Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 12/18/2009 2:50:21 PM PST by FromLori
Well this is interesting now it is the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon admitting the goal of Climate Gate is World Government. But for those who may have forgotten or never known in the first place Gore has already said the same thing.
"Former Vice President Al Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.” “But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor's Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.) “I bring you good news from the U.S., “Gore said on July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times."
United Nations General Secretary is publicly admitting that the worldwide climate change treaty will be enforced by global government. Up until now, many have dismissed reports that the treaty being discussed in Copenhagen would represent a giant step towards world government.
However, when the head of the United Nations tells an interviewer for the Los Angeles Times that "we will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this", what are we all supposed to think?
In fact, a former official in the Thatcher administration, Lord Christopher Monckton, has seen a draft of the treaty being discussed and he says that it creates 700 new bureaucracies which will implement and enforce the provisions of the climate change treaty. These bureaucracies will have power to enforce the new world environmental laws that supersedes the authority of national governments around the world.
They are already FIGHTING over how to divvy up your tax dollars!
Fortunately, it appears that a formal treaty will not be signed in Copenhagen. However, Ban Ki-Moon is hopeful that a "binding political deal" will be signed.
So what is the difference between a "treaty" (obamageddon's powers are broader then you think!) and a "binding political deal"?
That is a good question.
Ban Ki-Moon put it this way during his interview with the Los Angeles Times in response to a question of whether or not a political deal in Copenhagen is still possible....
We need to have a very strong, robust, binding political deal that will have an immediate operational effect. This is not going to be a political declaration, just for the sake of declaration. It is going to be a binding political deal, which will lead to a legally binding treaty next year.
However, Ban Ki-Moon does expect a final climate change treaty to be signed by mid-2010.
What most people do not realize is that the treaty being discussed in Copenhagen will institute new world taxes which would transfer wealth from "rich nations" as payment for the "carbon debt" that we have accumulated.
Ban Ki-Moon also commented on this during his interview with the L.A. Times....
Developed countries have political and moral responsibilities, therefore they have to do more, first of all by coming out with ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and they should be prepared to provide financial support.
We have pretty good agreement on short-term, fast-track financial support in the order of $10 billion for the coming three years. When we agree on a politically binding agreement, this will have immediate operational effect, including financial support from next year.
This financial support will reportedly be ongoing for the life of the treaty.
So when will the treaty end?
Can the United States ever get out of it?
Well, reports from those who have seen the draft treaty indicate that the only way a nation can leave the treaty is if every single other nation agrees.
Now, if "developing nations" are receiving large payments from the United States every single year, how likely do you think it is for every single one of them to vote to allow the U.S. to leave the treaty?
The truth is that the treaty is structured so that the United States would be committed to it forever. According to the draft treaty being considered, no future president or Congress would be able to do anything to get the United States out of the treaty. The only way to get out of it would be a unanimous vote from every single one of the other nations.
This is the kind of deal that Barack Obama wants to lock the United States into.
What a nightmare
This is treason!
Global government will never gain that power if we stiff them on the funding.
Starve out the UN, or any of its successor organizations, and we shall never have to worry about “global government”.
Everybody wants the material wealth of the US, but they will not put in the necessary hard work to bring themselves up to that level of technological accomplishment and incentives for their own people.
Reducing ourselves to the level of Zimbabwe is no way to be world leaders.
This entire era will come to an end in about one month.
What exactly is the deal that will be enforced by the world government? And when we say world government is that the UN or some other body to be set up?
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties made by the executive branch.
The Senate has rejected relatively few of the hundreds of treaties it has considered in its history. Many others, however, have died in committee or been withdrawn by the president rather than face defeat.
Some presidents have found it helpful to include senators in negotiating treaties in order to help pave the way for later Senate approval.
The requirement for a two-thirds vote ensures that a treaty will need bipartisan support to be approved.
It is the very definition of treason
If it looks like treason, walks like treason and it quacks like treason... might it be friggen treason??
And to think, people in this country used to be shot or hung for committing treason. Time that it was brought back into play and enforced.
It could be this:
A Specialty Police Force in the US
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG819.pdf
I have not read all the way though this, but it is how to put together a police force to police the world. Think Team America without the puppets.
Shudder.
Constitutional Provisions
Article II, section 2, of the Constitution states that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” These few words are the cornerstone to a major part of our system of divided powers, checks and balances.
This alone will be cause for revolution against our ‘leaders’. That is treason. The winners will be the ones to determine if they agree or not. I believe the people will win and whoever signs us up to this will be hanged for treason.
Anyone who believes that global government is a good idea is not qualified to govern globally.
That may be true. I hope it is.
The problem with this analysis is that it assumes the "developing" nations could enforce the treaty. How could they do that? Get in their canoes, paddle up the Potomac, invade Washington, DC and sack the Treasury? If we say we are not going to hand over the cash, there is nothing they could do about it. For instance, if we defunded the UN, they would all be UN-less because they only fund a miniscule part of it.
In fact, this entire preposterous climate plan has been coming from the socialists in Western nations, the same nations that are supposed to pay the bills. Developing nations can't force the US or any other developed nation/economy to do anything. The US government cannot sign away US sovereignty, as badly as some members of the Senate would like to. I find it difficult to believe any such treaty will ever be approved.
I’m pretty sure President Palin will get us out of this.
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.