Samstag, 31. Oktober 2009


Chuck Baldwin
October 30, 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.”

Comment: Please note that "Lord" Monckton is a member of the Worshipful Company of Broderers, an Officer of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, a Knight of Honour and Devotion of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and a member of the Roman Catholic Mass Media Commission. Read more
featured stories   Climate Change Treaty A Precursor To Global Government?


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:

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

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

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.

'Greens' movement may have darker agenda

By Frank Malloy |

Many of us recall that worried warning from the nervous rabbit, or the later Chicken Little version, in the stories from our youth. That same message is being sounded again by the likes of Al Gore with his movie "An Inconvenient Truth."

The movie purportedly shows the ecological and environmental damages being done to our planet by us humans. Gore has now won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Dare to differ
Some, however, would dare to differ with the former vice president on shrinking Himalayan glaciers, the snowcap on Mt. Kilimanjaro, the expanding African desert and the meltdown of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

Many of them are learned people, such as James Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute, who claims Gore distorts science and ignores data that defies his theory of global warming. So, what's up? This is the same guy who supposedly invented the Internet a few years back.

Some environmentalists, such as Britain's Prince Phillip, formerly the president of the World Wildlife Fund, are showing us the hidden hand behind the eco-environmental movement.

When asked what he would be were he to be reincarnated, he said he would wish to return as "a killer virus to lower human population levels." Unfortunately, as a longtime proponent of population control, he was not kidding.

To find out about the "Greens," we have to pay attention to what those who purport to be its leaders are saying. Does this movement to save the planet have another, darker agenda such as population control?

Everyone wants clean air and water. Everyone is for not trashing our planet. Not everyone, however, is of the extreme opinion that in order to accomplish these things, we must drastically reduce human population levels.


Mikhail Gorbachev
Mikhail Gorbachev, former Russian president, founder of the Gorbachev Foundation and head of Green Cross International, claims the environment crisis is the cornerstone of the new world order. He is also co-author, along with Steven Rockefeller, of the United Nations Earth Charter.

Steven Rockefeller
The Earth Charter is a kind of environmental Ten Commandments intended to become a universally adopted creed that will prepare the world's children to accept the necessity of world government to save the planet.

At Gorbachev's State of the World Forum in 1995, philosopher and author Sam Keen told the gathering elites that the ecological crisis is the population crisis, while urging them to promote sexuality, contraception and abortion.

He further suggested, "Cut the population by 90 percent and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage. Scary, isn't it? And who decides on the 10 percent who get to stay?

Jacques Costeau
Consider oceanographer Jacques Costeau's article in a United Nations 1991 UNESCO Courier, whereby he called for the elimination of 350,000 people per day in order to "stabilize world population." These people are serious. What lengths will they go to in order to accomplish their goal?

Experts publishing dissenting views to global warming and the facts verifying their views get no media attention.

Paul Ehrlich
Paul Erhlich's hysterical "Population Bomb" was a success in sales but a failure with the crystal ball. His predictions of global famine and millions of starving people were all wrong. Yet, his way of solving all these ills was all too familiar -- "population control is the answer."

Joseph D'Alea, director of meteorology for the Weather Channel, claims that "we are responsible for just .001 percent of this atmosphere." If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic (generated by man) CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor.

Straight talk

Fred Singer
We get some straight talk from S. Fred Singer, a climate physicist, who co-wrote the book "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years." In it he writes "We've had greenhouse theory with no evidence to support it -- except for a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real world events."

Samantha Smith, author of the 1993 book "Goddess Earth," writes that world socialism is the primary goal of the environmental movement and to achieve it, "independent Americans have to be scared, as well as shamed into conforming to an international agenda calling for Earth stewardship, simple lifestyle and the redistribution of the world's wealth."

Look closely behind the environmental scare and at things like war, famine, abortion and euthanasia. Are your children being schooled on the Earth Charter?

Is the sky really falling? Is global warming "an inconvenient truth" or a convenient lie and the newest version of Chicken Little readying us for a Godless "new world order?"

Perhaps a more suitable name for Gore's film might be "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon."

Article from:

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen