I just finished reading the draft Copenhagen Agreement, the UN Climate Change treaty that President Obama is expected to sign in December. Although the 181 pages are rambling and repetitive, with so many indistinguishable alternatives, it is very apparent that the Conference of Parties (COP) is planning to assume an unbelievable amount of power throughout the world – unilaterally subverting the sovereignty of each nation to its dictates.

The stated objective of the Copenhagen Agreement is to reduce global greenhouse gasses – a goal that seems innocuous on the surface. The real objective is a power grab to redistribute wealth from developed countries to undeveloped countries for the sake of “equity”. (It’s not fair that the Western world has created global warming conditions, so it must be punished. And it’s not fair that the undeveloped world is – well – undeveloped, so it must be given money.  Insignificant are the factors that caused the undeveloped world to be such. In fact, the treaty calls for the money to be given to the very dictators who are often responsible for keeping their people in impoverished conditions.)

Here are some of my concerns:

·        The COP gets to determine fines on developed countries that do not meet the goals set forth in the treaty, as well as how much each developed country must pay into a fund as punishment for past activities that may have caused global warming based on the “ability” of the country to pay. The COP gets to determine how these funds are distributed, taking into consideration the “needs” of the undeveloped countries. Is there any way to interpret this other than Karl Marx’s maxim: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”? Will there be limits on how much one country needs to pay? If not, can the COP force our government to raise taxes on Americans to whatever level the COP dictates?

·        The treaty calls for technologies to be shared with undeveloped countries. How would this work, given that individuals or private companies invent many of the technologies? Does this mean that our patent system must be done away with? Will our government have to take all inventions that the COP demands from its owners so the COP can give them to others as it sees fit? If so, who will want to invent green technologies?

·        The treaty calls for individual governments to redistribute land as appropriate to lower emissions, increase reforestation, and properly manage forests. Does this mean that we no longer will have property rights? Who is the arbiter of “appropriate”?

·        The treaty says that developed countries must allow migration due to global warming. Does this mean we must open our borders to anyone who claims that they are affected? Who decides whether these people have been affected by global warming, and how will this be measured?

·        The treaty says that all indigenous people must be represented in the decision-making process. How does COP define indigenous people? Will they possibly decide that the Israelis are not “indigenous” and allow the Palestinians to develop all economic and environmental policies for Israel? 

·        The treaty dictates that developed countries must determine that all imports from undeveloped countries do not adversely impact the undeveloped countries’ emissions or forestation. Does this mean that our government needs to monitor every international purchase made in our country? How will private businesses be able to verify that their purchases meet COP dictates without having the federal government make all purchases for them?

·        The treaty does not allow a country to use global warming threats as an excuse to not receive, or to levy duties on, imports. But there isn’t a definition of “global warming threats.” So would we be banned from refusing Chinese toys that contain lead, for example?

The treaty is legally binding, and the COP alone gets to make all determinations under it. The COP can veto a country’s environmental and economic plans. The COP can determine that a country is not meeting its goals under the treaty. The COP can determine any fines payable for not meeting goals. And the COP can increase collections from developed countries at any time due to its determination that undeveloped countries need the resources. And a signatory to the treaty cannot terminate its continued involvement under the treaty unless all other signatories agree.

Bottom line: if our President signs the Copenhagen Agreement, our representative republic, along with all other signatories, will be governed by an unelected United Nations committee under a treaty that leaves many questions and few concrete answers. Add to this that the UN constitution includes a clause at the end that any and all rights granted can be taken away by the UN at any time.

Americans have always wanted to leave a better world to our children. Will the Copenhagen Agreement lead to a better world? Even if we agree that global warming is threatening the earth and that people are the main cause of global warming, will this treaty lower global warming? Or is it all about redistributing the wealth and forming a perfect communist world?

If you believe the latter, please send this to all you know. And please call your representatives to let them know you do not support the Copenhagen Agreement.

Thank you.

It is said that you can judge a man by the company he keeps, so is it a stretch to judge the intentions of President Obama’s domestic and foreign policies by the people he has appointed to his administration?

Most have already heard about Van Jones, who resigned from his post of Environmental Czar due to his links to communism and the 9/11 conspiracy nuts. And some have heard about Cass Sunstein, the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, who believes animals should have the same rights as people. But there are so many more Obama advisers with out-of-the-mainstream beliefs that it is becoming extremely difficult to keep up with the revelations.

Over the course of the next few weeks, I will share some thoughts on what these people can tell us about the President’s potential policies. Some of my thoughts may seem whacky, but as we rang in 2009, who would have thought that the government would take over the banks and two automobile companies within a few short months?

1. Lisa P. Jackson and the EPA

On April 17, 2009, the EPA found that six man-made “greenhouse gases are contributing to air pollution that may endanger public health and welfare.”[1] One of the main culprits is carbon dioxide – the very carbon dioxide that each of us exhales with every breath we take throughout our lives.

If our breaths are killing our planet, isn’t it the EPA’s responsibility, as the governmental agency responsible for protecting our environment, to try to decrease the number of breaths exhaled by Americans over our lifetimes? Could this be the logic behind ObamaCare, under which rationing of healthcare by government bureaucrats will be the only way to keep costs from exploding? Perhaps this is also the reason that President Obama has been such a firm abortion-advocate during his entire political career.

In an August 28, 2009 article on the Huffington Post[2], the Obama-appointed EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, said that poor Americans are significantly more affected by this man-caused air pollution, which she implies is primarily caused by richer Americans. 

If richer Americans are causing most of the greenhouse gases, couldn’t we eliminate greenhouse gases by lowering economic prosperity so there are fewer richer Americans? Could this be the logic behind allowing the economic recession to continue to worsen? Additionally, this completely explains why then-Candidate Obama expressed his desire to “spread the wealth around.”

Check back regularly for more...