Obama’s one-world government
Halloween just got scarier — much scarier.
Flying deep under Washington’s radar is an upcoming (December) global climate change conference in Copenhagen, the “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.”
It all sounds pretty politically benign, doesn’t it? Not according to Christopher Monckton, who was a science policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher. Monckton spoke to the Minnesota Free Market Institute.
“I have read that treaty,” Monckton said, “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 CO and they haven’t. And 2 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 that 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 that if Obama were to sign the treaty, he would be flushing US sovereignty down the global toilet. He further pointed out that even though ratification of our president’s signature on that treaty would need 67 votes in the Senate, it could pass via a simple majority as an amendment to the cap-and-trade bill.
PolitiFact (as well as many leftleaning 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. The apologetic of PolitiFact leaves the impression that the current draft is theroughest of cuts, but in reality, it is the result of seven sessions ofdeliberations and revisions from several subgroups, includingrepresentatives from developed and developing countries “with a view tomodifying it in the direction of consolidation and convergence.”
AsI myself read through the latest draft of the 181-page treaty, Inoticed many lines that could warrant Monckton’s and others’ concerns.Phrases such as “creation of new levels of cooperation,” “a shift inglobal investment patterns,” “adjust global economic growth patterns,”“integrated system of financial and technology transfer mechanisms,”“new agreed post-2012 institutional arrangement and legal framework,”“new institutional arrangement will provide technical and financialsupport for developing countries,” “global fund,” etc., are messagesthat make one wonder how far this political body’s arm would reach intoour country and force our hands into others.
Thenthere are red-flag statements such as these: • “Ensuring that globalcrises, such as the financial crisis, should not constitute an obstacleto the provision of financial and technical assistance to developingcountries in accordance with the Convention.” (Page 11) • “The schemefor the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will bebased on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; andfinancial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will includethe following:….” (Page 18) • “Particular effort should be taken toenhance cooperation amongst intergovernmental organizations.” (Page 47)• “A special fund shall be established: (a) For the economic and socialconsequences of response measures…. (b) To assist countries whoseeconomies are highly dependent on income generated from the production,processing and export, and/or on consumption of fossil fuels.” (Page138) Now, if that isn’t one powerful intergovernmental orglobal-governmental group overseeing and manipulating America’s andothers’ economic and political conditions, I don’t know what is.
Evenif some of Monckton’s claims about the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change are overstated, concerns about the extentof this body’s political power and global economic sway are no moreconspiratorial than the concern for Al Gore’s comments in July thatchange will be driven through “global governance.”
Anddoes anyone doubt that our president, as a Nobel Peace Prize laureatewho believes he can negotiate with terrorists and dictators, has aglobal desire for international coalescence? Or should it not concernus that at the G-20 conference, he pushed for world leaders to reshapethe global economy?
I’vebeen so flabbergasted lately by Washington’s abandonment of ourfounders’ vision and principles that I expanded (to more than 300pages) the new paperback version of my No. 14 New York Times best-seller, Black Belt Patriotism (availablein January). It includes new materials in every chapter explaining how,in just one year, the Obama administration progressively has dismantledour Constitution, buried our economy, forsaken our posterity, dissolvedour borders, abandoned our godly heritage, impaled the traditionalfamily and crippled America’s health and future.
Onething is certain: Obama wasn’t kidding on the campaign trail when hesaid it’s time for the US to “turn the page” on its trivial culturewars. But who knew just how many pages he would be turning, even in hisfirst 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.
Copyright 2009 Chuck Norris. Distributed by creators.com