Obama Has Failed the World (Climate Change Meltdown)

via drudge ^ | 11/17/09 | Christian Schwägerl

[Typical_Whitey]

US President Barack Obama came to office promising hope and change. But on climate change, he has followed in the footsteps of his predecessor George W. Bush. Now, should the climate summit in Copenhagen fail, the blame will lie squarely with Obama.

[Landru]

Thank you kindly, my friend. :^)
Hey! And this development's only 5 days old!!

Better late than never I 'spose, huh? LOL

[BP2]

> Perhaps you are right. Would you care to elaborate?

I heard the same from Lord Monckton when I saw him speak earlier this month.

Obama is MORE than willing to exploit loopholes (like is a dual-citizen a "Natural Born Citizen") in the Constitution. Do we REALLY beleive that Pelosi and Reid would stand up and say, "NO"?!

From Carry's link (sorry for the long read, but stuff like this is verbose): Patrick Henry, “Ratified” - The Treaty Power, Its Perils and Portents:

The United State Senate ratified the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (pdf file), in 1969. Essentially, this is a treaty about treaties, and boy is it ever a winner. Read it and weep:

 

Article 11
Means of expressing consent to be bound by a treaty

The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by signature, exchange of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or by any other means if so agreed.

 

So far, no problem. The USA has never agreed to such a “means”... has it?

Read on,

 

Article 12

Consent to be bound by a treaty expressed by signature

1. The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by the signature of its representative when:

(a) the treaty provides that signature shall have that effect;

(b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that signature should have that effect; or

 

Just who would make that determination and how, it just doesn’t say. And if that wasn’t enough:

 

(c) the intention of the State to give that effect to the signature appears from the full powers of its representative or was expressed during the negotiation.

 

You mean, the negotiators could get drunk, be paid off, have a bad day, or suffer a lapse in speech and whatever they agreed to would be the Supreme Law of the Land?  Effectively, even if the document does not state that it is binding upon signature, one can always produce witnesses from the UN to will claim that the negotiators had "consented" to it.

 

2.For the purposes of paragraph 1:

(a) the initialling of a text constitutes a signature of the treaty when it is established that the negotiating States so agreed;

(b) the signature ad referendum of a treaty by a representative, if confirmed by his State, constitutes a full signature of the treaty.

 

How does it feel to know such weasel words have been the Supreme Law of the Land for forty years and yet not one President, Republican or Democrat, has breathed a word about this beast? How then could it be truly "binding"; this must be some sort of hyperbole.

By “binding” the UN means that the signatory government agrees not to do anything in conflict with the goals and spirit of the treaty pending ratification. Is there an enforcement process, no, but such is in the works via mechanisms such as the World Trade Organization and the Bank for International Settlements.

Now you know why George Bush’s administration was instituting programs to cut greenhouse gas emissions despite the fact that the Senate had rejected the Kyoto Protocols 98-0, Clinton had signed it. Now you know why we see subspecies (simple variants on a species similar to differences in hair color in people) listed as “endangered” despite the fact that the Senate rejected the Global Biodiversity Treaty. Clinton had signed it. I don’t want to tell you what you’ll see from schools and Child “Protective” Services should the Rights of the Child Treaty be fully incorporated, but its most elegant feature is that children have the right to grow up in a “gun free community” which of course means that only criminals and police will have them.

Charming, isn’t it?

But this Article was to be About Copenhagen and Global Warming;
What’s Up with That?

As to the Copenhagen Treaty, I must apologize, I have scanned it, but have not studied it yet in detail, for which there is very good reason. The problem with reading this beast is that what Lord Monckton is warning us about is not the final treaty.

The final article will likely be much worse.

This COP-15 document consists of a vast array of bracketed options to be decided upon by “the parties” You have no idea what an appropriate term “parties” is: When the thousands of delegates, mostly from “developing” and third whirled countries, show up in Copenhagen, they will be ensconced in fancy hotels, and showered with days of wining and dining, with a per-diem sufficient to supply the likely influx of hookers. These minor officials will gather in large rooms with UN staff scurrying back and forth telling them how to coordinate with what has been decided in another room pursuant to closed door meetings with no-one but the UN-paid staff present. Hence, NOBODY KNOWS what the final article is going to be other than the staff, but no matter what, the final product will be declared “a consensus

Yup, it’s secret and is it ever fast! Fans of Alexander Hamilton should be thrilled.

Barack Obama has every intention of signing such a monster. Of course, neither he nor we will have any idea what our negotiators will have SAID during negotiations…

One important feature will be a global planning authority under the aegis of an obscure international network of bureaucrats. This is the regulatory pipeline of UN Global Governance pursuant to the Global Agenda 21, an oppressively comprehensive regulatory plan for the entire planet that just somehow takes care of the stockholders whose pet NGOs institute their preferred policies. The process works something like this:

If the policy goal exceeds Constitutional authority, the foundations’ pet NGOs design specific provisions to be incorporated into a treaty (such as “cap and trade” fees penalizing production of carbon dioxide). Many of these folks also work (upon occasion) at Federal agencies or at the UN equivalent of the Environmental Protection Agency, the (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources). Some are appointed onto the US delegation to negotiate the specific treaty provisions. Upon signature, they either come back to the US bureaucracy, sit on the appropriate UN “conference of the parties” (the committee that writes the treaty and (after completion) forms a permanent panel that interprets it over time), or they go back to the NGO to sue their former employer “forcing” the government to institute rules or legislation by which to comply with the treaty. It’s a hall of mirrors with revolving doors going at full tilt, people scurrying back and forth...

Congress or the agencies then offer the lure of Federal funds to induce cash-strapped local governments to comply. If they don’t, the same heavily financed NGOs can threaten suit. Few local governments have that kind of money to spend so they cave. Then the local planners, many networked with ICLEI (the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives) or ICLEI-USA enthusiastically crank out the specifications for how your community will be run such that you will reduce your “carbon footprint.” Believe me, they have read all the industry magazines full of “good ideas” as to exactly how you should do that (nearly all involving large amounts of energy upon which you will be taxed). Essentially, the system does everything possible to force you into “Sustainable Development,” an overpriced urban apartment complex sitting on land heisted from its owners by a redevelopment agency using eminent domain and handed to a developer at below market value. You can be easily controlled in such a “community” with little chance of escape.

The energy taxes will be hidden in everything you buy, so you will not see how much they really are. Every new product will face bureaucratic hoops to ascertain its “impact.” You will need to “offset” that impact with a Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA, see the text of the proposed treaty for a description), which effectively means you’ll need to find an agent selling carbon dispensations. Whether or not they actually benefit anything is immaterial and I have seen some amazingly contorted logic justifying these “mitigations.”

These treaties are worded in such a way that it is easy to change effectively what they mean as the situation demands. They contain provisions setting up administrative bodies within the UN that determine the particulars of how they are to be enforced. NONE OF THESE PEOPLE IS ELECTED. They are often selected from the same NGOs that drafted the original document. Effectively, activism is thus rewarded with a lifetime career of writing Byzantine rules and regulations that please their original sponsors.

The process automatically forces production into the hands of those possessing means to manage the paperwork. Change the product and you’ll just have to reapply. Don’t worry about the backlog among all these paper-pushers; it will be the same for everybody, uh, won’t it? Although it would be really easy to tie up that hot new product with “questions” making it impossible to get into production, I just can’t imagine how anyone might influence a nameless bureaucrat in a foreign country working for a totally unaccountable agency with unlimited powers, do you?

So, the Copenhagen Treaty (along with many others) will effectively place the United States of America under a vast and inherently corrupt foreign government no matter what the final document says. The NGOs can change the meaning of it as they go anyway.

Still, if you are determined to read it, the current Copenhagen COP-15 document (all 180 pages of it) can be found here:

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON LONG-TERM COOPERATIVE ACTION UNDER THE CONVENTION, Seventh session, Bangkok, 28 September to 9 October 2009, and Barcelona, 2–6 November 2009, FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2 15 September 2009, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf.

[Publius6961]

I hate it when that happens.

The incompetent one.
The great divider accidentally got something right.

I realize that he is choosing his battles carefully, and he's no dummy.
Top of his agenda: distribute the wealth; tax opponents into impotence, that's goal #1.

I'll take whatever I can get.
Got to give him credit for that.

[Publius6961]

AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming

[Lucky9teen]

See my tagline ;)

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

Don't say there is no way this can happen.They have had back-door plans to this since 2008.

Obama can sign UN climate pact before US law-Kerry

[DungeonMaster]

0bama "failing" at climate change is the best thing he has ever "done."

Exactly the opinion I was hoping to see.

[SaraJohnson]

He acts and speaks like he has dictator powers where he can enter into wild and extreme international treaties w/o the approval of the Senate. He a lofty thing not quite in touch with reality.

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

Well said. Sadly people that think that our enactment laws will protect us are not paying attention to the radical corrupt back-door deals.

Besides... name anything Obama cannot get away with. The proof that is in the pudding is; no one calls Obama to the carpet for anything. Because he is immune under the guise of history; being the first black man as POTUS. Obama’s race card leaves him immune to; I will juncture to guess... anything.

If Obama came on LIVE TV right now and said the radical islam call to jihad in full perfect Arabic WHAT would our media do?

If Obama came on LIVE TV right now and released all of the 9/11 terrorists because they were not read their Miranda rights and they were tortured under the bad,boogeyman Bush/Cheney/CIA. What would our media do?

If Obama shot-down a terrorist act on an Army base to be investigated by congress and never spoke about it again yet continued to focus on the rights of 9/11 terrorists’. What would our media do?

[meandog]

Obama lies and ... Oh Nooooooooooo!

[TurtleUp]

I assume FreeRepublic has a blanket policy: No story pairing the words “Obama” and “failed” belongs in Breaking News.

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

Agreed. See my last few posts.

[Question Liberal Authority]

Only if the US manages to reduce its excessive energy consumption, commit itself to mandatory CO2 emission reduction targets and help finance the move away from oil for poorer countries, is there still a chance that countries like China and India will do the same and that a dangerous warming of the Earth can be stopped.

The United States ALREADY reduced its 'excessive' energy consumption by shutting down manufacturing plants in the USA (frequently for environmental reasons) and allowing countries such as India and China to take them over.

If the United States can produce goods and services with less 'environmental impact' than China and India, then the environmental crowd should DEMAND that the United States do so, immediately.

[Carry_Okie]

Perhaps you are right. Would you care to elaborate?

Too lazy to click the link I gave you?

Read it. I wrote it.

[upchuck]

Leftist effort meant to SHAME der reckless Obama into signing the damn pact.

-10nobama can sign this POS pact until he's blue in the face. Don't mean a thang unless 2/3 of the Senate (which he won't get, even with all the frigging RINOS) approves.

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

They will postpone his peace podium announcement until the deal is done. China gave Obama his orders watch what he does and it will be a done deal.

[Carry_Okie]

They can sign anything they want at Copenhagen, unless it gets ratified by the Sentate, it won’t mean a thing.

According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (which we ratified), all it takes is a signature.

[uncbob]

Let’s hope so

[your local physicist]

Sure he can sign an agreement if he wants to but it doesn't mean anything unless it's ratified by the senate, and that takes a two thirds majority. That will never happen, and so whatever happens in Copenhagen won't have any impact on US policy or the cap and tax bill.

AGW theory is one of the biggest cluster f***s I've ever seen by supposedly smart scientists. Some people have really gone out on a limb on this theory and the limb is about to be sawed off by the reality of no future increase in global temperatures.

[Carry_Okie]

I am inclined to agree with Madison, whom you quoted on your page (good information by the way):

Well, so am I, but that doesn't change the history of "settled law" or the fact that you would never get an impeachment upon such grounds today. The entire Federal regulatory apparatus rests upon it and therefore the basis for favors and dispensations both the Congress and the President has to sell.