More On The Climate Treaty

Many of us have been receiving e-mails about a speech given by Lord Christopher Monckton. The YouTube clip of his speech sets forth his concerns about a UN plan to created a world government based upon concerns about global warming.
He believes that if the U.S. signs any climate treaty coming out of the December climate change conference in Copenhagen, that it could move us closer to a global government. He contends that the treaty defines government in such a way as to lay the foundations for a world government that will "transfer wealth from the wealthy countries, such as the United States most of all, to Third World countries-and the excuse for this transfer is so-called reparation."
Why should the U.S. pay reparations? According to those promoting the treaty, the U.S. owes the world a "climate debt" because we have been using fossil fuels, which in turn are responsible for man made global warming.
Is it likely that President Obama would sign such a treaty? I think it is quite likely. But is it likely that two-thirds of the U.S. Senate would ratify such a treaty? I don't think that will happen. Will 67 out of 100 senators ratify a treaty that is more radical than the Kyoto Protocol? No. Remember when the Senate voted on Kyoto, it was defeated 99 to 0.
Constitutional lawyer Kelly Shackelford did point out that a federal judge might use the existence of the treaty to implement certain provisions. Cathie Adams (newly elected Chairwoman of the Texas Republican Party) has been to various U.N. meetings going all the way back to those that produced the Kyoto Protocol. She believes that Carol Browner (President Obama's Energy Czar) could use the treaty to enact various governmental initiatives and regulations in order to reduce carbon emissions.
Lord Monckton believes that the U.S. "is the cradle of freedom" and is hopeful that we will fight this treaty and "remain the beacon of freedom for the world." I have the same hope. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view