Will the Birth Certificate Issue and the Quo Warranto eligibility trial set for January 2010 be a month too short? Former Science Advisor to Britain's Iron Lady indicates it is possible.
"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 regime 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 satisfication 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.
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution, and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.
So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.
But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.
So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:
Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate! "
----------------------- End of Speech -----------
The Copenhagen Climate Change Talking Points (such as:
will justify itself through papers such as McKibbin and Wilcoxen's "The Economic and Environmental Effects of Border Tax Adjustments for Climate Policy" February 2009
[[[Update June 01, 2012 pdf. copy may be obtained at http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233&lng=en&id=96857
end of update]]]
p.3 "In 2006, then French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin suggested that countries that do not join a post-2012 international treaty on climate change should face additional tariffs on their industrial exports. The European Parliament's (2005/2049) resolution was focused on penalizing countries such as the United States for non-participation in the Kyoto Protocol."
Then they state this idiotic and contradictory pro-carbon tax assessment:
p.4 "A sufficiently large carbon tax imposed in a major economy would lower global oil prices and lead to higher consumption in countries with litle or no carbon tax."
The economic one-world model in the newspeak of Communist macro-economics is to look at the world as a "G-Cube."
p.4 "G-Cubed is an econometric intertemperol general equilibrium model of the world economy with regional disaggregation and sectoral detail."
p.5 [The G-Cube is]"divided into ten regions...Each region is further decomposed into a household sector, a government sector, a financial sector, the twelve industries...and a capital goods producing sector."
p.23 Sectors in the G-Cubed Model
1. Electric Utilities
2. Gas utilities
3. Petroleum refining
4. Coal mining
5. Crude oil and gas extraction
6. Other mining
8. Forestry and Wood products
9. Durable goods
p.6 "We assume that all agents in each economy have identical preferences over foreign and domestic varieties of each particular commodity. (Anything else would require time-series data on imports of products from each country of origin to each industry, which is not only unavailable but difficult to imagine collecting). The result is a system of demand equations for domestic goods and imports from every region."
In other words, the authors are saying that the coming One World Government will force a universal international equality until you and I and the rest of humanity has almost no personal or ethnic identity in what we buy or sell. The logical regression of this is that we are to be molded to one type of unidentified politically and One World Government (OWG) sanctioned religious lukewarm commonality that the OWG molds to its will and common purpose.
p.8 "Within each region we assume household behavior can be modeled by a representative agent who maximizes an intertemporal utility function subject to the constraint that the present value of consumption be equal to the sum of human wealth and initial financial assets."
Or put another way: Equality of wealth or poverty to be shared by all.
p.9 "Finally, the supply of household capital services is determined by consumers themselves who invest in household capital. ...the household investment decision is symmetrical with that of firms."
Or put another way: More output by the masses = less starvation and less reduction in the comforts provided by or through the 12 industries listed above. They then add this line of delusional perception akin to someone high on dope, and advocating human slavery as the solution. Each region accumulate a public debt, and how does the region pay down the debt?
"...the government could pay off the debt by briefly raising taxes a lot...."
There is no such thing as "brief" to raising taxes alot. Nor is there a magical sustained increase in income if the resources have already been drained and reallocated.
p. 10 "...allowing for involuntary unemployment...assuming that all economies are always at full employment, which might be fine for a long-run model, is clearly inappropriate during the first few years after the shock."
Or in other words: A few years of massive unemployment, starvation, riots, are to be expected. When they have starved enough, the masses will come begging and be forced into compliance.
p.11 "For all regions other than China, we assume that the exchange rates are free to float and that financial capital is freely mobile."
Why is China alone exempt? Is the One World Government a Maoist Communist model in its formation, with exemptions to the people who de facto help create the model?
p.12 "The first step in computing a carbon-tax border adjustment on a given import would be to determine the total amount of fossil energy that was used directly or indirectly in production of the good."
p.13 "Tracing energy consumption all the way back to raw materials is possible using input-output tables."
p.14 "...simulations we ran using the G-Cubed model to explore the effects of border adjustments. We began by constructing a hypothetical carbon tax beginning at $20 per metric ton of carbon and rising by $0.50 per year to $40."
p.15 "In all four simulations, additional government revenue generated by the border adjustments and the carbon tax itself was used to finance additional government spending in the corresponding region (that is, each region's fiscal deficit was held constant)."
In other words, their model was given bad data in all 4 scenarios, and the pitch is made that new spending magically appears with border adjustments while being also deficit neutral. This is called Genocide, combined with the seizing of assets within a designated zone or territory. As for Carbon tax increases...higher tariffs = less trade = less revenue.
p.18 "The dollar weakens in both [US] simulations..."
Or in other words, the US does not have any benefit in belonging to the Climate Change OWG.
In fact, according to MIT's Richard Lindsen, the latest 2009 Climate Feedback data on the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment shows that the UN Crisis representation is off by as much as 6 times or by 600%!!
Free 6 page pdf. at:
Perhaps it's a "bigger" world than the UN seems to think it is.
And a voice from the past, faintly still cries out: "In the Last Days perilous times shall come...."