Copenhagen Climate change treaty - gives up US Sovereignty?

Here is the UN Climate change treaty that was spoken about by Lord Monckton. I have found the treaty he speaks of here. It is 180 pages long. Having just found this, I have not had the time to read through it and find exactly what he is referring to in his speech.

So I am posting the link here. DOWNLOAD THIS DOCUMENT. I have done so and saved it in several places.

Please, take part in reading and researching this document. If Lord Monckton is correct, this must be made public knowledge as soon as possible.

Lord Moncktons Comments:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/

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!
http://i43.tinypic.com/xm3btj.jpg
Lord Monckton giving a presentation - photo by Derek Warnecke
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 to www.wattsupwiththat.com, 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.
[Update: this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don't want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin' Words - Anthony]
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.

Lisbon Treaty links

http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/full_text/index_en.htm

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:SOM:EN:HTML

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just thinking of future potential possibilities:

###

DHS proposes standards for private sector disaster preparation
Oct. 15, 2009

http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20091015_3600.php?oref=topnews

The Homeland Security Department proposed standards on Thursday to guide companies and utilities in preparing for disasters or emergencies, but some groups criticized the model as a one-size-fits-all approach that will not work and charged the federal government had overstepped its bounds by dictating how businesses should manage their affairs.

DHS today proposed three standards that private organizations should follow to certify that they have developed a management plan to respond to disasters and emergencies, including how they plan to continue operations.

The standards, which are part of the Voluntary Private Sector Preparedness Accreditation and Certification Program, or PS Prep, outline the roles and responsibilities companies should follow during a disaster, requirements for training employees, how to communicate, information technology requirements and other areas. PS-Prep was mandated under the 2007 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act.

But the guidance met sharp criticism from the private sector. “This allegedly voluntary program assumes one size fits all,” said Bob Dix, vice president of government affairs and critical infrastructure protection at Juniper Networks.

“It doesn’t. The way we manage risk in our respective business environments is different and across industry sectors is different. This is a cure chasing a problem, and the assumption that government knows better how to ensure continuity of operations and disaster response than the businesses themselves is ludicrous.”

DHS published a notice in the Federal Register about the proposed standards, which the American Society for Industrial Security, the British Standards Institution and the National Fire Protection Association established and use.

The first standard encourages organizations to establish a policy and objective to manage risks and deploy risk management controls.

The second standard specifies requirements for creating and operating a process that ensures operations are maintained during an emergency situation.

The third standard provides criteria to develop and assess programs for response to and recovery from emergencies.

DHS requested comment on the standards by Nov. 15.

“This program can help us get to the bottom of the following question that has gone too long unanswered: How much should I invest and where should I invest to meet my responsibilities to my shareholders, my local community and my country?” said Bob Stephan, managing director of government affairs strategy and management firm Dutko Worldwide and former assistant secretary for infrastructure protection at DHS. “In the absence of such a program, determining preparedness baselines, performance achieved and gaps is an open-ended undertaking.”

DHS spokesperson Sara Kuban said the threat of the H1N1 flu virus is an example of why established standards for emergency preparedness are necessary. She said no organization is required to comply with the standards.

Jim Lewis, director of the technology and public policy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, doesn’t expect the standards to affect businesses and other organizations significantly. “Why do we as a country care? Critical infrastructure companies are one thing, but all companies in the U.S. are another,” he said. “It’s another check-the-box exercise that most will ignore.”

Dix worries about the long-term effect of the standards, which he said could result in acquisition reform that would require industry to meet federal specifications to do business with federal agencies.

“I believe government intends to use this certification and accreditation process as an acquisition requirement,” he said. “So we have a flawed process to start with,” which could potentially drive purchasing decisions in the federal government.

“Congress handed this to DHS, and told them to do this,” said Ann Beauchesne, vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s national security and emergency preparedness department. “Everyone I have spoken to insists this is a voluntary program. They have no desire to make this a regulation.”

Dutko Worldwide’s Stephan argued the program could help, not hurt, industry’s business opportunities with federal agencies. “Many argue that this represents a first step in a future regulatory process,” he said.

“In fact, voluntary adherence to a set of standards officially recognized by DHS could offer potential liability relief [for industry], help target industry resource investments and initiatives, and — if Congress is supportive — drive other positive incentives such as tax relief.”

Just to be clear .. the Lisbon Treaty is NOT what he’s
describing in his speech. Just realized there might be
some confusion.

He’s discussing the climate summit being held in
December in Copenhagen with other nations below.

The Lisbon Treaty is an EU consolidation.

~~~~~

Per Cindy:
~~~~~

Note: The following text is a quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-Launch-of-the-Major-Economies-Forum-on-Energy-and-Climate/

THE BRIEFING ROOM

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_____________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release March 28, 2009

President Obama Announces Launch of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate

The President is pleased to announce today the launch of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate.

The Major Economies Forum will facilitate a candid dialogue among key developed and developing countries, help generate the political leadership necessary to achieve a successful outcome at the UN climate change negotiations that will convene this December in Copenhagen, and advance the exploration of concrete initiatives and joint ventures that increase the supply of clean energy while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

President Obama has invited the leaders of 16 major economies and the Secretary General of the United Nations to designate representatives to participate in a preparatory session at the Department of State on April 27-28 in Washington, D.C. The preparatory sessions will culminate in a Major Economies Forum Leaders’ meeting, which Prime Minister Berlusconi has agreed to host in La Maddalena, Italy, in July 2009.

The 17 major economies are: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Denmark, in its capacity as the President of the December 2009 Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the United Nations have also been invited to participate in this dialogue.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2364330/posts?page=23#23

The Treaty sets up a governing body called the "Conference of the Parties to the Convention(COP)"(page 12).

(Page 127):Fulfil the implementation of the commitments contained in Articles 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.8 and 4.9 in the context of Article 4.7 of the Convention and be underpinned by the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities. Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources and transfer technology to developing country Parties to make full and effective repayment of climate debt, including adaptation debt, taking responsibility for their historical cumulative emissions and current high per capita emissions.
(Page 127 )The financial mechanism shall operate and function under the authority, governance and guidance of, and be fully accountable to, the COP, which shall decide on its policies, programme priorities and eligibility criteria, and allocation of resources for adaptation, mitigation, technology and capacity-building and any other function that may be determined by the COP;

This treaty effectively sets up a global governing body, with the power to demand massive transfers of wealth from the "developed" world (US and Europe) to the rest of the world (the pockets of dictators)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.