Climate Change Treaty A Precursor To Global Government? – Chuck Baldwin

October 30th, 2009

Writing for World Net Daily, Dr. Jerome Corsi states, “A former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says the real purpose of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on Dec. 7-18 is to use global warming hype as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world government.”

Chuck Baldwin
October 30, 2009

featured stories   Climate Change Treaty A Precursor To Global Government?
vaccine
Lord Christopher Monckton.

Corsi quotes Lord Christopher Monckton as telling a Minnesota Free Market Institute audience at Bethel University in St. Paul, “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 regimes from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.”

Corsi quotes Monckton as also saying, “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.”

See Corsi’s column at:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113219

To see a YouTube video segment of Lord Monckton’s address go to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40

Plus, here is a later Fox Business interview with Lord Monckton, in which he further expands his thoughts:

http://tinyurl.com/foxbusiness-monckton

Did Lord Monckton exaggerate?

My research of the Climate Change document that Monckton references found the following: it is a 181-page working document that does not mention the words “ballot,” “elected official,” or “vote” anywhere in it. In my opinion, Lord Monckton did not exaggerate; if anything, he may have understated the situation. The document does indeed appear to be the institutional framework for an unelected supreme communist-style world government.

By signing this document, the United States (and other industrial nations) will forever take responsibility for the ills of backwards and third world countries. And, according to Lord Monckton, this would include China and India, along with the countries of Africa. Notice:

Page 6, “PP.15 Further acknowledging that developed countries have a historical responsibility for their disproportionate contribution to the causes and consequences of climate change, reflecting their disproportionate historical use of a shared global carbon space since 1850 as well as their proposed continuing disproportional use of the remaining global carbon space . . . Warming of the climate system, as a consequence of human activity, is unequivocal.”

Page 38, “28. 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 and other small island countries, countries with 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 Development Goals.”

Page 122, “17. (a) Compensate for damage to the LDC’s economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity . . .”

“(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses . . .”

By signing and being party to this document, we are accepting legal financial responsibility to support non-developed countries FOREVER.

Page 27, “(b) Particularly vulnerable populations, groups and communities, [or] All vulnerable groups whose adaptive capacity is low, [or] Groups requiring special protection . . .”

Page 43, “41. (a) Assessed contributions of at least 0.7% of annual GDP of developed country Parties.” These funds will go directly to governments and “community organizations.”

Page 39, “33. [The financial burden] must be at least USD 67 billion (in the range of USD 70-140 billion) per year.”

The commitments of the developed countries are “economy wide.” Page 58, “7. (a) Mitigation commitments by all developed countries are legally binding economy wide and absolute quantified emission reduction commitments.”

“(b) Mitigation actions by developing countries are VOLUNTARY . . .” (Emphasis added.)

The system appears to be loaded to ensure that the world body overseeing this document is granted total control for the enforcement of the requirements of this document throughout all developed countries. Penalties for non-compliance by developed countries are scattered throughout the document.

It appears that what a U.S. President and Congress (Republican or Democratic) could not do through the constitutional legislative process, they are attempting to do through international treaty. Therefore, it is my studied opinion that Lord Monckton’s assessment that this upcoming Climate Change Convention in Copenhagen is a “pretext” for the establishment of one world government is “spot-on.”

It does seem to be getting clearer and clearer that if the elected civil magistrates in Washington, D.C., do not quickly grow some backbone and develop some sagacity as to the direction these globalists are taking our country, resistance will be forced (in one way or another) upon the States and the People, because it is not possible for the policies and financial burden that are–and will be–levied upon the backs of the American people to be sustained without the surrender of independence, the abridgment of constitutional government, and the loss of liberty. Stay tuned.

 

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on RedditShare on Google+Email this to someone

2 Responses to “Climate Change Treaty A Precursor To Global Government? – Chuck Baldwin”

  1. Gordon Says:

    “The document does indeed appear to be the institutional framework for an unelected supreme communist-style world government.”

    Certainly not communism. Rather, fascism.

    “Fascism should properly be called corporatism as a merger of the state with corporations.” (Benito Mussolini, the father of Fascism.)

  2. Bruce Says:

    Communism- Fascism what the difference nothing really it evil people in charge.

    Only the most gullible people in the world still believe this fraud called Globull warming. It is time Americans wake up and stop letting the MSM turn them into talking puppets.

    You hear Endangered species lies Globull warming lies anything these morons talk about the end results is stealing freedom from Americans

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.