Lord Monckton Climate Debt: Monckton Obama Giving Up Sovereignty

Lord Mockton's empassioned comments and his warning that our president is giving up the sovereignty of the U.S. is striking conservatives, and those not so conservative, I hope, hard. Can what he says be right? Can Obama go back to Copenhagen and hand our freedom over to a world government? See two videos below.

Lord Monckton

Lord Christopher Monckton (57), a former adivsor to Margaret Thatcher, and an informed opponent to global warming enthusiasts, spoke at the Minnesota Free Market Institute on October 15th.

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 regimes 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 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.

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.

Please view at least one of the videos before considering the quotes below, taken straight from the United Nations Millennium Development Goal program. If Monckton's words and the following quotes, do not make your heart race, take your pulse immediately:

...Poverty eradication is not an automatic consequence of economic growth; it requires purposeful action to redistribute wealth and land,

...To move towards democratic political control of the global economy so that it may serve our vision. ...Sustainable funds could be raised through a currency transfer tax...and a tax on the rental value of land and natural resources.

Globalization needs defining [and then they define it]....it is transforming our world into a global village...

...establish a global habitat conservation fund to purchase comprehensive protection of threatened, critical ecological habitat worldwide. The fund should accrue revenues from a nominal (0.5 -1.0 per cent) royalty on worldwide fossil energy production oil, natural gas, coal, collecting at least $5 billion to $10 billion annually.

 To make all of the above happen, according to the UNMDG, this is the plan:

To explore the feasibility of a legally binding convention on overcoming poverty,...To carry out the objective of moving towards the abolition of war by practical means,...the United Nations Secretariat and interested Governments, or a separate group of Governments, should develop a draft proposal for global disarmament

The first video is the shorter version, 4:12 minutes of Lord Monckton's comments on giving up sovereignty to a world government. The second video is the full speech, and the introduction gives a full bio on Monckton. Please watch the full video at sometime, somewhere if at all possible. Monckton is "on to the U.N."


Lord Monckton Climate Debt (video)   Lord Monckton on Obama Giving Up Sovereignty (video)

Another important take on Moncton's comments are from Jim Simpson writing for the Examiner - Obama to surrender US sovereignty at UN global warming conference. 


Related:


Read the U.N. Millennium Development Goal (MDG)

Video: Glen Beck on Obama's Global Poverty Act

Does the United Nations Accept the Rule of Law?

Read Anne Bayefsky's predictions in November 2008 - each coming true today:
Discovering Kryptonite, Disabling Superman

U.S. Boycott: Durban II U.N. Conference Boycott

The State Department has announced that the U.S. will not attend the notorious U.N. racism conference in Geneva next week, known as Durban II. By not attending, we are boycotting, to be exact.

United Nations

According to the documents stating the purpose of this get-together, the goal is to find ways to "combat and eradicate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance." The first problems is this document is about the same as the one originated in 2001. It is fair to note that since 2001, the U.N. has become more racist than ever within it's own seething body. For starters, the planning committee has designated Iran to preside as the Vice-Chair, Libya as the Chair of the "Main Committee," meaning Libya runs the conference, and Cuba is to be the Rapporteur - all three pillars of stellar human rights. (Let me just hoist myself up off the floor here).

 The latest draft calls for "Condemnation of foreign occupation." That means Israel residing on the land Palestinians call their own. The short story is that the League of Nations gave the land to Israel. By the time the Nation of Israel was to be formed, the Brits colluded with the Islamic Mufti of Jerusalem, sliced out a large portion of Israel's land and gave it to the nomadic Muslims, many of whom had previously lived side-by-side with the Jews. The Jews accepted it all, formed their now tiny Nation and went on with building their homeland.

The Palestinians were not going to accept Israel in their midst however, and they continually attacked the Israeli's over the border. Finally, in 1967 Israel took a portion of their land back - a short war and it was over, sort of.

To the U.N., that's occupation - and Israel is condemned for it. Getting right off to a terrible start, the document actually supports the document put forth in 2001. These documents supporting the abolishment of racism want us to be "one human family rich in diversity....," everyone free and equal and all that.

The problem is, the Muslim world hates the Jews. After they finish with the Jews (because they believe they will) then they will ramp-up the hate of all Westerners even more than they do right now. Nowhere in this document does it call for the Muslim world to accept Israel. How can these lofty goals - for eliminating the Xenophobia and Racial Discrimination - and "Related Intolerance," and such, be met when Muslims will not accept Israel? That's the bottom line.

 The document is full of itself when talking about racism. It is all about racism - except when talking about Jews. As with all U.N. documents, this one "acknowledges," and "confirms," and "reaffirms," and "supports," about everything but Israel. Durban II "invites" Governments and law enforcement to "collect reliable information on hate crimes." It urges States to Punish violent, racist and xenophobic activities based on Nazi, neo-Facist and other violent national ideologies."

I don't like Nazi's either. I don't like crime whatever the color or motive. What about suicide bombers in Israel. What about suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's all ideology and it's all very violent - and it is all okay for the Muslims.

 The U.N. wants us to remember the days of slave trade, apartheid, colonialism and genocide - never forget it, the document says. Does that include Arab genocide against African Muslims? How many have to die before Arab genocide can be called what it is? How many have to die in Darfur before we hold those responsible, who are actually responsible.

Okay, this document does say that "the Holocaust must never be forgotten." This is good. Why is Iran still a member nation of the U.N. - and now the Vice-Chair of the whole confab? Now we get to immigration. We are called upon to "protect the human rights of all migrants regardless of their immigration status," we are to eliminate all "intolerance at country border entry areas," they want our border guards to be trained "with a view to sensitizing them to racism."

The U.N. is calling upon all politicians and law enforcement officials to stop negative stereotyping of non-citizens - attitudes "that have led to xenophobic violence, killings and the targeting of migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers." In other words, we needn't protect our borders. This is one world, after all.

 We are called upon to provide Universal health care for everyone, regardless of their legal status - including preventative measures. We are not to profile, we are to teach our children not to be racist, we are to integrate all minorities into our politics and we are to fund "civil society organizations." In No. 128 on page 16, the U.N. wants the Federation Internationale de Football Association, to introduce a visible theme on non-racism in football (does that mean soccer?).

The hope is that a non-racism theme will carry on through all "international sporting bodies." Member states are encouraged to increase their voluntary contributions to the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The problem is, we have no Commissioners for Human Rights who give a fig for real human rights. Out of the 17 pages pages and 142 paragraphs in the pdf, almost every goal could be an excellent goal, except that the Islamic world will not honor it.

Yes, we should protect women and girls and boys from human trafficking. This document won't do it. Yes, we should not discriminate, but nothing in this document protects the law abiding from the illegal. Nothing returns the rule-of-law to the legal citizen. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) within the U.N. is just festering with hate, and well, how is the world to join together against "Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance?"

 You know, it just can't get done because countries continue to show up to these U.N. Bash Israel get-togethers. No one should be in Geneva for this conference next week, and at least, my country will not be there - this time, and hopefully no deals have been made under the table. What's up with Germany, though? As of today, it is reported that The U.S., Canada, Italy and Israel all plan to boycott. I'm betting that President Obama had to buy U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice one of those fancy new hybrid cars, or something - to keep her away from all the love at UN Geneva next week. Note: the pdf of the document discussed above is linked with this article, in the 5th paragraph. Related at Radarsite: Anne Bayefsky on Durbin II

Ann Bayefsky: The UN War on Israel

I received an email from Eye on the U.N. with the text of an article Anne Bayefsky wrote for The New York Daily News. Bayefsky is a clarion voice trumpeting the dastardly deeds done in that den of vipers at the U.N.

As pertinent as her statements are to the current Israel-Gaza conflict, also of vital importance is the background she provides about the United Nations. American's have many battles these days. The U.N. should be considered an enemy of the first import.

 (All emphais is Maggie's - Some paragraph formatting for easier reading)

 The UN War on Israel

Bush and Rice, don't let the UN sell out srael
By Anne Bayefsky

 The United Nations war on Israel has never been on the back burner, and its feeding frenzy over Gaza is no exception. The Security Council has now held four sessions. The General Assembly has scheduled an emergency session for Thursday night, and on Friday, the UN's lead human rights body, the Human Rights Council, will hold a special session to damn Israel.

 To put this in perspective, the Security Council is the UN's lead response to terrorism. After 9/11, the Security Council started convening as "the Counter-Terrorism Committee" or CTC.


The CTC has never identified a single terrorist, terrorist organization or state sponsor of terrorism - because the Islamic chokehold on the UN leaves it without a definition of terrorism to this day.

 The General Assembly has had 10 emergency sessions in its history. Six of those, including the 10th, have been on Israel, and the tenth has been "reconvened" 16 times since 1997.


In other words, there is a permanent General Assembly emergency session on Israel. The same Assembly never managed to hold a single emergency session on the 800,000 people who died in the Rwandan genocide, or the 3 million who are dead or displaced in Sudan.

 As for the "reformed" Human Rights Council, it is now holding its fifth special session on Israel. By comparison, the Council has held nine regular sessions on human rights in all of the other 191 UN states.

 In fact, over its two and a half-year history, the Council has condemned Israel more often than all other states in the United Nations combined. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that since Israel finally decided to defend itself against the 8,000 rockets and mortar shells directed at its civilian population over eight years, the long UN knives have been quickly drawn.

In addition to all the meetings, which are now webcast for propaganda purposes around the world, UN officials have used their global platforms to vilify the Jewish state and to try to tie Israel's hands behind its back. In one form or another, UN officials always manage to choke on the word "self-defense."

From out of the woodwork come UN gurus from the myriad UN bodies which have Israel-bashing as part of their job description:

Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied Since 1967; Karen AbuZayd, Commission-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA); John Ging, UNRWA Director of Operations in Gaza; Maxwell Gaylard, United Special Coordinator in the Occupied Territories (UNSCO), Paul Badji and the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; Robert Serry, Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process; and Christine van Nieuwenhuyse, World Food Program Representative in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Right alongside those folks for the past two weeks have been the UN "experts" and agencies whose well-being - their:

- stature and internal authority, - re-appointment, promotion, pension, - operational funding and institutional perks of all kinds -

depend on being on the Arab side of all Arab-Israeli conflicts. 

These people include the Secretary-General, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and UN Emergency Relief Coordinator; the UN Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator (OCHA); the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict; the Chairperson of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures; the Executive Director, UN Population Fund (UNFPA); and the Director-General, UNESCO.

 Together all of these UN actors have mounted a feverish chorus alleging that Israel has committed "wanton aggression," "monstrosities," "massacres," and "crimes against humanity." In each case humanized Palestinian victims are placed on one side of the scale, and a small number of Israeli deaths are set on the other. Evidently, the UN only started counting Israeli bodies last week. Left out of this phony "proportionality test" is the terror associated with every Hamas-driven attempt to cause more death and destruction.


And it is politically incorrect in the extreme to mention that the blameless Palestinians freely elected a terrorist group sworn to killing Jews. In short, Hamas has perfected a form of human sacrifice in the 21st century.

It launches rockets from schools, uses ambulances as transport, hides behind women and children, and wears civilian clothing as camouflage. Palestinian civilian casualties are the Palestinian leadership's weapon of choice.


The only body still allegedly oblivious to this grotesque calculation is the UN. Asked about Hamas' use of civilians as human shields, UNRWA chief, AbuZayd responded: "I don't know of these human shields being used... What I would say is that Hamas very much leave us alone; let me say, they respect us."

 The UN cacophony is not what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had envisaged for her swan song. She hoped to exit with a Security Council resolution that she rammed through on December 16th, against Israel's wishes, praising her stillborn Annapolis initiative and bringing UN tentacles ever closer to their Israeli target by involving the Security Council more closely in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Which brings us to today's situation. Every anti-Israel idea out there has one major goal - whether it is propagated by France, Europe, Russia, Egypt, or the UN. They all want in on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Solutions subject to negotiations between the parties? Israeli control over its own borders?


Not if any of these players can help it. The drafts of UN presidential statements and resolutions now being floated include one key element. Wrest control from Israel and diminish Israeli sovereignty.

The drafts insert international players via calls to "provide protection for civilian populations" or "establish and deploy an international observer force." Any such insertion of international actors will have only one result: to diminish the ability of Israel now and in the future to protect its citizens. Israeli leaders must reject any formula that smacks of such a degradation of their inherent right to control their own destiny.

And as for the United States, if President Bush is looking for an honorable swan song, it's now or never. This is the moment to tell your Secretary of State, after her years of a vain-glorious search for approval from the international community, that Israel is not for sale.