I’m not talking about a new Hollywood slasher film or a new line of grotesque costumes, but a possible political nightmare scenario in which the White House could be positioned to sell out U.S. sovereignty, shred the Constitution and leave you and yours to the whims of foreign powers.
Flying deep under Washington’s radar is an upcoming (December) global climate-change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, under the guise of the “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.” Virtually nothing has been said about it from the White House. But then again, I’m sure they think, who could be against working together for climate change? It all sounds pretty politically benign, doesn’t it?
Not according to Lord Christopher Monckton, once science policy adviser to Lady Margaret Thatcher, who read the treaty and said the Copenhagen conference is a cover for the beginnings of a one-world government. Monckton spoke to the Minnesota Free Market Institute in St. Paul, Minn.:
I have 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. And 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 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.
Monckton then warned, if Obama signs the treaty, he would be flushing U.S. sovereignty down the global toilet. He cautioned, “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 would have any power whatsoever to take it back again.”
Monckton further pointed out that, even though ratification of our president’s signature on that treaty would take a 67 supermajority (two-thirds) of the Senate, it could pass a simple majority as an amendment to the cap-and-trade bill.
Politifact.com (as well as many left-leaning blogs) quickly criticized Monckton’s conclusions as conspiratorial and climate-skepticism rhetoric, based upon the notion that the treaty is a draft and not a finalized document. But the apologetic of Politifact.com leaves the impression that the current draft is the roughest of cuts, when in reality it is the result of seven sessions of deliberations and revisions from several subgroups, including representatives from developed and developing countries (“parties”), “with a view to modifying it in the direction of consolidation and convergence.”
Like with Congress’ drafts of Obamacare, should we not be concerned because the current draft of the treaty may not be the final version, especially when the present language smacks of an abandonment of the principles upon which our republic was founded? As I myself read through the latest draft of the 181-page treaty, I noticed many lines that could warrant Monckton’s and others’ concerns (I’ve added italics for emphasis):
PP.6 Intending to renew and strengthen the global partnership through the creation of new levels of cooperation among Parties, according to the principles of the Convention. (Page 6)
PP.7 Affirming a Shared Vision of a long-term goal to equitably, successfully and coherently integrate the ambitious efforts of all Parties. (Page 6)
PP.8 Recognizing that sustainable development is the first priority for developing countries. Therefore, that our commitment to a low-carbon society would have to be linked to our development priorities, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. (Page 6)
PP.13 Recognizing that current and potential climate-change impacts require a shift in the global investment patterns and that criteria for financing allocation shall clearly respond to the priorities identified by the international community, with climate-change stabilization being one of these priorities. (Page 6)
10. Led by developed country Parties, an economic transition is needed that shifts in order to adjust global economic growth patterns towards a sustainable low-emission economy … (Page 8)
20. In order to fulfill this shared vision, Parties have agreed to establish a coherent, cohesive and integrated system of financial and technology transfer mechanisms under the Convention and a follow-up/compliance mechanism. (Page 10)
… ensuring that global crises, such as the financial crisis, should not constitute an obstacle to the provision of financial and technical assistance to developing countries in accordance with the Convention. (Page 11 – Please read that one again!)
… all developed country Parties should then be increased to achieve the global goal without the contribution of developing country Parties. (Page 13)
36. The new agreed post-2012 institutional arrangement and legal framework to be established for the implementation, monitoring, reporting and verification of the global cooperative action for mitigation, adaptation, technology and financing, should be set under the Convention. It should include a financial mechanism and a facilitative mechanism drawn up to facilitate the design, adoption and carrying out of public policies, as the prevailing instrument, to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate, in order to assure the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention. (Page 18)
37. The new institutional arrangement will provide technical and financial support for developing countries in the following areas: (a) preparation, implementation and follow-up through monitoring, reporting and verification of nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) by developing countries. These activities could include options to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation; (b) preparation, implementation and follow-up of national adaptation programmes of action (NAPAs) or national communications in developing countries; (c) technology needs assessments for adaptation and mitigation under the NAMAs and the NAPAs or national communications of developing countries; (d) capacity-building and enabling environments for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries; (e) education, awareness raising and public participation, focused on youth, women and indigenous peoples; (f) design and implementation of adaptation programmes and projects; (g) support for all technological cycle phases: research and development (R&D), diffusion and transfer, including acquisition of technologies for adaptation and mitigation, including the purchase or flexibility of patents. (Page 18)
38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following … (Page 18)
52. Particular effort should be taken to enhance cooperation amongst intergovernmental organizations. (Page 47)
28. A global fund shall be established to support a global feed-in tariff programme, providing guaranteed purchase prices, over and above the retail energy price in developing countries. … The Global Fund shall aim at both inducing a shift to renewable energy without compromising development momentum in developing countries, and achieving economies of scale and a sustained reduction in the costs of generating renewable energy. (Page 138)
29. A special fund shall be established: (a) For the economic and social consequences of response measures … (b) To assist countries whose economies are highly dependent on income generated from the production, processing and export, and/or on consumption of fossil fuels … (Page 138)
That last point (No. 29) is one of the most shocking. Not only are developed countries (like the U.S.) mandated in this treaty to provide for developing countries despite global or financial crises (p. 11). After becoming the wealthiest nations on the planet from the production and sale of oil, like those in the Middle East, this global governing body will establish a “special fund” to give them financial aid when the world is no longer dependent upon their commodities! Are they kidding?!
Now, if that isn’t one powerful intergovernmental or global-governmental group overseeing and manipulating ours and others’ economic and political conditions, I don’t know what is. Even if some of Lord Christopher Monckton’s claims about the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are overstated, concerns about the extent of this body’s political power and global economic sway are no more conspiratorial than the concern for Al Gore’s comments in July (2009) at Oxford that change will be driven through “global governance.”
And does anyone doubt that our president, as a Nobel peace laureate who believes he can negotiate with terrorists and dictators, has a global desire for international coalescence? Or should it not concern us that at the G-20 conference he would push world leaders to reshape the global economy? If he is already selling our nation to communist countries like China via our skyrocketing national debt, how much more difficult would it be to progressively replace the tenets of our Constitution with principles of “The Communist Manifesto”? Have we already started?
I’ve been so flabbergasted lately by Washington’s abandonment of our founder’s vision and principles that I expanded (to more than 300 pages) the new paperback version of my No. 14 New York Times best-seller, “Black Belt Patriotism” (available in Jan. 2010). It includes new materials in every chapter explaining how, in just one year, the Obama administration has progressively dismantled our Constitution, buried our economy, forsaken our posterity, disintegrated our borders, abandoned our godly heritage, impaled the traditional family and crippled America’s health and future. (Amended are also copies of the Ten Commandments, the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.)
One thing is certain: Obama wasn’t kidding on the campaign trail when he said it’s time for the U.S. to “turn the page” on its trivial culture wars. But who knew just how many pages he would be turning, even in his first year in office? Who knew he would actually swap the playbooks?
But then again, I’m sure the White House just thinks I’ve been watching too much Fox News.