World Government Brought to You By Copenhagen '09

Copenhagen Summit Has Established A World Government

“Institutional framework” paves the way for unelected international bureaucracy

By Steve Watson, Prisonplanet.com
December 18, 2009

Amid all the mainstream media reports of the talks in Copenhagen “limping” to a close and having failed, Lord Christopher Monckton, reporting from the summit, has stated that the only goal of the conference was to implement the framework and the funding for a world government – which he asserts has been achieved.

“That is the one thing that they are definitely going to succeed in doing here and they will announce that as a victory in itself, and they will be right because that is the one and only single aim of this entire global warming conference, to establish the mechanism, the structure and, above all, the funding for a world government,” the British politician, business consultant, policy adviser exclusively told the Alex Jones show yesterday.

“They are going to take from the western countries the very large financial resources required to do that.” Monckton said, adding “They will disguise it by saying they are setting up a $100 billion fund for adaptation to climate change in third world countries, but actually, this money will almost all be gobbled up by the international bureaucracy.”

“The first thing they will do, and the one thing I think they were always going to succeed in doing at this conference, is to agree to establish what will be delicately called ‘the institutional framework.’ Now that is a code word for world government.”

Lord Monckton explained that although the word “government” has been dropped from the treaty, all the interlocking bureaucratic features of a world government are still present in the final draft of the treaty, which also legislates for a global tax on financial transactions that will be paid directly to the World Bank.

“These are the new entities that they are going to bring into being in order to create this world government” he said.

“Ban Ki Moon, the head of the UN is clearly expecting that part of the treaty to go through because he is saying that we are going to have to set up a structure of global governance just to handle the enormous amounts of money which we are going to be getting from the countries of the West, once this agreement goes through at Copenhagen.”

Monckton added Ban Ki-moon made those comments on Wednesday in an interview with the LA Times in which he also said that a formal treaty would be signed by mid-2010.

“They are expecting to get this through,” the British peer stated, “so all the reports you see about how the parties are fatally deadlocked, China has walked out, the African countries have walked out… all of these things are the traditional window dressing to try to disarm those of us who don’t want any of this to succeed because we’d rather like to see our national sovereignty preserved.”

Monckton explained that there is still a great deal of hope in fighting the establishment of an unelected world government:

“What has been going on over the last ten days is they have been trying to see whether they can get a binding treaty, and more or less at the outset they realised they would have to abandon that because it would never pass the U.S. Senate.”

“If they call it a treaty it requires two thirds of the U.S. Senate to vote for it, and there are just too many blue dog Democrats, as well as sensible Republicans, who will not vote for the destruction of the U.S. Constitution, the establishment of a world government, for the bankrupting of the United States, the destruction of working people’s jobs right across the industries of the U.S.”

“If they declare that they are going to do this and they do not have the constitutional authority to do this, and that will certainly be the case in the United States, then it is possible to fight it.” Monckton added.

Following president Obama’s announcement that he would attempt to circumvent the legislative process and bypass Congress to implement a cap and trade system on carbon emissions, Lord Monckton noted:

“If he tries to do that he will be impeached.”

“He had better tread very carefully indeed or he will be out of office and in prison before he knows it. There are constitutional constraints which, thank god, may yet save not only America but the rest of the world from what you rightly describe as a tyranny.”

“World government is coming because the leaders of the West have given up. They no longer care about democracy, they know longer care about the truth about the climate.” Monckton said. “They are willing to go along with this world government because they see roles for themselves in that world government in exactly the same way as the leaders of the EU did.”

“They can get more power as unelected leaders than they can at home.” Monckton added.

The British peer also spoke of the physical attacks on skeptics at Copenhagen by UN security, police and other demonstrators, adding that he himself was attacked and knocked out by a Danish police officer acting under UN authority after not allowing him access to a forum at the summit.


Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Copenhagen Accord Establishes Global Government Framework

By Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com
December 19, 2009

Although the final Copenhagen agreement is largely being dismissed as a failure by both the mainstream media and climate skeptics, it does establish the framework for a global government which will control climate finances via taxes on CO2 emissions, as Lord Monckton warned on The Alex Jones Show this week.

Monckton said that the main goal of Copenhagen was to “establish the mechanism, the structure and, above all, the funding for a world government.”

“They are going to take from the western countries the very large financial resources required to do that.” Monckton said, adding “They will disguise it by saying they are setting up a $100 billion fund for adaptation to climate change in third world countries, but actually, this money will almost all be gobbled up by the international bureaucracy.”

The final text of the accord states that funds obtained from climate financing will be controlled by a “governance structure,” and that a “High Level Panel” will be appointed to decide where the money will come from. In effect, this means that a UN-controlled structure of global governance will override the sovereignty of nation states in collecting and doling out funds obtained under the justification of climate change.

As Monckton explained, these funds will come from a global tax on financial transactions and a tax on GDP. Earlier draft versions of the agreement spelled this out in detail, but the final version leaves it more vague, merely stating the funds will be collected “from a wide variety of sources, public and private, lateral and multilateral.”

As information that was leaked in the first few days of the conference revealed, the money will not even go to the UN, but it will go straight to the IMF and World Bank who will then lend it at loan shark rates to poorer countries, thus further indebting them to the global government and advancing climate colonialism.

The agreement also gives the green light for carbon trading markets, which as we have documented are all owned by climate kingpins like Maurice Strong and Al Gore, to be more heavily financed and expanded.

Many elements of the final text have been watered down and the agreement has little teeth in terms of enforcing national limits on CO2 emissions, which is why many in the skeptic camp are celebrating the apparent failure of the conference.

The Club For Growth organization said that Obama’s failure to get developing nations to agree to more draconian measures has “probably saved thirty million jobs” in America.

“I am greatly relieved that the last-minute agreement President Obama negotiated is being widely described as ‘meaningful.’ When politicians call something ‘meaningful,’ that means it isn’t,” states their press release.

However, Copenhagen delegates have already promised to convene another series of meetings next year to strengthen what is spelled out in the final agreement. Globalists are persistent and they will continue hammering away until they get what they want, not because the environment is on the verge of collapse, but because their agenda for world government is stalling as more people find out the true agenda behind the global warming scam.

This is why we need to be more vigilant than ever and keep the elite on the back foot. While it’s true that the globalists have failed to achieve the entirety of what they set out for, they are still moving forward with their agenda by taking baby steps rather than giant leaps.

We have slowed the juggernaut of global government, but it continues to grind forward, which is why we need to continue to awaken more people so that we can have greater strength in pushing back and resisting the tyranny that the globalists want to enforce by taxing and regulating the very life-giving gas that we all breathe.

Maurice Strong Pushes Incremental, Radical Action to Achieve Global Government
Final Version of the Copenhagen Accord (PDF)
Science & Public Policy Institute

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

Copenhagen Is the Next Step to World Government

Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura: Global Warming
Premiered on truTV, Wednesday, December 16, 2009

"Whether global warming is real or not, it's believed some people are using the issue to make billions of dollars, start a one-world government and control our lives, from the cars we drive to the foods we eat. Jesse Ventura starts with Al Gore and goes far beyond as he uncovers the evidence that leads to one man thought to be behind the global warming conspiracy."

“Catastrophic Global Warming,” Ecological Brainwashing, and World Government

By Olga Chetverikova, Global Research
December 10, 2009

After an annual meeting of the Bilderberg Club in May 2009, the establishment of the global management system of institutions seemed to have been given a boost, repeating the plots of American apocalypitc blockbusters.

As soon as the financial top had opted for a lingering crisis, global managers were instructed to work in two major ways:

1. Invent a myth about the danger of swine flu pandemic in order to take control of the national healthcare systems and reorganize the World Health Organization (WHO) into a global healthcare ministry; and


2. Impose a threat of global warming to gain control of world natural resources and introduce a unified 'green' tax [alongside with creation of a new sub-national managing body -- an international ministry of ecology].

Both tasks aim to intimidate the population and thus substantiate any policies undertaken by international organziations. Chairman of the Board of Governors 'British Petroluem,' Peter Suterlan, once frankly admitted that he would like to impose fear of global warming in order to increase taxes and make people revise their lifestyle.

The implementation of the first scenario suggested by the Bilderberg Club is currently underway.

After the WHO announced the A/H1N1 pandemic on July 11, 2009, a real hysteria was launched in mass media worldwide, and people were told to get prepared for the pandemic in November and undergo vaccination [in 2005 the WHO added an amendment to its Charter, which says that during a pandemic the organization does not recommend but gives instructions and orders, and the number of vaccines should be no less than 4.6 billion].

The operation reached its peak when in late September Barack Obama signed a decree to impose 'a flu pandemic sanitary emergency,' which means that the citizens could be vaccinated against their will and kept in special quarantine zones. Amid panic, Americans and West Europeans were involved in mass immunization, which unveiled that the pandemic had been paid in order to let pharmaceutical companies thrive on it, and also as a weapon against 'unwanted' population (and now we all know what a swine flu vaccine is). It was also used as a so-called 'innovative' mechanism of handling political processes -- which was so actively used in Ukraine.

In view of this, the WHO gained extra powers and strengthened its status.

Now we are witnessing another show titled “The UN Copenhagen climate change conference,” currently held in the Danish capital [it will run through December 18] and aiming to work out a document to limit global emissions and replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. Thirty thousand participants, including 60 heads of states and prime ministers, have arrived there on December 7.

The EU, being one of the major organizers of the summit, had elected its first President, who was immediately described in the media as a creature of the Bilderberg club: On November, 15, a few days before his appointment, Herman Van Rompuy met with the club's top managers at Val Duchesse castle outside Brussels, where he spoke about the need to revise the mechanism of the EU's financing and suggested a unified 'green' tax which would go directly to Brussels. The fact that the issue was covered in the media proves that members of the Bilderberg Club are no longer going to conceal that they are the real bosses in Europe.

Such confidence annoyed some of the European Parliament members. One of them, an Italian Mario Borghezio, said:

“All three candidates (for the role of the EU president) often attended meetings at the Bilderberg club, and I think that they should explain whether they are honest candidates representing their native country or just members of secret groups which had been organized to discuss pressing social and other kinds of issues.”

Another MP, an Englishman Nigel Farage, criticized Rompuy's appointment and called him a 'puppet-leader' in the hands of Barroso. He even dared to say that the EU is an authoritarian dictatorship ruled by bureaucracy which is not elected by anybody. Commenting on the Lisbon Treaty, Farage told the delegates:

“It took you 8.5 years of intimidation, lying and disrespect towards democratic referendums to lobby this deal!”

Immediately after his appointment as the EU President, Van Rompuy [known in Europe as 'master of compromising'] assured his patrons that he perfectly understood all the tasks he was facing. Speaking at a press-conference, Herman Van Rompuy said that 2009 has become the 'first year of global management' [he meant the G20], while the Climate Summit in Copenhagen is a next step in this direction.'

The Danish government carried out a reshuffle and appointed Lykke Friis, pro-dean at the Copenhagen University, as Climate Minister to replace Connie Hedegaard, a member of the Bilderberg Club. The latter swapped her title to First Commissioner on the EU Climate, which was introduced in October 2009 especially in order to control the reduction of CO2 emissions 20 per cent by the year 2020. Hedegaard is a member of numerous committees and organizations, including the Danish Atlantic Treaty Association led by Robert Gunther.

What goals are being pursued in Copenhagen this time?

Lord Christopher Monckton, former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, explained:

“When I read this treaty I see that the authors are talking about the establishment of 'one world Marxist government.' 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,” Monckton warned.

He then noted that the new treaty would be supported by most of the third world countries 'as they think they will receive money for it.' And the US President will sign it without expecting two thirds of the Senate and the Congress to ratify it.

And the 'world government' would be empowered to interfere in other countries' economic and ecological policies, and the 'enforcement' -- these all are just mechanisms to 'transfer resources,' which actually means reforming economies of the non-western countries with the use of progressive technologies in order to gain control of these resources [within that level of consumption permitted in the West] that would guarantee a drop in the planet's population.

It is no secret that the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted after the idea of global warming, resulting from anthropogenic factors, had been promoted among scientists.

In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol was presented as an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Protocol sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012. The US, being the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, has not ratified the Protocol. The EU (now comprising the Baltic States and the countries of Eastern Europe) took the burden of the responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8%, Japan and Canada by 6%. The Protocol limits emission in Russia and Ukraine to a percentage increase or decrease from their 1990 levels. The developing countries, including China and India were not included in numerical limitation of the Kyoto Protocol.

However, the implementation of the Kyoto deal failed to help in resolving environmental problems but added a new commodity to the international market: quota on GHG. It turned into a pure speculation and let the financial capital grasp onto a vital energy sector in the developing countries. Due to their imperfect industrial policies, the developed states could not succeed in modernization and GHG reducing. That is why they found another means to fulfill their obligations: a developed state helps a developing one to reduce emissions and then counts the limited tons of GHG as if those were reduce on its territory.

Very soon hundreds of companies and foundations joined this 'green' quota games hoping to thrive on it.

In the long run, the international environmental market received the strongest expansion ever, and originally there were only three purchasers: the World Bank, the governments of the Netherlands and Japan. Now their number has increased sharply, and professional speculators now make up to 40% of the participants in hydrocarbon exchanges.

Having accepted the conditions, Russia later faced an ambiguous situation: the country has large stocks of free greenhouse gases, but this is because in the 1990s its industry was in severe crisis, and all emissions then even fell below 30%.

The international community plans to introduce new emission quotas to restrict industrial development and impose western environmental standards that require implementation of very costly projects [and these expenses will never be compensated by the sums earned on 'green' quotas trading]. And taking into consideration that climate in Russia requires constant expenditures on energy, the country will hardly be able to restore its industrial power.

A group of developed nations have prepared a brand new document especially for the Copenhagen summit. The document says that the divison into developed and developing nations has long become outdated, while today all the states should be obliged to cut GHG emissions and provide assistance to the poorest countries. The treaty is expected to be legally binding as well so that the states approved new rules at the governmental level. But the differences between the participants were so great that they only managed to agree on a road map plan without discussing the figures.

However, high promises of financial and investment assisstance proved to be more effective than legal mechanisms, and ahead of the summit the leading developing nations followed in the West's footsteps and pledged GHG emissions cuts by 2020. The EU announced a 20% reduction from the 1990 level, while the US said it will reduce its emissions by 17% from the 2005 level [in accordance with a draft law approved by the House of Representatives]. India claimed it wil reduce 20-25%, whiel South Korea and China announced the figures of 30% and 40-45% respectively.

Russian WWF, Greenpeace and Ecoprotection activists said:

“Russia should play the leading role at the talks. We can and should remain at the 1990 level of 30%. And then we shoud proceed with further reduction.”

At the Russa-EU summit in November, Dmitry Medvedev said the country would try to reduce its GHG emissions up to 25% by 2020 and added that, by 2050, Russia will be ready to cut emission by no less than 50% in comparison to the 1990 level.

This kind of unanimity hides the real differences between the participants of the summit and the gravity of environmental problems, and it adds fuel to the fire caused by the idea of 'catastrophic global warming.' Recently, the Prince of Wales Charles delivered a report in which he said:

“Nations have less than 100 months to act to save the planet from irreversible damage due to climate change.”

Global management does everything to hide the real state of affairs. It ignores information and scientific research from alternative sources, especially if the threat of global warming and its anthropogenic factors are being argued [mind the recent leakage of e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research, the so-called 'climategate'].

In the past 20 years, a powerful system of ecological 'brainwashing' has been created, which serves the participants in 'green' business who can thus control the Earth's natural resources. But in their attempts to keep the world's population deluded, global speculators and their servants among politicians have long surpassed reasonable limits.

I remember an old Russian proverb: the devil is scary when you cannot see him, but when you do, he makes you laugh.

Translated from the Russian original by the Strategic Cultural Foundation

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

United Nations' Climate Change Shakedown

Science or Nonscience?

By Clifford F. Thies, Mises Daily
December 5, 2009

Hacked or possibly leaked emails appear to indicate that a lot of what passes for climate-change science is propaganda. Data appears to have been filtered, altered or falsified in order to deny the obvious:

The earth is not continuing to warm up in accordance with climate change models; global temperature has been fluctuating for hundreds of thousands of years due to natural variation; and the earth is no warmer nowadays than it has been at several prior times in history.

The black mark earned by alarmists during the 1970s, for predicting continued global cooling, may be replicated for global-warming alarmists. The real tragedy, however, may be that -- one day -- scientists will cry wolf to a public that has learned to ignore them.

By now, anybody who is serious about the possibility of global warming knows that the "hockey-stick" theory promulgated by the UN a few years ago is bunk.

This theory held that there was no meaningful variation in global temperature during the past several thousand years until recently, when capitalism began to harness industrial power. That this theory was advanced by a scientist who was a socialist might raise a question about its validity.

"Science" is not, as some people imagine, memorizing a list of facts (such as the names of the planets). Nor is the progress of science determined by laboratory experiments. This is because, at the edge of our knowledge, accepted laboratory experiments don't exist and, in certain fields, laboratory experiments might not even be possible. Rather, the progress of science is determined by free inquiry, open discussion, and transparency among those engaged in a discipline.

There should be no pretense that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an unbiased organization. It was formed by the United Nations specifically to study "the risk of human-induced climate change." The guilty party is, thus, pre-identified and all that remains is to collect the evidence.

Periodic reports of the IPCC proclaimed, ever more authoritatively, that the trend of global warming that was occurring at the time was due to human activity.

The second report, in 1996, said "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate change."

The third, in 2001, presented "new and stronger evidence." This report included the hockey stick and the whacky idea that the trend of rising global temperature over the prior three centuries (or, since the so-called "Little Ice Age") was due to human activity.

The fourth, in 2007, which dropped the most embarrassing claims, nevertheless claimed that "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

This all seemed plausible at the time because of the warming trend. But, recently, global temperatures have been moderating and, besides, as the emails show, scientists were altering the evidence all the while.

Now You See It

Below I have a chart with the history of global temperature as it was known at the time of the 2001 report. As the chart makes clear, global temperature began to recover from the Little Ice Age about three hundred years ago. Juxtaposed against the rising trend are several cycles of 30 to 40 years length, including the one I show in red, which caused a lot of alarmists during the 1970s to say that industrial activity was causing global cooling.

Now You Don't

Publishing the actual history of global temperature would question the hypothesis that human activity was causing it to rise. Or, to quote an email of one of the supposedly esteemed scientists promoting the UN climate change agenda, it would provide "fodder" for the "skeptics." So, here is the chart that they published.

When, following its publication by the UN, the hockey-stick theory was reviewed by the National Academy of Science, it was found to be "not inconsistent" with the data available at the time. This is a fancy way of saying that no more than the usual amount of subjective interpretation was involved. A scientist who is a socialist will of course tend to stop investigating when he has "proved" that capitalism, by enabling a growing population to live at increasingly higher standards of living, is actually a bad thing. Contrariwise, a scientist who is a capitalist will have the opposite tendency.

In spite of these prejudices, there is hope for progress in science because, as long as we have free inquiry, the data will eventually have its turn to speak. This kind of give-and-take goes on all the time in scientific disciplines. But hiding evidence, as we now know was being done, is academic fraud. It should cause the National Academy of Sciences to reconsider its exoneration of the errors in the hockey-stick theory.

So What Do the Data Say?

A great deal of data has been gathered since the UN began its "bum rush" on free enterprise. First, we have much more evidence of natural variation from the past, based on a wide variety of proxies for temperature. During the past few thousand years, there were two periods during which global temperature was as high or higher than it now is.

Correlating warm and cool periods with what we know about history, warmer times have been times of human flourishing, expanding economic activity, scientific progress, and cultural expression. And cooler times have been times of starvation, disease, and the collapse of civilization. If we could control global temperature, our focus would be more on avoiding global cooling than it would be on avoiding global warming.

Second, we know that, at least thus far, we really don't know much about the causes of climate change. The computer models that incorporate the greenhouse-gas theory are being massively contradicted by current readings. That is, CO2 is continuing to build up in the atmosphere, and yet global temperature is moderating rather than continuing to rise.

It might be, as the historical evidence can be interpreted as suggesting, that variation of CO2 in the atmosphere is an effect rather than a cause of global temperature, since CO2 levels appear to lag variation in global temperature.

The issue is certainly deserving of continuing study.

Third, we know that the scaremongers associated with the IPCC cannot be trusted. As important as the planet is, we need a community of climatologists that is not precommitted to a theory or -- worse yet -- to a policy prescription. The UN agenda is obviously driven by the many despotic nations of the world that seek to use climate change to shake down the wealthy nations of the world, in concert with an intellectual elite that favors socialism over capitalism and with special-interest groups seeking massive government subsidies. The Kyoto Treaty, which imposes limits only on certain nations (the wealthier ones), could never work, since it will only shift industrial activity to nations without limits (the poorer ones), with no net reduction in carbon emissions.

Finally, we know that, with regard to all scarce resources, a market approach is to be preferred to a socialist approach, especially a one-world-government socialist approach.

A market approach to environmental policy would not only achieve whatever goals are set efficiently, given the technologies currently available; it will induce the discovery of new technologies, making what seems costly and maybe even impossible today achievable with increasingly higher standards of living tomorrow.

Unlike socialism, capitalism does not rely on fear. Capitalism relies on belief, belief in the inexhaustible creativity of free persons.

Clifford F. Thies is the Eldon R. Lindsay Chair of Free Enterprise at Shenandoah University in Winchester, VA. Send him mail. See Clifford F. Thies's article archives.

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

Global Governance is Unnatural, Unbiblical and Un-American

The world’s governing class – its classe politique – will meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss a treaty to inflict an unelected and tyrannical global government on us, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all once-free world markets and to tax and regulate the world’s wealthier nations for its own enrichment: in short, to bring freedom, democracy, and prosperity to an instant end worldwide, at the stroke of a pen, on the pretext of addressing what is now known to be the non-problem of manmade “global warming.” - Robert Ferguson, Science & Public Policy Institute, ClimateGate: Caught Green-Handed!

Be It Known to You, O King

By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD., Liberty Defense League
November 18, 2009

Evident intents and purposes, a long train of federal government abuses, and my utter disgust with (what is even hard to consider) my country anymore, among other reasons, compels me to be as frank and candid as I can possibly be, without fear of being labeled and marginalized by those who cannot seem to grasp the concepts and principles I am about to unfold, or by those who simply disagree.

Anyone with an ear, who is able to hear; and with eyes, who is able to read; and a brain, who is able to think, should know about the Copenhagen Conference to take place from December 7 – 18, 2009, in which President Obama is to meet with other heads of state to address global governance concerns of the supposed global warming crisis and its impact on the nations of the world. Openly admitted, this meeting is to produce at the very least a politically (as compared to legally) binding agreement as a spring board for future agreements, whereby the governments of the world can create global regulations, controls and laws in response to global warming.

Now, it is no surprise that the President of the United States, Obama, is considering entering into a partnership-type agreement with other nations of the world. This model of foreign policy has been going on in the United States since the creation of the League of Nations under the Woodrow Wilson administration. G.W. Bush was no different as he entered into the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement with Canada and Mexico during his administration. Likewise, John McCain, if he had become president, had plans on executing his League of Democracies idea, whereby more than 100 democracies around the world would enter into a political compact of what George Washington would have described as entangling alliances. The latest international alliance and compact under Obama comes as no shock as he continues the empire-building and global-unification legacy of the United States presidents for over 100 years.

Is the Copenhagen Conference to bring to fruition the goal of global unification, which previous presidents have attempted but have yet to completely succeed? Many have speculated that the Copenhagen designs would in fact create a global government. The result of this would in effect bind the citizens of the United States to a jurisdiction and authority it has never consented to, formed or authorized.

Please understand: the most fundamental and basic natural rights expressed by our forefathers is the right to be governed only by our consent, by a government we have created for our interests; by agents who act in trust of our freedoms, rights and liberties, who are accountable directly to their principals (the people who authorized their power); and by those who have non-conflicting interests to those they represent.

It is philosophically, physically and politically impossible that the people of these states could retain their natural right of self-government under any type of global government under the circumstances posed in the Copenhagen Conference or under any other circumstances. Global governance, in any form, is unnatural, unbiblical and un-American.

Now, whether or not the Copenhagen Conference produces a global government, or whether it will be another attempt in the future, time will tell. But let us get something very clear and straight right now. As soon as our government attempts to subject the citizens of these states to the authority, jurisdiction, control and regulation of any so-called government not contained in our state and federal constitutions, at that exact point and time, our government has expressly declared itself to be at open war with the people of the states of America. Allow philosophical forefather, John Locke, to describe it his own way:

“[U]sing force upon the people without authority, and contrary to the trust put in him that does so, is a state of war with the people…[and] the people have a right to remove [such a force] by force. The use of force without authority, always puts him that uses it into a state of war, as the aggressor, and renders him liable to be treated accordingly.” John Locke and C. B. Macpherson, ed., Second Treatise of Government, (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1980), 80-81.

If the federal government, through the executive branch, tries to use the treaty power of the United States Constitution to override and circumvent the natural laws and principles as expressed in our Declaration of Independence, upon which the constitution was predicated, then that person and all those who comply with his orders to enforce such an act have undoubtedly placed us in a state of nature and a state of war, whereby each person of these states has a natural right to declare to the world that he is no longer willingly subject to the authority of the federal government; that he declares his independence from this totalitarian, despotic and tyrannical regime; that he invokes his God-given right to defend his natural rights to be governed by his consent only; that any and all attempts made by these despots to subjugate our natural rights will be resisted--with force if necessary; and in similar order, each state in the union has the natural right to dissolve all ties in the union created by the Constitution of the United States of America and to defend the powers granted to them by the sovereigns (the people) of the state constitution.

You slave-lovers can try to justify this (illegitimate) federal government’s “right” and “authority” to enter into such agreements (as well as all of the other myriad of unconstitutional actions forced upon us) with other nations all you want. I, along with millions of other Americans, will never accept your barbaric, brute-beast concepts of politics, where your conclusions of government power and citizen submission equate to a king-peasant relationship or worse. You can postulate all you want about the constitutionality or legality of any treaty made by the president as being the supreme law of the land. You can cite U.S. Supreme Court cases, legal articles, law professors, and politicians all you want. Go on: knock yourselves out.

But know where freedom-lovers stand now and forever. My forefathers rejected those notions as blatantly unjust, and so I must. My forefathers fought bloody wars to defeat the efforts of would-be despots so that freedom may thrive, and so will I. My forefathers insisted on creating a government that best reflects the evil tendency of human nature, to protect their posterity from the Nimrods of this world, and I will too.

If you find my beliefs to contain fallacy and error, well then, we will just have to agree to disagree, and I will let God be the judge of my actions and yours, if not here on earth, then in the places hereafter. And I will let future generations curse your name or mine for the beliefs and actions we hold and advance today.

“But be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up." (Daniel 3:18)

Go to www.libertydefenseleague.com for articles, speeches and interviews of Timothy Baldwin.

© 2009 Timothy N. Baldwin, JD - All Rights Reserved

Timothy Baldwin is an attorney from Pensacola, FL, who received his bachelor of arts degree at the University of West Florida and who graduated from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, AL. After having received his Juris Doctorate degree from Cumberland School of Law, Baldwin became a Felony Prosecutor in the 1st District of Florida. In 2006, he started his own law practice, where he created specialized legal services entirely for property management companies.

Like his father, Chuck Baldwin, Timothy Baldwin is an astute writer of cutting-edge political articles, which he posts on his website, www.libertydefenseleague.com. Baldwin is also the author of the soon-to-be-released book entitled, Freedom For A Change, in which Baldwin expounds the fundamental principles of freedom believed by America’s forefathers and gives inspiring and intelligent application of those principles to our current political and cultural standing.

Baldwin is involved in important state sovereignty movement issues, including being co-counsel in the federal litigation in Montana involving the Firearms Freedom Act, the likes of which is undoubtedly a pivotal and essential ingredient to restoring freedom and federalism in the states of America. Baldwin is also a member of freedom organizations, such as The Oath-Keepers, and believes that the times require all freedom-loving Americans to educate, invigorate and activate the principles of freedom within the States of America for ourselves and our posterity.

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

The Green Movement is the Root of a Future World Government

Green World Government

The United Nations uses environmentalism to seize control

Editorial, The Washington Times
October 27, 2009

Environmental alarmism is being exploited to chip away at national sovereignty. The latest threat to American liberties may be found in the innocuous sounding Copenhagen Climate Treaty, which will be discussed at the United Nations climate-change conference in mid-December.

The alert was sounded on the treaty in a talk given by British commentator Lord Christopher Monckton at Bethel College in St. Paul, Minn., on Oct. 14. Video of the talk has become an Internet sensation.



The treaty's text is not yet finalized but its principles are aimed at regulating all economic activity in the name of climate security, with a side effect that billions of dollars would be transferred from productive countries to the unproductive.

The control lever is the regulation of carbon emissions, which some purport are causing global warming. The treaty would establish a Carbon Market Regulatory Agency and "global carbon budget" for each country.

In effect, this would allow the treaty's governing bodies to limit manufacturing, transportation, travel, agriculture, mining, energy production and anything else that emits carbon -- like breathing.

Treaty supporters market the agreement through fear. Even though mean global temperatures have been on a downward spiral for several years after peaking in 1998, we are told that catastrophe is imminent.

"The world has already crossed the threshold beyond which it is no longer possible to avoid negative impacts of anthropogenic climate change," says proposed treaty language being circulated by Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and other groups.

It is critical that they cultivate a sense of impending doom to justify the sweeping restrictions and new powers enshrined in the treaty. The sky is falling and they want us to act now, act swiftly, act before it is too late -- but don't read the fine print.

The governing authority envisioned by the document reads like a bad George Orwell knockoff. The treaty establishes a body called the Conference of the Parties (COP), which is given ultimate authority over administering and enforcing the treaty. Its executive arm is something called the Adaptation Fund Board, under which is the Copenhagen Climate Facility, also known as "the Facility." The Facility is necessary because, in order to save the planet, "the way society is structured will need to change fundamentally." This change would be impossible under the "fragmented set of existing institutions," so the Facility will step in with "such legal capacity as is necessary for the exercise of its functions and the protection of its interests." That's the Facility's interests, not yours.

The Facility will be run by an executive committee, the membership of which "may include representation from relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental stakeholders." So left-wing pressure groups, animal rights fanatics, tree-huggers, Al Gore, or any other part of the environmentalist fringe would be eligible for executive committee membership. Naturally, global-warming skeptics like Lord Monckton need not apply.

A "massive scaling up of financial resources" will be required to fund the COP's activities. The United States and others will be required to transfer $800 billion over five years, with additional funding requirements assessed on an as-needed basis. The COP will have taxing authority "including, but not limited to, a levy on aviation and maritime transport." The ability to tax aircraft and shipping is bad enough, but as careful readers of the elastic clauses of the U.S. Constitution know, the phrase "including but not limited to" authorizes any tax they can imagine.

Signatories of the treaty will be required to file reports to the Committee for Reporting and Review ("the Committee"), and if found not in compliance with the treaty's terms, they may have to face "the Facilitative Branch." If this branch finds that a country is violating the terms of the agreement, it will "undertake the measures necessary" to bring the country back into compliance.

The treaty language would be farcical but for the fanaticism of its proponents. The environmental movement is driven by a millenarian determination to save humanity from itself, regardless of its impact on real people.

President Obama reportedly will skip the Copenhagen meeting unless the treaty language is finalized. We urge him to resist the urge to pander to the international community at the expense of the United States.

We look forward to headlines about record cold temperatures during the December climate summit, and to hearing desperate speeches about stopping irresistible global warming during the signing ceremony, held during a blizzard.

Barack Obama's Suicide Mission to Copenhagen

By Tom DeWeese, The DeWeese Report
November 19, 2009

For more than fifteen years I have been studying and reporting on international United Nation conferences, treaties, and policies, warning that they are a road map to global governance and eventual UN global government.

In addition, I have warned that the international environmental movement is not really concerned about protecting the environment at all -- rather it is using mother earth as an excuse for an age-old drive for power and wealth.

For those same fifteen years my warnings have fallen on deaf ears in Congress, in state houses, and in city councils across the nation. Instead, I and others like me, have been labeled radical fringe and conspiracy nuts. As a consequence, I have been ignored by much of the media, dropped from major nation radio and television news shows that once invited me as a guest on a regular basis. Letters, petitions and meeting requests on Capitol Hill are ignored.

Vindication comes in surprising ways sometimes. Case in point: on October 27, 2009, The Washington Times, DC’s “conservative” newspaper ran an editorial entitled: “Green World Government, the UN uses environmentalism to seize control.” Readers of The DeWeese Report, would not have found the Times revelation to be news.

What is important is, that after my warnings have been one of the lone voices in the wilderness, some in the media are beginning to see the threat -- just as it is about to be jammed down their throats. The fact is, the warnings I’ve been sounding are now transformed into urgent alarm bells.

The Times editorial was about the coming UN Copenhagen Climate Treaty and it contains just about every threat to our nation’s economy and sovereignty to vindicate my fifteen years of forced isolation. All the players and issues are here to enforce global control over our nation and our personal lives. The UN; World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace; global warming; Sustainable Development; and attempts by the UN to enforce global taxes. I have issued articles on every one of those.

And there is the new player in the game -- Barack Obama. He of course, is the reason why this new Treaty is causing such a stir and why even some main-stream media is beginning to pick up on the danger. Obama is just nuts enough to actually sign a document that would make our nation subservient to UN schemes of global control. In fact, that is exactly what he intends to do.

And here are some of the details of what Obama would be signing -- essentially committing the United States to comply.

First, The Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty will enforce dire restrictions on all humankind. One provision called the “Facility” will be used to “reorder society” to change the structure of civilization, making the environment the ruling principle. The Facility is designed to bring together a massive number of “fragmented” environmental organizations and existing regulating structures, so they can all work together. In other words, any action taken by mankind will be regulated -- because anything we do has some impact on the environment.

Energy, of course, will be the prime target. The policy won’t be to find more -- it will be to cut back on its use. Homes will not be warmed or cooled. Cars will not be driven. And manufacturing will be sharply curtailed -- at least in the “developed” countries. The price of everything manufactured by using energy (EVERYTHING) from toothpaste to food will skyrocket. Shortages will abound.

Most of all, however, the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty is a vicious global indictment of developed industrial nations. Its pretense is that Third World nations are suffering economically because of their carbon emissions, which have changed the environment, thereby causing them economic and social loss.

To compensate these poor victims of unbridled capitalism, the Treaty calls for compensation from the big, bad developed nations (the United States), in the form of at least 0.7% of annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from each nation. That adds up to about $800 billion over five years, with additional funding requirements assessed on an “as needed” basis. However, the Treaty language is not yet complete and there is talk of making that figure as much as 2% of the GDP, which is roughly half of our nation’s total defense budget.

To collect these taxes, the treaty will establish a new governing body called the Conference of the Parties (COP), which will be given ultimate authority over the administration and enforcement of the treaty provisions. For additional resources, COP will have the ability to tax aviation and shipping. But, in the small print, things get worse. It says COP’s taxing authority “is not limited to” the above. That means they can tax anything that moves.

Again, what’s this money supposed to be used for? Oh yes, compensating those poor Third World nations. The UN calls it a “carbon debt” that the developed nations owe to the rest of the world. This is to be a punishment on the developed nations because they refused to abide by previous UN efforts, such as the Kyoto Climate Change Accord which called for reducing energy use by as much as 30%, and thus would destroy the economies of entire nations. Shame on us for not playing along.

The actual language of the treaty says:

“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 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 Goals.”

There it is. We are to be punished for refusing to destroy ourselves. And why were we supposed to do that? Because of global warming. It doesn’t matter that scientists from around the world, including leading UN climate scientists now report that there is absolutely no evidence of man-made global warming. In fact, more and more scientists are reporting an actual cooling taking place. There is no nation drowning under rising oceans. There are no floods or hurricanes consuming nations.

Droughts and desertification in most cases is natural. The only man-made desertification taking place in the world is being caused by bad government policy. The worse example of desertification is taking place in the middle of California in one of the previously most productive agriculture areas in the world. Today, because of environmental protection policy, farmers have had their water cut off to save a one inch long fish. Will treaty money be sent to those farmers to pay them back for such policies? Of course not.

It doesn’t matter that science shows that CO2 is not a pollutant but a valuable natural substance necessary for the existence of life on earth.

Above all it doesn’t matter that the largest emitters of CO2 are China, India, and Brazil, and they are all exempt from the treaty’s massive restrictions on emissions and energy use. How, then, does such a treaty pretend to have anything to do with helping the environment? In truth it doesn’t, and every party involved, from the environmental groups to Barack Obama, knows that this treaty is designed to do one thing- redistribute wealth away from the developed nations to nations that want to suck the life blood out of the United States.

Nations like those in Africa are poor, not because of pollution, or lack of resources or even lack of education. They are poor for one reason -- bad government. Those that refuse to allow their people to own property and build their own wealth and dreams. Oppressive governments that confiscate the results of the labor of their people. Governments like Robert Mugabe’s in Zimbabwe, who took the breadbasket of Africa and turned it into a desert. And those same governments intend to be first in line to gather their share of the booty from the treaty. Will their people be better off? No. Will the environment be better off? No. Will the United States be better off after Obama signs this monster? No.

So who benefits? The United Nations finally gets its global government. The environmental groups finally get their power inside the elite. The totalitarian dictators of the poor, undeveloped nations get their Swiss bank accounts enlarged and all the trappings of wealth that go with it.

Will Barack Obama sign the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty? Insider reports indicate that there are two things that could keep him from making the trip.

• First, if the language isn’t finished by the December meeting deadline he says he won’t go.
• Second, if the U.S. Congress has not yet passed the Cap and Trade fiasco (the domestic version of the treaty) he says he won’t go.

One thing is very clear. If Barack Obama signs the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty he will be committing national suicide.

Americans must not ignore this threat. They must not sleep while Obama and his radicals drive us to destruction. Elected officials and the news media can no longer dismiss these threats as silly conspiracy theories. The time is now to let every elected representative in the Congress know that we will not tolerate Cap and Trade or the Climate Change Treaty. Allow either to become law of the land and stand back and watch the lights go out on the shining city on the hill.

© 2009 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved

Tom DeWeese is president of the American Policy Center and Editor of The DeWeese Report, 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia. (540) 341-8911

The Road to Copenhagen Part I: The Club of Rome
The Road to Copenhagen Part II: Rise of the Social Engineers
The Road to Copenhagen Part III: A "Planetary Regime" in the Making
What Americans Need to Know About the Copenhagen Global Warming Conference
Global Warming Conspiracy: "Scandal that is One of the Greatest in Modern Science"
Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born
The devastating book which debunks climate change
Gore: Break the law to push through Copenhagen
‘Parliament of World Religions’ urges Copenhagen to act on climate change
The Real Reason Behind The Copenhagen Walk-Out
UN Treaty Creates Globalist Wealth Transfer Agencies

Updated 12/18/09 (Newest Additions at End of List)

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

Globalists to Make a 'Political Deal' on Climate Change

Negotiators Scale Back UN Climate Pact Ambition

By Katy Daigle and Arthur Max, Associated Press
November 5, 2009

Barcelona, Spain – With the U.S. Congress still struggling to agree on sharp cuts in greenhouse gases or how to fund them, European officials said Thursday they were now striving for a political agreement instead of a new treaty to allow the U.S. and other rich nations to make commitments that are not legally binding.

The revised thinking was an implicit admission of defeat: the two-year timetable for crafting a landmark treaty will miss its deadline, and that failure threatens to deepen the distrust between rich countries and poor nations reeling from drought and failing crops caused by persistently warmer weather.

The treaty had been due to be completed in December at a 192-nation conference in Copenhagen, Denmark.

European and U.N. officials are now suggesting a political deal, rather than a legal accord, that would rely on commitments from both wealthy and developing countries. Industrial countries would commit to firm targets for reducing emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and allocating funds for poor countries, while developing countries would specify their plans for low-carbon growth.

Such a deal would not be legally binding, but would carry the authority of world leaders who would come to Copenhagen to sign off on it. Nations would agree to stick to their promises while they continue negotiating the details of a treaty, taking as long as another year.

The delay is significant. The only instrument for controlling carbon emissions, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, expires in 2012. Unless a new treaty is in place by then, no regulations will exist, threatening chaos among industries relying on predictable rules for their business development.

"People are more and more talking about a framework ... that you clarify further in the following months," said Artur Runge-Metzger, chief delegate from the European Union Commission.

Despite the troubled passage of U.S. legislation, delegates at the U.N. talks in Spain had not given up hope the Obama administration will bring specific pledges to the final round of negotiations in Copenhagen.

Success at Copenhagen "depends very much on President Obama himself, on ... whether he can put numbers on the table or not," Runge-Metzger said.

Legislation working its way through Congress would reduce U.S. emissions by about 4 percent below 1990 levels. The Europeans and developing countries have complained, however, about the Washington's "low ambitions."

Former Vice President Al Gore, who won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize along with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for highlighting global warming, suggested the U.S. may not need the legislation to pass to help secure a global agreement next month.

Gore said in an interview with The Associated Press that draft U.S. legislation "that reflects consensus support, carrying realistic expectation of 60 votes" needed to pass in the Senate, would make the chances better than 50-50 that 192 nations could reach an agreement.

"That's the threshold that will enable the United States to play the leadership role the rest of the world expects of us," Gore said in Washington.

The downsizing of ambitions for the treaty after two years of difficult global negotiations left developing countries and lobby groups despondent.

"We are completely dismayed by the shuffling of feet and sliding backward of the developed countries," said Raman Mehta, program manager in India for global anti-poverty agency ActionAid.

Following pleas by European leaders in Washington this week, Senate Democrats sidestepped a Republican boycott and pushed a climate bill out of committee. Other committees still must weigh in and the partisan antics cast a pall over the legislation — one of Obama's top priorities.

"This is a very good start," Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., said. "It is regrettable that we could not move forward in a more constructive way."

Specter said the vote would send a positive signal to other countries before the Copenhagen conference.

"It is not the best signal, but it is a signal that the Senate is ready to move forward," he said.

But U.S. delays appear to have already jeopardized global commitment toward concluding a legally binding treaty next month.

Yvo De Boer, the U.N. official who is shepherding the talks, has urged negotiators to consider a transition agreement that would be adopted by consensus among the 192 countries. The proposal would delay the politically explosive question of the format the final agreement will take. Developing countries insist an amended Kyoto Protocol be the central document of a new treaty. The United States wants nothing to do with the protocol.

In private consultations, de Boer has proposed drafting an overarching statement of long-term objectives, and a series of supplemental decisions on technology transfers, rewards for halting deforestation and building infrastructure in poor countries to adapt to global warming, delegates said.

These agreements would be appended with annexes listing the emission reduction targets of all industrial countries; details of actions developing countries will take to lower the growth of emissions; a list of financial pledges by wealthy countries; and an outline of a new body for dispersing the funds, over which developing countries have control.

Though lacking grounding in international law, any decision accepted by all countries at Copenhagen would be "morally binding," de Boer said.

Even an interim deal would clear the way to mobilize funds to help poor countries. The EU has said euro5 billion to euro7 billion ($7.4 billion to $10.4 billion) will be needed in the next three years for developing nations to begin planning their first steps toward controlling their emissions and protecting themselves against the effects of climate change.

The EU calculated that $150 billion (euro101 billion) a year will be needed by 2020 to fight climate change in the developing world.

There was no sign that developing nations were backing away from their demands for next month's meeting — including that industrial nations pledge to reduce emissions by at least 40 percent of their 1990 levels by 2020. Scientists say at least a 25-40 percent reduction from those levels is required to avert climate catastrophe.

"What we can't do is keep the whole thing open and wait and see whatever comes out of the U.S., because the only possibility then is that the whole thing gets dragged down," said Antonio Hall of Oxfam International.

Alden Meyer, policy director at the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists, played down the political maneuvering and noted that the climate issue was now on the agenda for every major summit over the next month.

On Friday, finance ministers from the Group of 20 industrial and developing nations will discuss climate funding at a summit in St. Andrews, Scotland, and climate will dominate Oct. 18-19 talks in London by the 17 nations in the Major Economies Forum.

Al Gore’s Sequel to "An Inconvenient Truth" Recruits World Religions for a Holy War on Climate Change

By Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian
November 3, 2009

Al’s Gore’s much-anticipated sequel to An Inconvenent Truth is published today, with an admission that facts alone will not persuade Americans to act on global warming and that appealing to their spiritual side is the way forward.

In his latest book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, the man who won a Nobel prize in 2007 for his touring slideshow on disappearing polar ice and other consequences of climate change, concludes: “Simply laying out the facts won’t work.”

Instead, Gore tells Newsweek magazine in a pre-publication interview, that he has been adapting his fact-based message – now put out by hundreds of volunteers – to appeal to those who believe there is a moral or religious duty to protect the planet.

“I’ve done a Christian [-based] training program; I have a Muslim training program and a Jewish training program coming up, also a Hindu program coming up. I trained 200 Christian ministers and lay leaders here in Nashville in a version of the slide show that is filled with scriptural references. It’s probably my favourite version, but I don’t use it very often because it can come off as proselytising,” Gore tells Newsweek.

Gore’s book arrives at a time of intense international scrutiny of America’s moves on the environment ahead of an international meeting on global warming at Copenhagen, now just more than a month away.

It draws on the scholarly approach Gore developed for Inconvenient Truth. Since 2007, the former vice-president has been calling experts together from fields ranging from agriculture to neuroscience to discuss possible solutions to climate change.

The book draws on 30 such “solutions summits,” as well as Gore’s countless telephone conversations with scientists at America’s best institutions. According to the book’s press release:

“Among the most unique approaches Gore takes in the book is showing readers how our own minds can be an impediment to change.”

New polling last month showed a steep decline in the numbers of Americans who share Gore’s sense of urgency in acting on climate change.

The book aims to reach those Americans by familiarising readers with emerging alternative energy sources, such as geothermal, biomass and wind power, as well as the possibilities of making cleaner coal power plants, and developing a more efficient and responsive “smart” electrical grid.

Gore also explores how deforestation, soil erosion, and the rising world population are multiplying the effects of rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Much of the material was developed through the series of brainstorming sessions organised by Gore. Since 2007, the former vice-president has been calling experts together to discuss possible solutions to climate change. He has also held countless telephone conversations with scientists at America’s best institutions.

“He is one of the only politicians that takes the time to actually talk to scientists who are producing the cutting-edge stuff and he comes in with questions. He doesn’t ask us how our results impinge on a particular policy he actually asks about science,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who spoke to Gore along with colleagues four or five times for the book. “Nobody that we have dealt with has ever taken as much time to understand the subtlety of the science and all the different complications and what it all means as Al Gore.”

Those conversations led Gore to politically inconvenient conclusions in this new book. In his conversations with Schmidt and other colleagues at the beginning of the year, Gore explored new studies – published only last week – that show methane and black carbon or soot had a far greater impact on global warming than previously thought. Carbon dioxide – while the focus of the politics of climate change – produces around 40% of the actual warming.

Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions.

“Over the years I have been among those who focused most of all on CO2, and I think that’s still justified,” he told the magazine. “But a comprehensive plan to solve the climate crisis has to widen the focus to encompass strategies for all” of the greenhouse culprits identified in the Nasa study.

The former vice-president has been working behind the scenes to try to nudge the White House and Congress to move forward on a 920-page proposed law to cut America’s greenhouse gas emissions and encourage its use of clean energy sources like solar and wind power.

On Saturday, he told the German newspaper, Der Spiegel, he was “almost certain” Obama would attend the negotiations. The White House has so far refused to make a commitment.

But Gore has also been confronted with almost daily fresh reminders of the difficulties of prodding Americans to action.

The proposed legislation has set off a ferocious debate about the costs of dealing with climate change – with conservative Democrats and Republicans saying reducing America’s use of oil will deepen unemployment and hurt average American families.

Republicans in the Senate have threatened to boycott a session today that had been called to move forward a draft of a 920-page proposed law to deal with climate change.

Progress on the bill is seen as crucial to getting a binding deal at Copenhagen. Barbara Boxer, the chair of the Senate’s environment and public works committee, said yesterday she was ready to move ahead without any Republican participation.

"Animism, naturalistic pantheism, Gaia theory — there are various belief systems that deify the natural world. But should a fervent belief in the need to fight climate change be given the same legal protection as an actual religion? A London judge said yes, ruling this week that environmentalism should carry the same legal weight as religion under Britain's employment laws." - Eben Harrell, Environmentalism, the British Religion, Time, November 6, 2009

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

War on Carbon Emissions is a War on Individual Liberty

Distrusting Climate Change Globalism

By Anthony Gregory, Campaign for Liberty
October 23, 2009

This December, leaders of the industrialized world will gather in Copenhagen to frame an international strategy against "climate change" to take the place of Kyoto.

Many in the mainstream media would have you believe that someone must be crazy to voice skepticism toward the idea that human carbon emissions cause significant and disastrous global warming.

They don't usually call it "global warming" anymore. The lingo for a few years has been "climate change," since it provides a much more rhetorically strong ground from which to deride skeptics. Lambasting those who "deny climate change" is more compelling than to scoff, "how could you deny the earth is warming?" Especially now that we know it has been cooling for a decade.

So it's cooling now, but the real problem, we are told, is climate change -- as caused by human emissions of carbon -- particularly with an alleged long-term trend toward warming. Real and alleged cataclysms of nature -- everything from Katrina to spiders getting bigger -- has been blamed on our greenhouse gases.

Merely to express doubt of this theory has been called "treason against the planet" by Paul Krugman, who probably speaks for a large segment of left-liberals. It is seen as unseemly, unpatriotic and hysterical to wonder if humans are causing the earth to warm in unsustainable and disastrous ways. Another Nobel Prize winner, Al Gore, even said a year ago that businesses (conveniently ones that compete with his own favored industrial interests) should be censored for voicing doubt on climate change:

"I believe for a carbon company to spend money convincing the stock-buying public that the risk from the global climate crisis is not that great represents a form of stock fraud because they are misrepresenting a material fact," he said. "I hope these state attorney generals around the country will take some action on that."

Scientists who question the common wisdom are marginalized and silenced. It is considered beyond the pale to suggest, for example, that the sun -- that big ball of gas that supports the life of the planet, constituting more than 99% of the solar system's mass -- has much more effect on idiosyncratic temperature changes than human-emitted greenhouse gasses. And the fact that the carbon emissions theory was first seriously advanced by the Margaret Thatcher regime to bolster the case for nuclear power, back when the environmentalists had been worried about a "new ice age"? That's ancient history, and only a loon would bring it up.

The scientific method relies on doubt and the idea of a settled "consensus" is anathema -- although many would have us believe it's unscientific to harbor doubts. But even putting aside the question of scientific fact, there is the policy discussion, and here it makes even more sense that some of us would be skeptical. The extent to which many Americans and people in the developed world are willing to part with their liberty in the hopes that national and global bureaucracies can fine-tune the planet's weather is staggering.

At home the immediate threat is so-called "cap and trade," a scam to legalize and normalize pollution, regulate industry, and impose massive costs onto the American people.

Frighteningly, the opinion that dramatic government intervention is needed to combat the alleged epidemic of human carbon emissions has become prevalent throughout much of political life. Most of the energy and auto industry is behind government action. Its necessity is professed on both sides of the aisle. Mainstream Republicans and, tragically, even personalities in the Religious Right, have been echoing the establishment hysteria.

It was long assumed industry would resist regulation, but the corporatism here is clear. Just as Kyoto was backed by Enron, today's stampede toward climate change collectivism is being hailed by corporate America. Businesses get government privileges, allocated perfectly fairly I'm sure, that allow them to emit carbon. This is inherently unjust. Either carbon emissions are dangerous pollution, and such grants are a permission to commit trespass, or they're not, and it's an obscenity that government would restrict them at all. In any event, such programs are uneconomical and counterproductive.

The bureaucracy, the connected businesses, the political class, the state itself, and much of the establishment stands to gain.

The American people will lose.

"Cap and trade" is an effective tax hike on the middle class and threatens to diminish our economic progress severely. Furthermore, if human carbon emissions are the nuisance that is claimed, warranting the type of worldwide governmental response as is suggested, the consequence would be a wholesale attack on individual liberty in virtually every area.

Since carbon is the essence of life, simply being alive would be framed as a "cost" to the "greater good." Restrictions on consumption, home energy usage, diet, transportation choices, and even family planning could follow. This would require a growing surveillance state and central administration of American life.

Already many misanthropes argue that having too many children is an irresponsible and selfish imposition upon the rest of the world. Will families suffer a one-car policy? A one-child policy? Humanity depends on carbon -- a politicized war on carbon emissions will prove to be a war on human life.

On the international scene, the U.S. used to be the dissenter, heroically refusing to ratify Kyoto during the Clinton administration, but with Obama in power, we may have to hope other nations lead the resistance. It is good news that even in the EU things are not running as smoothly as some would hope. Václav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, has been one of the world's highest-profile skeptics, for which he's been lambasted in the popular press.

But perhaps those who suffer the most will be the Third World. It has long been fashionable for a dominant political faction -- in this international context, the industrialized nations -- to suddenly discover a moral code that they had long neglected but are no longer constrained by practical concerns to flout, only to inflict it upon those who can not as easily afford it.

The West got rich through an industrial revolution, and yet now many of its celebrated thinkers would deprive these blessings from those just getting started on the path out of ubiquitous and abject poverty. This makes it all the more arrogant and imperialistic for the U.S. to be pressuring China and poorer countries to cut back their own industrial progress in hopes of altering temperatures marginally over the next century.

The popular theory about anthropogenic climate change, when coupled with the policy recommendations currently being contemplated in seriousness, has broad implications for the future of humanity. Taking the steps being proposed could deepen the recession, impoverish millions of Americans, erode our personal liberty, erode the sovereignty of all nations, and deprive nearly half the world's population of its best shot out of the worst kind of poverty.

It is a matter of life and death for so many. And this is all in hopes that a theory which hasn't produced any accurate models is correct that drastic action, over a hundred years, conducted and coordinated by politicians and major industry worldwide, could spare the earth about a degree less in warming - and that degree will make all the difference to the whole planet.

It would seem to me that people should find it natural, not heretical, that many people would look upon all of this with doubt.

Copyright © 2009 Campaign for Liberty

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen December 7-18, 2009

A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body. - George Russell, Fox News, U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions to Form New World Economy, March 27, 2009

Obama Will Surrender America To World Government

By Walter Scott Hudson, Fightin’ Words
October 15, 2009

The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.

A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.

Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. 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 regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

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.

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. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.

[laughter]

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

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 humanity 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 not.

But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.

So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:

Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!

Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevent to the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty:

Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his agenda and he’ll do it.

I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty.

There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go here, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago.

Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.

Question: Is it really irrevocable if that treaty is signed? Suppose it’s signed by someone who does not have the authority, as I – I have some, a high degree of skepticism that we do have a valid president there because I -

I know at least one judge who shares your opinion, sir, yes.

I don’t believe it until I see it. … Would [Obama's potential illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign as president?

I would be very careful not to rely on things like that. Although there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would be very difficult to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii and, therefore, we might not be able to get anywhere with that. Besides, once he’s signed that treaty, whether or not he signed it validly, once he’s signed it and ratified it – your Senate ratifies it – you’re bound by it.

But I will say one thing; they know, in the White House, that they won’t be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to ratify a treaty of this kind. However, what they’ve worked out is this – and they actually let it slip during the election campaign, which is how I know about it. They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple majority of both houses. That they can do.

But the virtue of that – and here you have a point – is that is, thank God, reversible. So I want you to pray tonight, and pray hard for your Senate that they utterly refuse to ratify the [new] Treaty of Copenhagen, because if they refuse to ratify it and [Obama] has to push it through as domestic legislation, you can repeal it.

Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.

Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:

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:

World Government (heading added)

(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)

b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.

With Enforcement Authority (heading added)

c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; (c) a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].

Read More...

Copenhagen Draft – wealth transfer defined, now with new and improved “dignity” penalty
Key Elements of a Global Deal on Climate Change (PDF)
The Copenhagen Climate Treaty (PDF)
A Copenhagen Climate Treaty - NGO Proposal

NGO climate treaty 1.38 MB pdf
NGO Copenhagen treaty: full legal text 623 KB pdf
NGO Copenhagen treaty - narrative (Vol. 1) 636 KB doc
NGO Copenhagen treaty - legal text (Vol. 2) 332 KB doc
NGO Copenhagen treaty - narrative (Vol. 1) 680 KB pdf

Copenhagen Climate Council and Event Schedule
Climate Agenda 2009: Copenhagen Climate Summit
History of the Road to Copenhagen
Countdown to Copenhagen
Copenhagen Climate Treaty Summary

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page