Reality Check for Liberals

Posted on December 7, 2009. Filed under: General Info, Soapbox | Tags: , , , , |

I just want you to stop and think.

 If all this global warming – green agenda crap were true; if all of the people pushing this agenda really, sincerely, just wanted a healthy planet; if they actually took the time to read the so called “science” behind it, how could they actually be on the side of Cap-and-Trade or the Kyoto Treaty?

 They couldn’t.

 First of all, Cap-and-Trade, has nothing to do with saving the planet, and neither do Agenda 21,COP 15 or the Kyoto Agreement or whatever other name it’s wants to go by these days. It’s all about control. Not about a “green” planet – all about profit to a few at the expense of the many.

 If the green movement wanted alternative energy, they would have embraced it. It’s already out there. They would have spent money to perfect it, instead they spend their money, and our tax money, to fight it in court.

If the green movement wanted to impact the health of the planet, they wouldn’t all fly around in private jets or ride around in stretch limo’s telling the rest of us we should walk or bike to work. Those like Al Gore and the other elitists pushing it wouldn’t have several mammoth and lavish homes spread throughout the world while pushing pack-and-stack on the rest of us. They wouldn’t be fighting local farmers and forcing us to import our food from foreign countries at great expense and great carbon outlay.

There are so many, many issues with the green movement in which their actions contradict their drivel.  Yet, no one questions. Come on, really. Congress will investigate whether baseball players take steroids, but not whether the science behind a complete overhaul of the American way of life is legit?

Not only will government not investigate, they won’t allow challenges, not even from noted scientists.

If you are still in the camp of the green movement, and you believe it’s all about the betterment of the earth, please take some time to read through documents and videos, etc we have compiled on this site.

Start with the Maurice Strong files. Strong, Soros, Club of Rome, etc… if it’s all about the earth, why do you think the power players of global business and corruption are also the people pushing the agenda? Won’t you listen to their own words? I don’t ask you to believe me.

Are you aware of Agenda 21, which dictates the policies of the green movement, including depopulation of the earth (not population control – actual depopulation), loss of property rights for homeowners around the world, loss of sovereignty for all nations- ceding to a global government?

It’s one thing to have a liberal ideology, it’s another thing to simply drink the grape kool-aid. They’ve spiked your drink – now what are you going to do about it? Are you going to do the hard work, read the data, see the facts or just believe what they tell you?  Is it Jonestown, Guyana all over again?

If you actually care about the planet, educate yourself on the real facts. Don’t allow them to think for you, think for yourself. If you want a better planet and want to solve actual issues, I think you’ll find many freinds on the right willing to join with you. That goes for so called “health care reform” too.

Do you think by supporting them you won’t have to yield to their policies, or do you just not know what their policies are?

If  it’s about solving real problems, let’s do it. I’ll help you.

If  it’s about you using phoney baloney to control me and my life, I will fight you til the day I die.

I’m not a scientist. But there is one scientific formula I know:  

< Freedom = >Government Control = Profit-from-corruption²

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )

Maurice Strong, Agenda 21 and more from Lord Moncton

Posted on October 20, 2009. Filed under: Enemies of The State, General Info | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Over the weekend we became aware of the speech given by Lord Christopher Moncton at the Free Market Institute in Minnesota late last week. That speech highlighted the danger we are in, as a sovereign nation, come December of this year. It is then world leaders will meet in Copenhagen to address the Kyoto Protocol. If you are not up to speed on this, please refer back to the video and accompanying information here before proceeding : http://bit.ly/WQeQ7
 
Monday, Glenn Beck was able to speak with Lord Moncton by phone. That audio is presented for you here:
 

 
 
In the conversation, Lord Moncton mentions Maurice Strong. Several shocking bits of information have come to my attention, many with help from fellow patriots JoAnne Moretti and Pam L. I wish to thank them for their help on assembling this laundry list of eye openers. There are so many that I find it necessary to publish under seperate cover with a short synopsis and the link for you to comb over at will. http://wp.me/pxG9Z-cn
 

THE ROBINHOOD PLAN aka Agenda 21
 
Let me make this easy for you. The UN has devised a plan where upon they take from the rich (you and I and anyone else in the world that works for a living) and give to the poor (those countries who refuse to elevate themselves due to corrupt governments, societal concerns, etc..) Just like “Oil for Food” however, the real plan is just to steal our money and institute a mafia like system to bully us into cooperation. Here are a small sampling of documents, aka Policy Briefs put out in preparation of the Copenhagen meeting. It is definitely worth the small investment of time for you to browse them. There is only one conclusion I reach. If our president signs this he has committed treason. By all accounts he will sign and his friends in the Senate will ratify. They have already started to funnel your money to the IMF and World Bank. I have reported in previous columns the billions of dollars just within the past year which have been given to these institutions through the “Stimulus” Plan and and other “Crisis” legislation. The only thing that’s being stimulated in this country is the blood pressure of all those who are paying attention. Saturday, October 24th is the anniversary of the UN. I will be attending a protest in my own small home town. If there is not one scheduled in your town, call your fellow patriots into action. We need to let them know we get it and we will not allow them to sign our futures away in December. Call your Senators and Representatives and tell them you know. Tell them NO WAY! It’s beginning to be a daily ritual in my household – perhaps it should be in yours as well. You may think they aren’t listening, but sources tell us they hear, even if they aren’t acknowledging it publicly. They don’t acknowledge so as to dissuade us from “annoying” them any further. As the old saying goes – change must start with you.
 
As discussed over the weekend in the column linked above, the consensus is international treaties supersede our constitution. From what I have been told, the only way to get out of a treaty is if the parties involve excuse you. Agenda 21 is structured to punish the US for their success. We will bare the burden. They will not excuse us – were the goose who lays the golden eggs. President Obama must not be allowed to sign this treaty. Make it clear NOW. Saturday is your opportunity to stand up and be heard. If you do organize a gathering in your town, make sure to let the media and your Senators and Representatives know about it. Take photos, take movies and post them to the internet.
 
UN-DESA Policy Brief #21 – Climate Justice: Sharing the Burden
 

Even if the annual flow of carbon emissions were to immediately stabilize at today’s rate (40 gigatons), the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would be double the pre-industrial level by 2050, resulting in a high probability of dangerous temperature rises, serious economic damage and potentially destabilizing political consequences… It is the cumulative stock of emissions produced by the currently developed industrialized countries that are the root cause of dangerous rise in greenhouse gas concentrations. Since 1840, three quarters of the cumulative total has been generated by Annex I countries with the United States alone accounting for close to 30 per cent. Th e picture is even starker if per capita emissions are used.

Equity is an essential ingredient of an eff ective global climate change policy, as refl ected in the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”, set forth in the UNFCCC. Not only have today’s high-income economies generated about 80 per cent of past fossil fuel-based emissions, but those same emissions have helped carry them to high levels of social and economic well-being. Th ese countries carry the responsibility for the bulk of climate damage but they also have the capacity to repair it. Th is will require additional multilateral fi nancing, on an adequate and predictable scale, comprising grants, concessional loans and compensatory payments. In the context of the ongoing UNFCCC negotiations, developing countries have insisted on the fact that Annex II countries have a clear-cut responsibility for providing new and additional fi nancial resources to meet the agreed full costs incurred by developing-country parties in complying with their obligations. Translating such responsibilities into tangible resources is still a major stumbling block. Th e Greenhouse Development Rights (GDR) methodology provides one possible way of sharing the burden of emissions reductions among countries according to their capacity to pay for reductions and their responsibility for past and current emissions. Each of these criteria is defi ned with respect to a development threshold so as to explicitly safeguard the right of lowincome countries to economic growth (such as a PPP per-capita income level of $9,000, beyond which human and economic development approaches “advanced” levels); only individuals with incomes above this threshold have a responsibility to pay for emissions abatement. Each country is assigned an emissions allocation based on per capita rights. In addition, each country is assigned an obligation to pay for abatement—whether at home or abroad— based on its share of cumulative emissions starting from a base year (such as 1990) and the cumulative income of its population with incomes above the development threshold.1 Following these criteria, at this point, the EU, for example, would need to contribute $32.9 billion for every $100 billion of climate fi nancing, while the contribution of the United States would be $47.7 billion and that of Japan $11.2 billion.

Placing this challenge in the context of an evolving investment programme is to recognize that developing countries will themselves be responsible for mobilizing resources on an increasing scale over time, as well as for insisting on the responsibility of developed countries for meeting the additional costs of undertaking such investments in the initial stages of the transition. Developed countries need to live up to the responsibility they took on themselves under UNFCCC regarding climate change related assistance to developing countries.

 

Policy Brief #13  The Trillion Dollar Plan

http://www.un.org/esa/policy/policybriefs/policybrief13.pdf

The rapidly unfolding global fi nancial and economic crisis will severely disrupt economic growth worldwide, affect the livelihoods of billions around the world and endanger progress toward the poverty reduction and other millennium development goals  (MDGs). Major industrialized countries and some developing countries have put together massive fi nancial sector rescue packages and large fi scal stimulus packages. Since the outbreak of the crisis up to March 2009, the total support is estimated at a staggering $20.8 trillion or 33.5 per cent of the estimated World Gross Product (WGP) for 2008. Th e vast majority of these resources comprise government guarantees of toxic assets held by the banking sectors in the United States, Europe and elsewhere.

The fiscal stimulus plans total about $2.6 trillion or 4 per cent of WGP to be spent, roughly, over the three-year period between 2009 and 2011. Many observers, including analysts at the IMF and the United Nations, consider this amount of fi scal stimulusto be insufficient.

Developing countries are particularly exposed to this crisis. They have less resilient economies and with fewer resources they are more typically forced to pursue pro-cyclical monetary and fiscal policies, imposing greater variability in their economic  performance to the detriment of long-term growth. Global responses should urgently redress this asymmetry.

In the first place, this would require providing sufficient financial resources to developing countries to engage in counter-cyclical measures. If spent eff ectively, this could not only put the global economy on a more sustainable growth path but also help to meet poverty targets and development goals set by the international community.

For this, the United Nations has estimated that developing countries would need around $1 trillion for 2009 and 2010, half of which would be used for covering short-term fi nancing needs, with the other half required for long-term development lendingand assistance. While this seems like large sum of money, it can be feasibly delivered through existing mechanisms and within existing commitments. Moreover, it would send a strong signal of solidarity to developing countries that they will be supported through the crisis.

Meeting short-term liquidity needs ($500 billion)

According to the World Bank and the Institute for International Finance, private capital fl ows to developing countries declined by about $500 billion in 2008 from 2007 levels and a further decline by about $630 billion is forecast for 2009. The decline has been the result of, inter alia, a severe squeeze of trade credits, which is aff ecting trade and growth of developing countries directly.

Well over $1 trillion in corporate, external debt in emerging markets and other developing countries will mature in 2009 and will need to be rolled over. As commodity prices and exports decline and income from worker remittances subsides, most developing countries will experience severe balance of payment problems. Th e World Bank estimates that 98 of 104 developing countries are expected to fall short of covering external fi nancing needs, with an estimated gap which could be as high as $700 billion. For low-income countries alone, the IMF estimates that the balance-of-payments shock could amount to $140 billion in 2009.

The G20 already seems to have neared an agreement on doubling (as proposed by the EU) or tripling proposed by the United States) the IMF’s existing lending capacity of $250 billion. New SDR issuance could amount to $250 billion as has been proposed in the past, but failed to gain the backing of the United States government. Now this seems more acceptable. The Japanese government has already lent $100 billion of its reserves to increase the IMF’s lending capacity. Countries with vast amounts of reserves, such as China or some of the major oil exporters, could contribute similarly, though this likely will require making suffi cient progress towards governance reform of the IMF to make this politically more acceptable for these countries. Mobilizing resources through regional reserve funds should also be considered. For instance, Asian countries have already agreed to increase resources for liquidity provisioning through the Chiang Mai Initiative, their main mechanism of regional fi nancial cooperation. Both international (IMF) and regional channels should be used, requiring closer collaboration between the IMF and regional institutions of financial cooperation.

What about conditionality?

Adequate oversight of the usage of resources will also need to be established, ensuring in particular that the compensatory financing is not subject to the kind of pro-cyclical policy conditionality which is typically attached to existing mechanisms. Financing needs for fiscal stimulus ($500 billion) In addition, another $500 billion in enhanced long-term official fi nancing will be needed to cover fiscal revenue gaps in 2009 and 2010 (due to falling export revenues and slower growth) and provide developing countries with the necessary resources to protect social spending and finance fiscal stimulus packages. Spread over two years, these resources would provide the means for a stimulus of about 3 per cent per year of the combined GDP of developing countries (excluding China and major oil-exporting countries), which—assuming a multiplier eff ect of about 1.7 from well-designed and internationally coordinated fi scal packages— would support adequate growth recovery. Half of the required resources could be mobilized by enhancing the lending capacity of multilateral development banks and the remainder through increased offi cial development assistance through accelerated delivery on existing donor commitments.

How to finance $250 billion for increased development lending?

The increase in development lending could be mobilized through the multilateral development banks. This could be achieved as follows:

• By optimizing use of available capital, the World Bank could make new development financing commitments for about $100 billion.

• With a $60 billion replenishment of their capital and maintaining solid leverage ratios, regional development banks could expand development lending by about $150 billion. This should be feasible. The World Bank would be using existing lending space and has already announced increased lending capacity in this way. The Asian Development Bank has already requested a replenishment of its capital. Surplus countries with vast amounts of reserves and sovereign wealth funds could similarly allocate some of its resources to regional development banks in order to expand their lending capacity.

How to mobilize and additional $250 billion in offi cial development assistance for the poorest countries?

The increase in ODA could be mobilized as follows:

• $50 billion

• $200 billion would need to be mobilized through an acceleration of the delivery on existing ODA commitments.

The required resources can be provided on the basis of available resources and existing commitments. The World Bank’s concessional window (IDA) was already replenished by $30 billion in 2008 to cover three years of credits and grants. This could be frontloaded to make these resources available during 2009 and 2010. Equally concessional lending windows of regional development banks (ADB, AfDB, IDB and others) could be frontloaded to provide the additional $20 billion.

Donors have repeatedly pledged to deliver on existing aid commitments, including at the Doha Follow-up Conference on Financing for Development of November-December 2008. At the 2005 Gleneagles Summit, the G8 committed to raise ODA to at least $160 billion per year (at 2008 prices) by 20101 (up from $103.7 billion in 2007). Meeting this commitment should increase existing aid fl ows by a total of about $115 billion over 2009-2010. Further delivery towards the agreed UN target of 0.7 per cent of their annual GNI could provide the remaining $85 billion needed over 2009-2010, which would bring ODA to about 0.4 per cent of GNI of OECD/DAC members.

The World Bank’s proposal for a “Vulnerability Fund” of the size of 0.7 per cent of the developed countries’ stimulus packages (amounting to about $15 billion) might form a part of this broader proposal.

UN-DESA Policy Brief #17 Reaching a Climate Deal in Copenhagen

http://www.un.org/esa/policy/policybriefs/policybrief17.pdf

There is a growing awareness that action is urgently needed to seriously address the climate change problem. Th e multilateral process that began with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 resulted in the Bali Action Plan (BAP) in 2007. Th e BAP calls for enhanced action on adaptation, mitigation, technology development and transfer, and fi nance, which should be specifi ed in an international agreement by the end of 2009 in Copenhagen. This brief addresses some key development and burden sharing aspects related to mitigation and adaptation which need due consideration to ensure a successful and sustainable outcome of the negotiations.

Crisis as opportunity

The current financial crisis provides an opportunity to make a fundamental change in the patterns of international cooperation, investment and production. New sustainable development trajectories are to be sought, based on low-carbon, clean technologies, with a large component of renewable energy sources. In fact, there are important synergies to be expected from integrating climate and energy related investments into strategies addressing the economic downturn, for example the employment gains of shifting towards renewable energy. A ‘shared vision’ based on the essential premise of the UNFCCC convention—common but diff erentiated responsibilities and capabilities will be the basis of any new international agreement agreed in Copenhagen. Negotiating parties must ensure that this shared vision show a clearand strong commitment to the overall objective of sustainable development and catch-up growth in developing countries. It should also include equity considerations such as poverty reduction and convergence in terms of income distribution and emissions per capita.

..Towards a new climate finance architecture

In order to enhance predictability, funding must not be voluntary but tied to agreed long-term commitments, based e.g. on pro rata mechanisms (such as levied percentages of financial flows, mandatory contributions in relation to GDP). Wider ranging options which include taxes on capital flows or on international transport, energy use or emissions, or volumes of transactions in carbon markets, permit-auctioning, and others can generate considerable additional annual fl ows on the order of tens of billions of dollars. Revenue sources, like auctioning of emissions permits and carbon or energy taxation imply carbon-pricing, which in itself may stimulate the shift towards sustainable, low-carbon development. Yet, carbon pricing may generate adverse (regressive) income eff ects which will need to be addressed. Th e future fi nancial ‘architecture’ should enable the mobilization of adequate, additional and predictable funding. It would need to be built on, and handle, fl ows of fi nance mobilized according to objective criteria refl ecting responsibilities and capabilities to contribute to climate related policies. Disbursements to eligible recipient countries should also be based on agreed criteria which should indicate priorities of resource allocation towards the most vulnerable countries. The overall governance in a new architecture should ensure policy coherence and a focus on sustainable development.

Conclusion

Effective mitigation will require lead and aggressive action in the North as well as mitigation actions in developing countries in the future, supported by full and eff ective assistance by the North, as articulated in the convention and reaffirmed in BAP. Development has to be central to the climate change agreement —both mitigation and adaptation have to be an integrated part of development agendas and the global process must strengthen the appropriate links with global and national efforts in this connection. Th is requires an urgent scaling up of funding and technology available to developing countries for mitigation as well as adaptation and support for an investment “push” and catch-up growth in developing countries. Th is remains the only sustainable option to deal with future developing country emissions and climate change challenges.

Here is the COP 15 (Dec 2009) Framework Convention on Climate Change Document from the UN:

 

 could be mobilized by front-loading resources in the already replenished International Development Assistance (IDA) window of the World Bank and those in the concessional windows of the regional development banks.  

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.

The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session.

The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 13 so far )

December 2009 could spell the end of US Sovereignty

Posted on October 17, 2009. Filed under: Enemies of The State, General Info, Soapbox | Tags: , , , , |

 

I just finished watching the premier of the new movie Not Evil Just Wrong. This is a must for anyone who loves this country and the freedom typically associated with it. The trailer is linked below.
 
Not Evil Just Wrong (trailer)
World Premier was Sunday, 10/18/2009

 
 
Also an important film to watch is:
 
 
The Great Global Warming Swindle (full movie)
 
 
 
The promise of The Great Society was to wipe out poverty in the US, yet there are now more citizens living below the poverty line than at anytime in our history. This despite equally historical massive amounts of money “thrown” at the problem. We’ve had the “war” on drugs for decades, with billions “thrown” at this problem, but illegal drugs still run rampant throughout our society. For forty years our government has been working on weaning us off foriegn fuel. Yet weekend handymen all over the country can come up with ways to power vehicles using everything from water to batteries, yet our government can come up with nothing. Furthermore they permit rights to these inventions to be bought up and shelved. Our country has one of the largest, if not the largest, coal deposits on the face of the earth, yet our government insists on demonizing it as an energy source and seeks to take it’s use from us. Our media has turned into state TV. Our leadership has turned from a republic to a dictatorship. They are now attempting to take our health, and dare I say our lives (if you’re over 50).  Our government has taken our savings, taken the equity from our homes, taken our manufacturing jobs, has purposely set out to take our standard of living, our children’s futures, and is in the process of taking our sovereignty. If you are not actively fighting this, then when will you begin? As a communist, you will no longer have the right to fight it. Keep that in mind as you’re deciding how to spend the leisure time you now enjoy. They are taking that from you as well. With all the spending the government is currently doing, hyper inflation should begin early next year, if not before. If you thought things were tough now, keep this in mind. If the government spending does not cease immediately, these will be the good old days. It is projected that with the passage of cap and trade legislation, prices will double or triple on all goods and services. With the passage of health care “reform” your health insurance policy costs will rise by an average of $4000 per year. Gas costs are estimated to rise to five dollars a gallon. How many hours a week will you have to work then? Let us not forget that if the United Nations has it’s way, you will also soon be paying a global tax, on top of what you are already paying to our own government. They have tried to convince you that global warming exists. It does not. Climate change does exist, but only as it’s existed since the beginning of time. They want to convince you there are too many people, but yet they all have families. They want to convince you to feel guilt at what you consume. With their salaries of $174,000 a year plus perks, I have no trouble imagining they consume far more than we ever hoped to. They want you to feel guilty about using energy. How many of you have private jets? They want to convince you their health care “reform” is good for our country, but they are not giving up their premium health care paid for with your dollars. They want you to understand it is worth the sacrifice you will have to make for the good of the planet, yet they will make no sacrifice. As a matter of fact, many of them will profit from the legislation. Allow me to ask again, if you are not actively and willfully fighting this, then when will you begin? Next Saturday we “celebrate” the 64th anniversary of the United Nations. I will be celebrating at a local protest against tyranny at the hands of the UN in my home town, how about you?
 
If you have not seen the video below I suggest you waste no time in watching it. The clock is ticking. Educate yourself.

 

Is this what President Obama Meant On Thursday?

 

 

Lord Christopher Moncton is an adversary of climate change legislation, pointing out the fallacious arguments in it’s favor. Most notably, he was an official political advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. His full bio appears in the full length version of the video at bottom of column.

 
COP15
 
Pre Conference Bangkok Summit
 
 
Mr. de Boer stressed the urgency of raising ambitions and bridging the disconnect, adding that now is the time to step back from self interest and let common interest prevail.
 
Pre Conferrence NY Summit
 
Nearly 100 world leaders accepted UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s invitation to participate in an historic Summit on Climate Change in New York on 22 September to mobilize political will and strengthen momentum for a fair, effective, and ambitious climate deal in Copenhagen this December.
 
  
The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is merely symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified.
On 25 July 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing nations as well as industrialized nations or “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States”. On 12 November 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.
The Clinton Administration released an economic analysis in July 1998, prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, which concluded that with emissions trading among the annex B/annex I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the “Clean Development Mechanism“—which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates through 2012—the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced as much as 60% from many estimates. Estimates of the cost of achieving the Kyoto Protocol carbon reduction targets in the United States, as compared by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), predicted losses to GDP of between 1.0% and 4.2% by 2010, reducing to between 0.5% and 2.0% by 2020. Some of these estimates assumed that action had been taken by 1998, and would be increased by delays in starting action.

President George W. Bush did not submit the treaty for Senate ratification based on the exemption granted to China (now the world’s largest gross emitter of carbon dioxide, although emission is low per capita). Bush opposed the treaty because of the strain he believed the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasized the uncertainties which he believed were present in the scientific evidence. Furthermore, the U.S. was concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For example, the U.S. did not support the split between annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:

This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world’s. The world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People’s Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto … America’s unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change … Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.”

In June 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency released the “Climate Action Report 2002”. Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol.[citation needed] At the G8 meeting in June 2005 administration officials expressed a desire for “practical commitments industrialized countries can meet without damaging their economies”. According to those same officials, the United States is on track to fulfill its pledge to reduce its carbon intensity 18% by 2012. The United States has signed the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, a pact that allows those countries to set their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions individually, but with no enforcement mechanism. Supporters of the pact see it as complementing the Kyoto Protocol while being more flexible.

Here is the official document: http://vienna.usembassy.gov/en/download/pdf/kyoto.pdf

The Administration’s position was not uniformly accepted in the U.S. For example, Paul Krugman noted that the target 18% reduction in carbon intensity is still actually an increase in overall emissions. The White House has also come under criticism for downplaying reports that link human activity and greenhouse gas emissions to climate change and that a White House official, former oil industry advocate and current Exxon Mobil officer, Philip Cooney, watered down descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists, charges the White House denies. Critics point to the Bush administration’s close ties to the oil and gas industries. In June 2005, State Department papers showed the administration thanking Exxon executives for the company’s “active involvement” in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor.

In 2002, Congressional researchers who examined the legal status of the Protocol advised that signature of the UNFCCC imposes an obligation to refrain from undermining the Protocol’s object and purpose, and that while the President probably cannot implement the Protocol alone, Congress can create compatible laws on its own initiative.

 Treaties http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties made by the executive branch.  

President George W. Bush did not submit the treaty for Senate ratification based on the exemption granted to China (now the world’s largest gross emitter of carbon dioxide, although emission is low per capita). Bush opposed the treaty because of the strain he believed the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasized the uncertainties which he believed were present in the scientific evidence. Furthermore, the U.S. was concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For example, the U.S. did not support the split between annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty: 

This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world’s. The world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People’s Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto … America’s unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change … Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.”

In June 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency released the “Climate Action Report 2002”. Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol.[citation needed] At the G8 meeting in June 2005 administration officials expressed a desire for “practical commitments industrialized countries can meet without damaging their economies”. According to those same officials, the United States is on track to fulfill its pledge to reduce its carbon intensity 18% by 2012. The United States has signed the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, a pact that allows those countries to set their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions individually, but with no enforcement mechanism. Supporters of the pact see it as complementing the Kyoto Protocol while being more flexible.

Here is the official document: http://vienna.usembassy.gov/en/download/pdf/kyoto.pdf

The Administration’s position was not uniformly accepted in the U.S. For example, Paul Krugman noted that the target 18% reduction in carbon intensity is still actually an increase in overall emissions. The White House has also come under criticism for downplaying reports that link human activity and greenhouse gas emissions to climate change and that a White House official, former oil industry advocate and current Exxon Mobil officer, Philip Cooney, watered down descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists, charges the White House denies. Critics point to the Bush administration’s close ties to the oil and gas industries. In June 2005, State Department papers showed the administration thanking Exxon executives for the company’s “active involvement” in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor.

In 2002, Congressional researchers who examined the legal status of the Protocol advised that signature of the UNFCCC imposes an obligation to refrain from undermining the Protocol’s object and purpose, and that while the President probably cannot implement the Protocol alone, Congress can create compatible laws on its own initiative.

 

 
 
 

 

Article II, section 2, of the Constitution states that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” These few words are the cornerstone to a major part of our system of divided powers, checks and balances.

Executive Agreements

In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law.

The difficulty in obtaining a two-thirds vote was one of the motivating forces behind the vast increase in executive agreements after World War II. In 1952, for instance, the United States signed 14 treaties and 291 executive agreements. This was a larger number of executive agreements than had been reached during the entire century of 1789 to 1889. Executive agreements continue to grow at a rapid rate. The United States is currently a party to nearly nine hundred treaties and more than five thousand executive agreements.

Status as Law

By virtue of the Constitution’s supremacy clause (Article VI, clause 2) a treaty that is concluded compatibly with applicable constitutional requirements may have status as the “supreme law of the land,” along with federal statutes and the Constitution itself. A treaty does not become effective as U.S. domestic law automatically, however, upon its entry into force on the international level. Instead, this occurs only where the instrument is “self-executing” and operates without any necessity for implementing legislation.

When the Constitution created an executive branch and a president of the United States, it gave him no unchecked or unconditional powers. The Constitution made treatymaking a concurrent power. The United States Senate has carefully guarded its share of this power for two hundred years.

The vast majority of treaties have been ratified by the Senate. Since 1789, only twenty-one treaties have been rejected by the full Senate.

WHAT CAN WE DO TO STOP THIS? PLEASE ACT NOW!

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt  EMAIL YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AS WELL AS LEADERSHIP TODAY – CALL THEM MONDAY – Here’s the directory

Amerikeith’s site has Congressional Twitter links posted if you would rather tweet them:http://amerikeith.wordpress.com/contact-congress/congress-on-twitter/

Bring this to the attention to your local media and national media outlets – TELL THEM YOU KNOW http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/media/

For Further Information:

Full Hour and a half speech by Lord Mockton at Free Market Institute This week

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

Link to Free Market Institute website

http://mnfreemarketinstitute.org/2009/10/16/monckton-speaks-to-over-700-at-minnesota-free-market-institute-event/

Here is a previous column on the subject http://wp.me/pxG9Z-ak

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

At link above you will find the 225 page 2009 Minority Report “..Scientists Debunk Global Warming Crisis”

FoxieNews also disusses this on her site  http://foxienews.com/blog/?p=145

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 12 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...