[Poter Principle]

Obama to cede US sovereignty

http://frontpage.ame....com/?tag=cop15

By Jim Simpson | Tuesday, October 20th, 2009 at 5:33 am
Barack Hussein Obama will cede US sovereignty to the United Nations at the December “Climate Summit.”

Not content with his humiliation in Copenhagen, Denmark this past September, President Obama will be traveling there again in December to attend the UN COP15 Climate Change Conference. This agreement would commit the United States to punitive and expensive greenhouse gas regulations dictated by the United Nations without recourse.

COP stands for “Conference of the Parties” and the December Copenhagen conference will be the 15th under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), hence COP15. According to their website, it will be one of the largest conferences ever held outside the New York or Geneva headquarters, with an anticipated attendance of over 10,000 people, including governmental representatives from 189 countries, industry groups, and other non-governmental organizations.

The theme of the December 7 - 18 conference is “Hope,” so perhaps Mr. Obama will have more luck this time. Instead of soliciting the International Olympic Committee with trite clichés and getting no payoffs, he will be doing something much easier: selling out our country. After all, ceding power, relinquishing billions in U.S. tax dollars and destroying U.S. economic competitiveness is a pretty easy sell to the countries that will benefit, and he has had a lot of practice doing the same thing here at home. He will have a hard time screwing this one up.

The Hope site optimistically pronounces:

On 7 December, leaders from 192 countries gather for UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen and decide the fate of our planet…

Decide the fate of our planet… Do these people have any idea how mindlessly grandiose they sound? Of course not. They are out to save the planet, just like Nancy Pelosi! It is hard for a normal person to imagine making such proclamations without embarrassment. But this is today’s political class.

This agreement will cede U.S. sovereignty permanently and irrevocably to the United Nations. So said British Lord Christopher Monckton at an event at Bethel University in St Paul, Minnesota last Wednesday, October 14th.

Lord Monckton was former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s science advisor. He has lectured and written extensively on the issue, including an in-depth scientific critique to the 50,000 member American Physical Society, a serious side-by-side comparison slap-down of Al Gore’s global warming assertions, and a recent summary of the global warming issue. In introducing his topic at Bethel University, he states unequivocally:

…and I am going to show you the latest science, which now doesn’t leave the question unsettled any more, this is now settled science, it is now settled science that there is not a problem with our influence over the climate. The science is in, the truth is out, and the scare is over.

You can watch his entire presentation (1:35:33) on the Webcast Page here — well worth the time if you can spare it. The slideshow he frequently points to in this presentation can be viewed along with the video, here. Lord Monckton presents a series of statistics, charts and studies making a compelling case that not only is global warming insignificant — if it exists at all — but is likely not manmade, and more importantly, that the global warming alarmists have repeatedly, blatantly, deliberately lied, suppressing the facts to promote the myth.

Despite his effective refutation of manmade global warming, his closing remarks about the Copenhagen treaty are chilling:

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 satisfication 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.

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 read the treaty. 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 no.

Watch him make his powerful concluding remarks in the following video (4:12 min):



You might call it a bit of rhetorical overkill, but given everthing else this administration and Congress have already done, only a bit. As Monckton later stated in a Q & A session, for such a treaty to be ratified requires a positive vote from a two-thirds majority in the U.S. Senate.

It seems difficult to imagine Democrats convincing seven Republicans to assist them in committing national suicide that way. Indeed, a recent Wall Street Journal article quoted Senate Republicans as saying that whatever deal Obama cut at Copenhagen would be dead on arrival:

Wisconsin Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the top Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, predicts “a repeat of Kyoto — namely an environmentally ineffective agreement that cannot be ratified” by the Senate.

However, perhaps an easier option would be for Democrats to pass legislation enacting some or all of the proposals. The House has already passed the Waxman-Markey (Cap and Trade) bill. This onerous legislation calls for an 83 percent reduction in greenhouse gasses from 2005 levels by 2050. That means almost complete elimination of carbon based fuels, and parallels the goals identified in COP15, which asks participating countries to reduce global emmissions 50-85% by 2050.

Such reductions would essentially bring our economy to a screeching halt, as Lord Monckton states in his speech. Even the more modest goal for 2020 of a 17 percent reduction will force radical changes in how we do business and conduct our daily lives.

Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and the increasingly addled Lindsay Graham (R-SC), put out an Op-Ed in the New York Times last week, under the frighteningly Obamanoid title “Yes We Can,” indicating that perhaps Senate Republicans shouldn’t be so sanguine either. Their article concludes thusly (emphasis added):

We are confident that a legitimate bipartisan effort can put America back in the lead again and can empower our negotiators to sit down at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist that the rest of the world join us in producing a new international agreement on global warming.

So if Kerry and Graham get their way, not only is America going to agree to UN global warming regulations, we are going to lead the charge in getting them imposed!

And the UN panel is fully anticipating a more conciliatory approach from the US. Recognizing Kerry’s efforts, as UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer stated:

I think that a major shortcoming of Kyoto was that the official delegation came back with a treaty they knew was never going to make it through the Senate. And this time I have the feeling that the communication is much stronger, that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, through John Kerry, is really expressing strongly what they feel needs to be done in Copenhagen.

Thank you John Kerry.

The UN website states the following about COP15 (emphasis added):

This [the 2009 Bangkok climate change talks] was the penultimate negotiating session before COP15 in Copenhagen in December, at which an ambitious and effective international climate change deal is to be clinched.

Before COP15, there will be a final round of negotiations November 2-6 in Barcelona, Spain at the Barcelona Convention Center.

The most recent UNFCCC Working Group report (181 pages) can be accessed here in PDF format. Much of it references earlier documents, of which there are many. To fully assess the ramifications of this proposal would likely require referencing these earlier documents as well.

While the prospects for Senate ratification of this treaty are probably in doubt, it seems likely the US Congress may try to pass Waxman-Markey or some other hybrid legislation using the same underhanded tactics now in play on healthcare. All the more reason to redouble our efforts at getting them out in 2010.

Suffice it to say that if the carbon reduction targets already discussed are adapted by this country, nevermind whatever other onerous provisions are in this treaty, we might as well all buy a horse and buggy — sorry, rickshaw; horses create methane — because we will be headed back into the 18th century.

Additional Resources:

UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol — Guide to Climate Change Negotiations (2008)

SourceWatch — UNFCCC summary, listing all participating parties, all COP meetings past and scheduled, and other useful information


Sphere: Related Content
Businessman and freelance writer Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst (1987-1993). His writings have been published in the Washington Times, FrontPage Magazine, the Washington DC Examiner, DefenseWatch, Soldier of Fortune and others. You can read more of his articles on his blog, Truth and Consequences.

This is the short version duplicated on the one website:




This is the long version from this website:



What do we make of this?

If climate change is the result of the magnetosphere weakening, and/or Earth intersecting the galactic plane, and/or HAARP, and/or aliens' and/or something else, the warning is still valid.

Acting upon wrong causes for climate change might prove no less catastrophic than anything happening naturally. These are the most interesting times we are cursed to live through.

peace and pot

[TravE]

I saw this guy on Glenn Beck the other day...Even Glenn seemed slightly reluctant to accept this fantastical a conspiracy theory...

I doubt that the majority of the scientific community could come together to pull off a "scam" like this. While I disagree with anybody's attempt to silence any side of any argument, it seems to me that if this was "settled science" that climate change is not man-made, that more scientists would be speaking up.

I am in an interesting place politically, as I describe myself as a Green Libertarian. I believe in the free market and limited government but at the same time am very concerned about climate change, and feel that it is one of the few areas where government intervention is necessary. However, this odd position I find myself in seems to have allowed me to see the mistake that Libertarians and Conservatives are making; they dogmatically cling to anti-government sentiment, to the point that they will do anything to deny the reality of man-made climate change. This is yet another liability of dogma and ideology. Admitting man-made climate change would force Libertarians to accept SOME government.

IMO even if there is doubts we should try to reverse climate change and act as if it is man-made. We don't have another planet to run the experiment on. If we are wrong and do nothing and it is man-made we are finished. If we act and it is not man-made then we will have moved to cleaner energy for inaccurate reasons, but it would still be beneficial. We will have to move away from fossil fuels anyways, as peak oil is coming on fast.

It seems to me that the science would indicate it is man-made...although I must say both Glenn Beck and Penn and Teller have done a great job of sticking it to Al Gore on his profiting off of climate change.

[Poter Principle]

"IMO even if there is doubts we should try to reverse climate change and act as if it is man-made. We don't have another planet to run the experiment on. If we are wrong and do nothing and it is man-made we are finished. If we act and it is not man-made then we will have moved to cleaner energy for inaccurate reasons, but it would still be beneficial. We will have to move away from fossil fuels anyways, as peak oil is coming on fast."

Exactly right.

www.chrismartenson.com

Also look up Deep Underground Military Bases. The plutocrats plan for every contingency. If life on the surface gets too bothersome, there are already up to 150 cities down there functioning and waiting. And if that's a hoax, they can pull off anything

peace and pot

[bong_jamesbong2001]

A quick perusal of this article finds no mention of cannabis at all in it. That is my FIRST AND MAIN problem with it.

Secondly, any treaty can always be revoked by the government in power. People forget that when it comes to IRAN and North KOREAN nuclear arms, but seem to more than ready to bring it up concerning TORTURE or KYOTO, if they bother to bring it up at all, and naturally, I'm talking about George W. TUSH and Co. Treaties are not written in stone, and the German-Soviet Union Non-Aggression Treaty of 1939 (!, featuring those stalwart guardians of the peace AND the rule of international law Joe Stalin and Adolf Hitler) is perhaps the outstanding example of this.

To devote too much time to this subject here, "CLIMATE CHANGE" is a charged topic, and charged by the wrong people with the wrong information. Real climate change has occurred naturally for billions of years on this planet. Within historical memory, Greenland was much warmer than it is now, and so was much of Europe, all without the aid of "greenhouse gases".
I think the reasons for this are related to PRECESSION, the motion of the earth. The earth does not move through space around the sun like a perfectly spinning top, with one end permanently pointed in only one direction. The poles of the planet describe a circle in the sky once every 23,000 years, on which our current polar zenith points to the star POLARIS at the moment. The opposite end of this circle points to the star VEGA, which lies at latitude 39 degrees North. This means that the pole could be located at a point anywhere along latitude 39° N. in a mere (!) 12,000 years. This encompasses a range of possibilities which includes both the middle of the Pacific as the North pole and the middle of the Eurasian Continent and anywhere between those places and the current pole, any of which conditions would be a far change from the other, and cause far greater climate change than a few million factories would. So while no one wants to live in Tokyo, L.A., or Gary, Indiana as they now are, one should not think that any treaty is going to have any great effect upon climate change. You might save up your dollars if you live in Edmonton, though...it could be the next Riviera with palm trees and all in a few thousand years, like it has been many many times before....

[Poter Principle]

Your point is well taken. The over-riding point he made is the treaty, which the plutocracy wants, I suppose. That's a nasty political lever to pull.

peace and pot