treaty’s governing bodies to limit manufacturing, transportation, travel, agriculture, mining, energy production and anything else that emits carbon—like breathing.”
One of the few people sounding the alarm on this sinister conference is climate expert and foe of global warming alarmist Al Gore, Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
“I read that treaty,” Monckton told the Minnesota Free Market Institute as posted on wattsupwiththat.com, “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 other 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.”
The most recently-released copy of the treaty can be found here. Section 38 mentions government and outlines how it will be framed and financed.
The treaty is still a work in progress even though the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change had planned to have it finalized before the opening of the conference.
Obama first said he wouldn’t attend the conference unless the treaty is finalized. But he began backtracking on that statement last week, saying if his presence could push the deal through he would attend.
Hoping to spur a deal, California Senator Barbara Boxer in early November decided to pass a climate change bill out of committee without Republican support.
Without a clear indication from legislation of how much the U.S. is willing to contribute, the treaty probably won’t be finalized in time. Some other industrialized nations are also balking at the cost and regulations in the treaty, prompting U.N. climate Chief Yvo de Boer to say he didn’t think a legally binding agreement could be passed during the upcoming conference, but he thought one could be reached within a year.
Notice his use of the term, “legally binding.” That’s what they’re after, because once the treaty is signed by the president and ratified by the senate, any hope of America extricating itself from the agreement is gone.
“You can’t resign from the treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties,” Monckton said. “And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.”
And don’t think Obama won’t sign an agreement if it can be finalized. He’s signified he’s all in on the global warming boondoggle. And the Democrats only need to persuade six Republicans to join them to ratify the treaty.
Arizona Senator John McCain, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (who began working Nov. 5 to help draft compromise Cap and Trade legislation) and Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are likely defectors.
Signing such a treaty and ratifying it into law would be an unconstitutional ceding of U.S. sovereignty to another entity. But what’s one more unconstitutional act in Washington?
(Posted from email received)
With assaults on our nation’s freedoms and liberties coming from so many directions at the same time it is difficult to characterize one as being more dangerous than another. But a United Nations (U.N.) gathering scheduled for Dec. 7 – 18 may hold more lasting ramifications to U.S. sovereignty than anything the republic has ever faced.
That’s when the first overt attempt at establishing the framework of a One World Government will occur.
The U.N. Climate Change Conference is currently drafting a treaty that, if signed by President Barack Obama and ratified by the U.S. senate, would place the U.S. under an unelected, undemocratic world body that could impose taxes and place limits on industry, transportation, mining and energy production in order to limit carbon emissions.
Global warming zealots from around the world are scheduled to gather in Copenhagen, Denmark to try and suck billions of dollars from the U.S. economy and the economies of other industrialized nations and spread that money around to developing countries, all in the name of saving the planet.
As The Washington Times editorialized on Oct. 27:
“The treaty’s text is not yet finalized but its principles are aimed at regulating all economic activity in the name of climate security, with a side effect that billions of dollars would be transferred from productive countries to the unproductive.
“The control lever is the regulation of carbon emissions, which some purport are causing global warming. The treaty would establish a carbon market Regulatory Agency and “global carbon budget for each country.
“In effect, this would allow the treaty’s governing bodies to limit manufacturing, transportation, travel, agriculture, mining, energy production and anything else that emits carbon—like breathing.”
One of the few people sounding the alarm on this sinister conference is climate expert and foe of global warming alarmist Al Gore, Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
“I read that treaty,” Monckton told the Minnesota Free Market Institute as posted on wattsupwiththat.com, “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 other 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.”
The most recently-released copy of the treaty can be found here. Section 38 mentions government and outlines how it will be framed and financed.
The treaty is still a work in progress even though the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change had planned to have it finalized before the opening of the conference.
Obama first said he wouldn’t attend the conference unless the treaty is finalized. But he began backtracking on that statement last week, saying if his presence could push the deal through he would attend.
Hoping to spur a deal, California Senator Barbara Boxer in early November decided to pass a climate change bill out of committee without Republican support.
Without a clear indication from legislation of how much the U.S. is willing to contribute, the treaty probably won’t be finalized in time. Some other industrialized nations are also balking at the cost and regulations in the treaty, prompting U.N. climate Chief Yvo de Boer to say he didn’t think a legally binding agreement could be passed during the upcoming conference, but he thought one could be reached within a year.
Notice his use of the term, “legally binding.” That’s what they’re after, because once the treaty is signed by the president and ratified by the senate, any hope of America extricating itself from the agreement is gone.
“You can’t resign from the treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties,” Monckton said. “And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.”
And don’t think Obama won’t sign an agreement if it can be finalized. He’s signified he’s all in on the global warming boondoggle. And the Democrats only need to persuade six Republicans to join them to ratify the treaty.
Arizona Senator John McCain, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (who began working Nov. 5 to help draft compromise Cap and Trade legislation) and Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are likely defectors.
Signing such a treaty and ratifying it into law would be an unconstitutional ceding of U.S. sovereignty to another entity. But what’s one more unconstitutional act in Washington?
