October 27, 2009
We have discussed the proposal for world government in the Copenhagen climate change treaty here at Birdblog, and there has since been no refutation of that provision in the bill. As everyone should know, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that international treaties supersede the Constitution, and therefore in cases of conflict between the two the treaty overrules the Constitution. In short, if this provision is not removed, and if Obama signs it and Congress ratifies it (something almost assured) then the U.S. will become a province in a one world government.
This is a very grave matter. Here is an essay from the Science and Environment Policy Project (SEPP) followed by comments from myself:
"No matter what happens in Copenhagen next December, it will be presented as a great success, like all the other global environmental conferences before. Some kind of a treaty will be signed at the last minute – after the traditional all-night session. President Obama 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 rubberstamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
But hidden within the draft treaty is language creating a “world government.” According to Lord Monckton, who has read the draft treaty carefully, “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. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.”
“Like the EU constitution, which when ratified will surrender most of national prerogatives to a Brussels-based bureaucracy, the Treaty will create world governance. Paragraphs 36 and 38 very clearly envisage the creation of a new world ‘government’ - the word occurs twice - with direct powers of intervention in the economic and environmental affairs of individual nations, over the heads of any elected government. The Treaty provides that the new ‘government’ will have three functions: government, redistribution of wealth from rich to poor countries in supposed reparation for imagined ‘climate debt,’ and enforcement. The last function, enforcement, is to be carried out via a many-tentacled series of ‘technical panels.’
“And all of this to address what is now proven by measurement to be the non-problem of ‘global warming’ - a non-problem which, even if it were a problem, could not possibly be usefully addressed by any attempted mitigation of our CO2 emissions. Of course, one can take the risk of hoping that the Treaty does not mean what I say it means: but I have long experience in the drafting and negotiating of international treaties, and this one is exceptional in the global power that it takes from individual nations and transfers to the new world government - a government not one of whose functionaries will be elected. Article VI of the US Constitution must be read in conjunction with the Vienna Convention on International Treaties. The Supreme Court has found that an international treaty prevails over the Constitution to the extent that there is a conflict.” Lord Monckton of Brenchley"
Some things begin with much fanfare and hoopla; consider the U.N., the creation of which offered the "last, best hope for Mankind" and which has subsequently become little more than a high school model government with prostitutes. But some very powerful and important things have started out quite small and seemingly inconsequential. As Jesus pointed out in the Gospel, the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed; tiny seed, huge bush.
Consider the European Union; originally created as a mere trade federation - the European Coal and Steel Community, it was ostensibly formed to protect and coordinate member coal and steel policy. It was successful, and other European nations, intimidated by the immense economic power of the United States and enamored of forming international institutions in the face of Warsaw Pact aggression, quickly signed on. This would be followed by the two Treaties of Rome establishing the European Economic Community, and the European Atomic Energy Community. This was followed by a continual encroachment on the sovereignty of European nations; Brussels 1965-68, SEA in 1986-87, Maastrich 92-93 (actually founding the European Union), Amsterdam, Nice, and Lisbon. Piece by piece the forces of internationalism triumphed through treaty over European sovereignty, and now the nations of Europe are poised to cease to exist, melded into the liberal collective.
The E.U. is the most striking example of this, but history has others. Certainly the Atlantic Charter (which gave us the U.N.) can be viewed as one such; it doomed the European system of colonialism, for instance.
The point is, we may not like the consequences of this feel-good treaty. Climate change is a pseudo problem; science increasingly suggests that there is no cause for alarm over increasing amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide, yet political leaders and beaurocrats are moving forward with draconian schemes that will do little to prevent carbon build up. Why? Because there has been and is now a globalism, a notion among the world's elite that national boundaries are artificial and should be removed. George W. Bush believed that way; remember "family values don't stop at the Rio Grande"? He had dealt profitably with people all over the world, and came to feel (as opposed to think) that there was something antiquated about the concept of national boundaries.
Clinton thought that way, too, and the current occupant on Pennsylvania Ave. is clearly on board with this notion.
The fundamental question is, will world government really serve human interests? Well, did the colonial empires serve human interest? They were larger than the nation states, yet are today considered a bad deal. The nation states themselves were massive things next to the old feudal kingdoms, and they were only helpful in that they imposed a sort of order on the endlessly warring kingdoms. Obviously, it is necessary to maintain civil societies, and perhaps a larger structure is useful in doing that, but what is the track record? Most larger nation states have become hopelessly corrupt and tyrannical as power has been gathered from the provincial to the center. Consider the U.S.; would the Founding Fathers have decided to create the Federal system at all had they known it would lead to an American Imperium? Larger political entities require far more supervision to restrain. Governments are like fire; a good thing in small doses, a killer when large. We are witnessing a worldwide conflagration. This cannot be good.
For hundreds of thousands of years Man lived in family units and small tribal communities. Sometimes overlords would tax them, but largely left them to live as before. With the coming of civilization, there has been an endless tug-of-war between those who want to centralize all power and those who would maintain a simpler system. Thus far the statists have been triumphant, and the belief among most people is that this is the tide of history. But changes in our technology make a return to a less centralized world possible; we can communicate directly, we can create things easily, trade with the push of a button. The elaborate infrastructure that necessitated these enormous political and economic systems is no longer necessary.
Human beings aren't army ants, or bees. We need freedom to thrive as surely as we need air or water. Creating another super empire will not serve our immediate or longterm interests.
We must kill the beast in-utero. We must stop the revolution in Copenhagen.
Fase 1: destroy the free world
Fase 2: reduce the World Population
Generate a global crises that effects food production and distribution.
Fase 3: Create the "sustainable" world and the control mechanisms to maintain it.
Posted by: Ron de Haan at October 27, 2009 05:53 PM (1dlav)
Read Chapter 21 of the UN.
I think this entire doctrine will lead to war and I also think that Obama won't get the chance to "earn" his Nobel peace price.
Violence is escalating and spreading.
Key word for the next escalation: I R A N
Posted by: Ron de Haan at October 27, 2009 06:01 PM (1dlav)
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at October 28, 2009 05:45 AM (bHxmI)
Russian Scientist predicts cold cimate ahead of us and explains why.
His advice: invest in the technology that prepares us for the coming cold: Download the PDF file here:
Posted by: Ron de Haan at October 28, 2009 06:23 PM (o+E+5)
Restricting the use of fossil fuels has th potential to kill millions!
Posted by: Ron de Haan at October 28, 2009 09:52 PM (Lv1Gu)
Lord Moncton officially informed the Government that Chu's presentation is based on outdated and incorrect climate data.
Posted by: Ron de Haan at October 28, 2009 09:54 PM (Lv1Gu)
It should be obvious to everybody by now. The “Change” Obama intends isn’t what people expected. It’s not more a more “open” government. It isn’t lower taxes for everybody but a few ultra rich people. In fact, it isn’t anything even vaguely like what 99 percent of the people voting expected. Now, it’s not too surprising to a political junkie like me that most people don’t know much about how the government works or what candidates promise or the possibilities and/or impossibilities of various actions. Even the so called pundits on television and members of Congress routinely display an ignorance of history and the Constitution that should, but has long ago ceased to, amaze us.
Take the “Interstate Commerce Clause”. This is, as the name suggests, a part of a sentence in the U.S. Constitution. It is part of the powers specifically given to Congress. Considering the fact that since FDR it has been used to justify more and more expansive powers of the Federal government you wouldn’t think it be completely unknown to most people. During the Bush administration a Democrat Senator was appearing on the “O’Reilly Show” on Fox News Channel. When he mentioned the “Commerce Clause” O’Reilly said he wasn’t prepared to discuss really obscure points of Constitutional Law. The Senator chuckled a little at what he thought was a joke.
Here it is. It says Congress shall have the power….
You can find it yourself in the first section of the United States Constitution which covers the structure and powers of the Congress. Get a free copy from about 100 different sources. One that fits in a man’s shirt pocket is only about 25 or 30 pages. Small pages. Under the 18 (depending on how you count them) specific powers of Congress is the power ….”To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Pretty clear? Don’t count on it.
Well the Senator laughed at what he thought was a joke since, after all, Mr. O’Reilly has the most popular opinion show on cable TV and has been covering politics and the Supreme Court etc for decades. A minute later he started talking about the Commerce Clause and O’Reilly interrupted him, quite upset. He said something along the lines of “I just told you I don’t know all that technical stuff.” He really meant it, so I’m not suprised that most citizens are even more ignorant than he. Makes it easier to sleep.
For people that actually know what’s going on in the world day by day there is one fact that slaps them in their face over and over. America as we once knew it is dead. And (grammer isn’t important, this is) it’s getting deader. Deader than Nixon. Everything that made America what is was has been destroyed, ignored or perverted. This isn’t a complete list. Just an item or two.
Freedom of Speech. Why was this put into the Constitution as Amendment One? Wasn’t it supposed to be important? Let’s read it.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Before you start thinking this is about freedom of SPEECH or something silly let me set you straight. I just copied that from a site called usconstitution dot net. There it is called Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression . NOT speech. Welcome to OmeriKa. See, now this Amendment protects flag burning, nude dancing, porn, a lot of things, but NOT speech. Sorry, I lied. Some speech is protected. For example — this is a real federal court decision — someone said Fuck on TV, but that was ok because they said it like “fucking moron” or something. The court said if it referred to actual coitus it could be prohibited. Curses are protected though.
Similarly, you may not give too much money to a political candidate. ”Political” speech can be strictly regulated. Cursing, telling people how to build bombs, talking about luring little kids away to torture and kill them, all kinds of stuff are protected. It’s POLITICAL speech that the founders wanted to limit, forbid or control. I’ll bet YOU thought that THAT was exactly what they wanted to protect. Boy (sic), are YOU confused. Aren’t you?
How about that “interstate commerce”? You probably thought that was talking about people buying and selling stuff across state lines. Silly boy. Ain’t so. It means almost anything. Started when FDR wanted to stop a farmer from growing wheat on his farm and feeding it — on the same farm — to his animals. THAT the government could regulate with this power. You see it COULD have been sold in another state. He COULD have bought wheat from another state. That’s enough.
Over the years, this has been used to justify a lot of garbage, but the latest is beyond anything I ever imagined. Of course, you and Nancy Pelosi have gotten so used to the idea that the Gov can do anything what I am about to say may not have occured to you. Where the hell does the government get the power to tell every American that they have to buy health insurance. NEVER before has this happenned. Stay with me a sec, OK? When someone asked Nancy about where does the government get the authority she just said. “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Yo, bitch. We is.
She obviously had never considered that there were ANY limits to her power, but she had a quick confab with her consigliore, Nadeam Elshami, who came back with a better answer. “You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.” You see, if the big lie isn’t big enough and you can’t make it any bigger there’s only one thing you can do. Say it two times. Say it two times. Later, the apparently got in touch with a third grader who told them to say it’s covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause.
This is absolutely the most hilarious application of the ICC ever because almost all health insurance brokers are BY LAW restricted from sell anything across state lines. Oh, what the hell, right? Oh, what the hell, right? Just don’t let Nancy get those damned flying monkeys out after me. I don’t have my bucket of water handy to melt the bitch.
Now, I’ve been studying this a little and you might be interested in the result. NO TYRANT, NO DICTATOR, NO GOVERNMENT has EVER gone this far. Monarchies. Fascists. Commies. Genghis Khan. JENJIS KHAN if you are Senator Kerry. Castro. Pol Pot. Hitler. George W. Bush. SATAN. No ruler has EVER —- studies show —- once you managed to put a coin legally into your own pocket has EVER required you to buy something. EVER. They might tax it. They may put a gun to your head and take it. BUT they have NEVER told you that you must buy some product.
Forget that it is insurance. This isn’t car insurance, where you can choose not to drive. This isn’t home owners where you can choose not to own a home. This is something you have to buy…. WHY? Because we say so. The same ICC logic applies to any and every product and service made or performed in the country. In fact, they are already saying that — with you new health insurance you may be required to buy some tests. Maybe a health club membership. Forget those.
You might have to buy a car every three years if GM is hurting. There simply is no limit. Will they? Who cares? The point is that the Government, who will decide your wages will now have the power to tell you how to spend it. You will buy the food they say. You will buy the clothes they say. Obama knows better. You are an absolute slave to the government now. For your own good. If you resist, you are immoral. If you complain, you are a racist. If you protest….. You may quickly end up dead.
This is not America anymore. Another “hate speech” law passed today. This one to cover one of Obama’s favorite groups, homosexuals. It was just last week he said it was about time we started giving the same respect to two men getting married or two women as we do to a man and a woman. Call me old fashioned. Wait until I finish vomiting. Of course, Obama just got caught sending a secret message to the cubans. When caught he claimed it was something about urging them to improve human rights on the island……. And you keep that a secret why? YOU LIE.
OOOOPS. That bitch at the New York, Maureen Dowd, just heard the word “boy” after that. Did you? I didn’t because I never called a man a boy in my life. Came close one time. I dropped a dollar in my local A&P and a 60ish black man who worked there pointed it out to me. I thanked him. As he walked away past it I told my 3 year old son to pick it up. I actually said. “Pick it up for me, boy. ” DUH. I saw the man’s back stiffen. I’m sure he never quite got that straighten out, whether or not, you know? Thing is — I grew up in New York. The whole boy thing I just never heard except talking to small kids. Hell, they just didn’t talk that way in Jamaica. Queens. Sorry bout that.
Sometimes there are unspoken words when I talk to the President though. Or about him. Not boy, though. Actually, not unspoken much either. When I hear him on the TV I usually make my thoughts clear to anyone listening. I used to “respect the office”, but when I see a man who hates this country and wants to destroy it I can’t respect that. Barrack Hussein Obama despises the United States of America. He sent a secret memo to Vlad Putin promising to remove defensive missiles. He has sent a secret memo to Castro, not to encourage him to treat people better because REAL American Presidents have been doing that for decades. I think he was apoligizing for not making good a secret promise to have the US completely out of Guantanomo bay by now. Not close the prison. “Give back” the harbor and base.
I also believe that one of the reasons he is not reinforcing our troops in Afghanistan is because he wants to invite the Russians to take a position in the country. He believes they have a better right to act in “their sphere of interest” than we do. I believe he feels that IRAN should be a major power in the Middle East and we should stop “meddling”. In his opinion most if not all the problems in that area are cause by British Colonialism and American Imperialism. Was he born in Hawaii? Actually, there are good valid legal arguments that it doesn’t matter. I do know that any very wealthy woman like his grandparents were in Hawaii, a top officer of the largest bank in the state, can get any paperwork she wishes with a couple of hundred or even 50 dollar bills. What did a midwife charge for a delivery in 1961? 50 dollars? I have had 3 children born at home and whatever the midwife writes down that IS the truth. True or not. Heck, for 200 dollars he could have been a twin. The only problem with that birth certificate is what Mom insisted on putting for “religion”. We know she was a “type”. Anybody from the era met a thousand of them. She sure as the sun didn’t put Christian on there. Did she?
Does that matter? Only so far as it explains the hatred and disgust for all things American, British, Western and religious that BHO absorbed, nay had injected, pounded into him like a marinade, again and again and again. Go see “South Pacific” a popular musical of the day.
“You have to be taught to hate and fear, you have to be taught from year to year, it has to be drummed in your dear little ear. You have to be carefully taught.”
You have to be taught, before it’s too late. Before you are six or seven or eight to hate all the people your relatives hate. you have to be carefully TAUGHT”
He learned and he learned to hide it. He wrote a book about it. Smile in their face. All the time you wanna take their place. He learned. To be a back stabber. READ the book. It drips with racism and hatred on every page. I show it to people and they read the first 4 pages where he says that white people walked several blocks in Manhatten to have their dogs crap in front of his building. That’s right. Two black kids on the third floor. Hey, Ton’, go walk yo dog down der and crap by the building.
People stare at me when they hand it back. Is he joking? No, sorry. He talks late about how he changed, right? NOPE, guess again. That. THAT. Not who, because I’m not talking about the man. THAT. THAT UNCONTROLLABLE HATRED is what you elected POTUSA. He wants change alright. He wants to bring this country and its people down. Down to the gutter. He wants revenge. Although after he came to Hawaii and after 10 years old he lived in luxury, went to the finest private schools, wore the best clothes….. It didn’t fix that HATE. His college grades his test scores everything he could hide he has hidden, but somethings always get out.
When he went to Occidental College for his undergraduate work he didn’t put down the fancy Hawaiian schools. He said he was a transfer student from Indonesia. Why? Bad grades? Is lying just a way of life? Or is he embarassed to claim he is from America? He wants the dollar to stop being the worlds reserve currency. That is the only way the US could ever truly go “bankrupt”. He is negotiating a treaty were an international “governmental body” will be able to place vast fines of 100’s of billions of dollars on America again and again and again to “repay the west’s climate debt”. What’s next? One thing is certain. You can keep what’s left of America or you can go down the other road. The one Obama wants to take you down. A one way trip, my friends. In Chicago, when they “take you for a ride” you don’t come back.
Posted by: Ron de Haan at October 29, 2009 11:47 AM (Lv1Gu)
Posted by: Ron de Haan at October 29, 2009 04:35 PM (Lv1Gu)
Opposition against Copenhagen:
Sign here in order to save the USA
Also watch Lord Moncton and John Bolton at Fox tv today 5 O'clock Eastern Time or watch the video and the interview at WUWT as soon as it's available.
Moncton will announce the plans for opposition against the Climate Scam Bill's, Copenhagen and the World Government plans.
Also see icecap.us first column
Posted by: Ron de Haan at October 30, 2009 10:38 AM (0mI9M)
Posted by: Ron de Haan at October 30, 2009 06:20 PM (0mI9M)
Global CO2 emissions at present are 30 billion tons/year (EIA), causing atmospheric concentration to rise by 2 ppmv/year (NOAA). So 15 billion tons emitted will increase atmospheric concentration by 1 ppmv/year. The UN (IPCC, 2007; see also BERN climate model), on scenario A2, which comes closest to the pattern of actual emissions today, says its central estimate of CO2 concentration in 2100 will be 836 ppmv. So the UN thinks we’ll add (836-368) = 468 ppmv to the atmosphere during the 21st century. Multiply that by 15 billion tons/ppmv and the UN is implicitly projecting that, in the absence of any mitigation, the world will emit (468 x 15 bn) = 7 trillion tons CO2 this century. It also projects (IPCC, 2007) that this extra CO2 will raise global temperature by around 7° F. So we need to forego 1 trillion tons of CO2 emission per 1° F warming forestalled. Divide 1 trillion by 30 billion (which Beck and Bolton had more than a little difficulty with), and one concludes that we’d have to close down the entire world carbon economy for 33 years just to forestall a single Fahrenheit degree of warming. Since the UN has exaggerated the warming effect of CO2 sixfold (Lindzen & Choi, 2009), make that 200 years. Therefore, there’s no point in mitigation because the cost is extravagantly disproportionate to the benefit. –
Those who say differently are criminals, traitors or idiots.
Posted by: Ron de Haan at October 31, 2009 10:23 PM (omhx0)
33 queries taking 0.007 seconds, 160 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.