Thread: CLIMATE CHANGE TREATY A PRECURSOR TO GLOBAL GOVERNMENT

CLIMATE CHANGE TREATY A PRECURSOR TO GLOBAL GOVERNMENT

By Chuck Baldwin
October 30, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

Writing for WorldNetDaily, 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 rubber stamp 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."

See Corsi's column here. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113219

To see a YouTube video segment of Lord Monckton's address click here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40

Plus, here is a later Fox Business interview with Lord Monckton, in which he further expands his thoughts. http://www.foxbusiness.com/search-resul ... q=monckton

Did Lord Monckton exaggerate?

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.

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin543.htm

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."

a. I don't believe that Obama and Reid can get 60 votes in the Senate to pass Cap and Trade, and if they can't sell Cap and Trade, there is no way they will get the 67 votes to ratify the Copenhagen treaty.

b. If by some perverse twist of fate the treaty were signed and ratified, the US Constitution still forbids its interference with ANY individual rights established in the US Constitution. An international treaty could, however, take precedence over state laws and constitutions. Nevertheless, I believe such a treaty would be short-lived, say to 2013.