CAN THE UNITED NATIONS JUST SHUT UP … OR GO AWAY …OR SOMETHING

I don’t recall the last the time the United Nations – the organization that puts terrorist nations on its Human Rights Council and condemns Israel with as much regularity as a teleprompter-free Barack Obama says, “uh” – took the moral high road and stood up for anything. I can’t remember when I was able to use the word “strength” and “courage” in the same sentence as the United Nations, other than to praise Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his magnificent speech there in September. The “body” that was created to prevent such atrocities as the Holocaust from ever happening again has afforded the world’s most dangerous terrorists, murderers, and violators of human rights a forum from which to spew their disgusting lies and hateful rhetoric. It is the Woodstock of moral depravity.

Of course, I say this from the perspective of one who believes it is the moral obligation of human beings to fight and defeat evil.

Others, unfortunately, don’t subscribe to that value system – or if they do, their definition of “evil” is often considerably different than my own.

Thus, if one believes the defining of evil is better approached as a subjective matter (i.e., one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter), then the United Nations really has nothing to stand up for – that is, aside from the universally accepted “evils” that are beyond deliberation, like global warming and climate change.

Those “evils” are given.

Trivialities (and inconveniences) such as ethnic cleansing, missile launches into civilian populations, and gross human rights violations simply don’t ruffle the feathers of the United Nations.

However, if one can somehow squeeze in the words “carbon emissions” or “climate change” into the discussion, there aren’t enough sandbags in all the world to hold back the fury to come.

The United Nation’s Climate Chief – a title that sounds as if it has to be made up – is drawing on his inner George S. Patton, saying that December’s global climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark had not only better yield an agreement that will save the planet from sure destruction, but it had better be enforceable.

Arthur Max of the Associated Press writes:

Developing countries don’t trust wealthy nations’ promises that they will help them meet the challenges of climate change, the U.N.’s top climate official said Monday, adding that means any new global warming deal must have legal force.

The legal status of an agreement and whether nations will be sanctioned for failing to meet their commitments are contentious issues in talks on controlling the world’s emissions of carbon and other heat-raising greenhouse gases.

“We live in a world of broken promises,” said Yvo de Boer, the U.N. climate chief, told The Associated Press. Developing countries are concerned “they will commit to targets and not deliver.”

He spoke as negotiators resumed work Monday on a draft agreement for approval at a major U.N. conference next month in the Danish capital of Copenhagen.

Actually, we live in world of twisted morality and warped value systems, Mr. Climate Chief.

“We expect the United States to be able to deliver on one of the major challenges of our century,” said Danish Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard, who will chair the Copenhagen meeting.

Hedegaard noted that President Barack Obama will be receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in the neighboring country of Norway on Dec. 10 — just as the decisive climate conference is under way.

“It’s very hard to imaging how the American president can receive the Nobel prize for his contributions to hope in the world … and at the same time has sent an empty-handed delegation to Copenhagen,” said the Danish minister.

The bills in Congress would commit the U.S. to reduce emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases by 17 to 20 percent from 2005 levels.

Ah, yes. The President of the United States did, in fact, win the Nobel Peace Prize. I should have remembered that. As I recall, it had something to do with “hope” and “change” or some other utterly meaningless hyperbole that has literally contributed nothing – repeat, nothing – to peace.

I cannot help but wonder if the children of Israel, who had to contend with terrorist missiles raining down on their neighborhoods, managed to summon at least a little bit of that Obama “hope” as the weapons fell from the sky.

If not, what the hell was wrong with them?

And note that Mr. Hedegaard specifically pointed out how difficult it would be to fathom a Nobel Peace Prize winner, like Barack Obama, not bringing back an American-economy crippling, climate saving bill to Copenhagen next month – further proof, that the bogus prize was handed out not because of the impressive accomplishments of the one-time Community Organizer from Chicago, but as a call from leftist Europe as to what is expected of him.

Using history as our guide, take a moment and contemplate this question …

If greenhouse gases actually were a problem, and if they could be personified, would they have anything to worry about at all?

This is, after all, the United Nations we’re talking about.

The Lucky Charms leprechaun is quicker to intimidate than the UN.

–

LORD MONCKTON – BRITISH VOICE FOR AMERICA

One of the favorite stops on my daily trek through cyberspace is the great Vocal Minority blog. Besides being informative, it is always enjoyable and peppered with passion. Indeed, Eric is someone who knows how to fight the good fight.

One of the tag lines used regularly at Vocal Minority is “Welcome to the future, suckers.”

It isn’t just a funny throw-away line.

It isn’t just another way of saying, “See? I told you so.”

It is the reality of a Leftist freight train bearing down at full speed on the institutions and values that have defined America for over two centuries … and America is sitting on the tracks.

A couple of nights ago, on Mark Levin’s radio program, he played an audio clip of Great Britain’s Lord Christopher Monckton who was addressing the Minnesota Free Market Institute at Bethel University in St. Paul last week. In his remarkable speech, Lord Monckton warned, in no uncertain terms, of the dangers that face the United States should President Barack Obama sign the proposed Global Climate Change Treaty being negotiated in Copenhagen. 

It was an important recitation – an admonition of the highest order that must be taken seriously.

Please take the time to read the transcript (or watch the video clip).

At 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 regimes of the world and the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I have 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 satisfaction of what is called, coyly, ‘a climate debt’ – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t, and we’ve been screwing up the climate. (We haven’t been screwing up the climate, but that’s the line). 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 two-hundred 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, and took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year because they’d captured it – Now the apotheosis is at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies for that point of view, he’s going to sign. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Laureate. Of course, he’ll sign it.

And the trouble is this … If that treaty is signed, (that) constitution says that it takes precedence over your constitution, and you can’t reign from that treaty unless you get the agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out.

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 prosperity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back again. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or no.

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, economically speaking, there’s nothing we can do about 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

Eric at Vocal Minority writes:

Monckton, a one-time science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, knows that this climate bill is the end of American prosperity and exceptionalism. Funny we need a foreigner to point this out to us.

Funny, indeed.

One of the arguments I’ve read against Lord Monckton’s assessment (in an attempt to discredit his entire position) is his “misunderstanding” of how the treaty process in the United States works. Because a treaty is only a treaty with two-thirds advice and consent from the Senate (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, US Constitution), anything the President signs in Copenhagen would (presumably) be “binding” in the same way the North American Free Trade Agreement is – that is, a congressional-executive agreement requiring a simple majority Congressional vote with a provision to withdraw if certain conditions are met.

Technically speaking, the criticism is correct.

But relying on the “constitutional limitations” argument is both naive and dangerous, particularly because even the most rudimentary review of this nation’s history reveals scores of examples of those limitations being violated or abused. (Franklin D. Roosevelt anyone?)

How, for example, does Social Security exist if the Constitution is as unassailable as Monckton’s detractors claim? How is it that Medicare and Medicaid exist if the constitution’s limitations are as impregnable as some would believe? Explain how campaign finance reform, as spelled out in McCain-Feingold, can exist when there is a First Amendment?  What specifically in the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to seize the health care industry? And don’t get me started on the constitutionally unaccountable “czars” that litter the federal government like so many autumn leaves on the driveway.

These are, of course, the same people who speak of a “living, beathing” constitution.

Suddenly, conveniently, its limitations are relevant.

–