• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

One World Government Created via Copenhagen Treaty


Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
The UN as an institution is generally held in disrepute in the US,but it now seems to be the mechanism for a one world government using the climate change hoax as camoflauge. It will be interesting to see if China and India sign on to Copenhagen cant have a true one world government if billions of people are not included.


President Obama is on a path toward establishing a one-world government. This is the warning of Christopher Monckton, a former major policy adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

In December, world leaders will descend upon Copenhagen to sign a United Nations climate change treaty that will succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which is aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and set to expire in 2012. An agreement has been drafted.

The goal of the Copenhagen treaty is to erect an international cap-and-trade regime to curb carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, said to be responsible for man-made global warming. Recently, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned of a "climate catastrophe" - a rising wave of floods, droughts and shrinking food crops - unless the treaty is signed. Mr. Brown even said global warming would inflict more damage than both world wars and the Great Depression combined; the world has only several weeks to save itself from impending doom.

"If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice," he said. Mr. Brown has thus outdone former Vice President Al Gore in fear-mongering and inciting public hysteria.

Global-warming alarmists are using the myth of climate change to impose an embryonic socialist world government. Following the collapse of communism, the West's progressive elites desperately searched for a viable ideological alternative. They found it in environmentalism.

Although the Green movement wraps itself in the flag of empirical science, it represents the very opposite: a dogma that provides meaning and purpose to its rabid followers. The ideology justifies massive tax increases and government control of the economy; it seeks to cripple free enterprise and curtail market-driven growth. Many of today's Greens are yesterday's Reds.

Global warming is the greatest fraud of our time. The overwhelming scientific evidence shows that, rather than getting hotter, the Earth's temperatures are cooling. Increasing numbers of leading scientists are challenging the flawed computer models used by eco-alarmists.

Mr. Gore and his supporters cannot answer several simple questions. If the Earth's temperatures are no longer rising, then how can CO2 emissions be responsible for global warming? How could previous dramatic increases in global temperatures - such as the end of the Ice Age - have taken place without concentrations of CO2? The answer is obvious: Carbon emissions are not connected to fluctuations in global temperatures.

The mad drive for an international cap-and-trade system is really geared toward achieving the left's long-sought goal: the destruction of democratic capitalism and national sovereignty. The Greens are poised to succeed where the Reds failed.

The Copenhagen treaty must still be negotiated. Final agreement is far from certain, especially from emerging industrial powers like China, India and Brazil. Yet the draft version is clear about the treaty's essential elements.

It calls for a massive transfer of wealth from the developed world to the developing world. The United States would be forced to spend billions of dollars a year in foreign aid to pay for a so-called "climate debt" - a provision to punish wealthy countries for having historically emitted large amounts of CO2, while compensating poor ones for not contributing to greenhouse gases.

The Copenhagen treaty seeks to implement a bureaucratic redistributionist agenda; it is a way for Third World kleptocracies to extort enormous sums of money from America and other rich nations.

Moreover, Mr. Monckton points out that, in paragraph 38, Annex 1, the Copenhagen draft calls for a U.N.-created "government" responsible for taxation, enforcement and redistribution. In other words, the draft treaty explicitly demands that the world body erect an international mechanism with the power to impose emission-reduction targets for each country, determine acceptable levels of CO2 and levy global taxes.

The United States would lose control over its environmental policy. Also, it would sign its death warrant as a functioning democracy, enabling the United Nations to administer a fledgling world government possessing the authority to regulate and tax the American economy. The treaty is a sword aimed at the heart of our national sovereignty.

If Mr. Obama signs the Copenhagen treaty, he "will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your prosperity away forever," Mr. Monckton recently told an audience in Minnesota. "I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created."

Yet the U.S. Senate can avoid this disastrous course. A supermajority of 67 votes is required to ratify the treaty. In 1997, the Senate in a 95-0 vote rejected the Kyoto Protocol, thereby preventing the United States from joining. Mr. Monckton believes that, in order to avoid defeat, Mr. Obama will try to circumvent the ratification process. If he does, he will spark a political revolt that will make the Tea Party protests look tame by comparison.

Mr. Obama has vowed to create a "green economy" based on "green-collar jobs" and "a green New Deal." The Copenhagen treaty would enable him to accomplish his revolutionary ambitions. It would mark his Cultural Revolution - the permanent transformation of America
From my own personal perspective, I would have to say that article is rather one sided & slanted against any sort of progress or change in the current status quo.

Is global warming a hoax??  Personally, I don't think so.  Not many people can argue that the world's climate is slowly changing.  The debate should be whether it is man-made or not...not whether its happening or not.  (We used to be able to skate on the lake across the street at the beginning of October every year - there would be a path carved in torches and everything.  Now, we don't even have snow on the ground.) 

So whether global climate changing is occurring is a mute point, I believe the debate rests in whether it is man-made.

But regardless as to whether people believe in man-made global warming or not, there are a variety of other factors that need to be considered as well. 

-  Uncontrolled amounts of emissions being pumped into the atmosphere has health consequences.  Not only for us, but also for plantlife & animal life, which in turn effects us as well.

-  There is only a finite number of natural resources we can consume.  There are only x number of trees, x amount of oil reserves, x amount of coal, etc, etc.  So using things like solar power and wind is more or less a necessity at some point.

-  Along with this limitation in natural fuel sources also comes a great deal of political and economic considerations as well.

The American public has always viewed the UN in disrepute over a variety of issues, can't argue there.  But chosing to ignore the issue of high emissions is irresponsible, especially for a country that relies so heavily on foreign sources of energy.

Personally, I think this article stinks of being heavily slanted.  Comparing environmentalism to communism??  Seriously??  As in...some people's attempt to pursue a more 'green' way of doing things can be seriously compared to a communist system of government?? 

Or that by being environmentally prudent and proactive in reducing greenhouse emissions, we will be signing the "death of democratic capitalism and national soverignty."  So our economy is going to collapse seemingly overnight, and the US will cease to exist as a country as a whole??  Rather we will wake up one day, and somehow our economy will be completely non-existant and the giant landmass of the continential US will only be called a 'province' of this NWO?? 

Good post T6, not slanting you in the slightest.  But this article?  What a crock of crap.

One of the points for the treaty that I just don't understand.

the "transfer of wealth from the developed world to the developing world." and so called "climate debt"

So instead of taking that money and developing in alternative energy and resources (within our own countries) , we will give it to developing countries to become more developed like us? Thus using current technology to further pollution and "climate debt". Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

From reading other articles, I don't think they are referring to a 'direct' transfer of wealth.  (Although I'm sure there are many people out there who could correct me if I'm wrong?)

I believe the general concept is to allow developing countries more wiggle room than already developed countries in regards to pollution and emissions, since we can't hold them to the same standard that we hold ourselves.

Transferring of wealth from the developed world to the developing world, as it relates to this article, could mean directing financial resources to help these countries develop in an environmentally sound way??  Skip ahead of the industrial phrase, and bring them up to par in terms of environmentally friendly technology??  (i.e. Brazil's leadership in sustainable development.)  Just a thought.
The transfer of wealth will be accomplished with taxes and carbon credits.
There we go, thats what I was thinking of.  Thanks T6, I'm in zombie mode right now.  :pumpkin:
Kyoto was unworkable because two of the biggest piolluters India and China wouldnt sign on. The US wouldnt sign because the treaty wasnt a good deal for the citizens of the US. Copenhagen wont work either but if you look at the treaty itself its climate change is used as an excuse to lay the foundation for a socialist world order. I suspect if the EU states dont mind giving up their sovereignty to Brussels letting the UN run the world isnt that big a leap. The UN itself has been hampered by funding issues. Cap and trade taxes will flow through the UN. We saw how that worked for the UN run Oil for Food Program.
That was a very poorly written, biased, and one-sided article.

I'm not a huge believer in the global warming "fad", but to suggest that humans aren't negatively affecting the environment would be a very stupid position to take. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to simply know that humans and our society is, somehow, negatively affecting the world. Exactly how, though, is up to debate.
"the Copenhagen draft calls for a U.N.-created "government" responsible for taxation, enforcement and redistribution."

Well then I guess there's not much to worry about after all.... *Phew* I was sweatin' over that one.

Nauticus said:
to suggest that humans aren't negatively affecting the environment would be a very stupid position to take. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to simply know that humans and our society is, somehow, negatively affecting the world.

I don't believe, if we are affecting the climate, we're *drastically* changing it. The earth has repeatidly went through ice age cycles during its existence. Thousands of years of slowly, but exponentially, warming up, and then a massive shift back to cold over a relatively short period of time. From what I gathered in my geography class, we, or a couple more generations after us, just happen to have been unlucky enough to get caught in that relatively short period of time. But there is nothing humans can do to avoid that period of time coming, and not much we can do to make it arrive faster.


Can't argue with George Carlin....