The United Nations is in the second week of its Climate Summit in Doha, Qatar, which is scheduled to wrap up on Friday, December 7. While little is expected as far as any major developments or agreements, that does not mean that those pushing fraudulent climate change are just going to go away. They have way too much invested to just roll over and die. In fact, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, found that the climate alarmists had received over $50 billion since 1990. That report was five years ago, so there is no doubt they have taken in even more, but it is the tactics of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations that really is most telling in all of this and ultimately they are using things like crony-science (yes I just made that up) to push an agenda to end state sovereignty, including the United States’ own sovereignty.
William F. Jasper writes at The New American:
Foremost among the groups that have been driving the global warming alarm bandwagon is the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). There are many think tanks affecting national policies, but the CFR, long ranked as the premier brain trust, is still the most influential. The UN Climate Summit in Doha will carry the CFR imprint in many ways, as have virtually all previous global conferences. Representing the U.S. government in Doha is President Obama’s Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern. Stern, who was previously a White House assistant to President Bill Clinton, played a role in U.S. negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. He was selected as Climate Envoy by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Todd Stern is a longtime member of the CFR.
Stern’s boss, Hillary Clinton, has explicitly confirmed what critics of the CFR have often charged: that the Council unofficially runs the U.S. State Department, and has virtually taken control of the entire executive branch of the federal government, regardless of which party may occupy the White House. In a famous speech at the Council on Foreign Relations’ Washington, D.C., office in 2009, Secretary Clinton referred to the CFR’s Pratt House headquarters in New York City as the “mother ship” and said she had been there often. She was glad, she said, that the CFR’s new Washington headquarters is so close to the State Department, making it easier to be “told what we should be doing and how we should think.”
Here is the opening paragraph of her address, after being introduced by CFR President Richard Haass:
Thank you very much, Richard, and I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.
So just what is the CFR putting out as marching orders for the U.S. State Department and others? According to a November 28, 2012 CFR “Expert Brief” titled A Transitional Climate Summit in Doha by Michael A. Levi, director of the council’s Program on Energy Security and Climate Change, climate change globally “threatens intensifying damages primarily in the future but requires strong action to curb emissions now.” He also goes on to warn that there are grave consequences for failure on the part of the U.S. to support more restrictive regulation concerning climate:
If the United States is isolated in its stance on financial or process issues, then it will suffer internationally. To prevent that, U.S. strategy will need to focus as much on keeping partners like Europe and Japan on a similar page as it does on the substance of any outcome. The United States will also come under fire for failing to cut its emissions sufficiently.
This sounds just like the fiscal cliff, debt ceiling, TARP, stimulus kind of talk. “If we don’t do something immediately the world will end!” Well, that is certainly not the case. Read any of Cheryl’s articles on climate change and there is plenty of information that addresses this nonsense.
The thing that becomes frightening is not that they say that the United States’ support is needed, but what this actually means. In a February 21, 2006 column titled State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era,wrote:
“Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the US, China, and India, accept emissions limits.”
“All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization,” affirms Haass. “At its core, globalization entails the increasing volume, velocity, and importance of flows — within and across borders — of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, e-mails, weapons and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction.”
According to Haass and the CFR, the only way to avoid having nations fail to support their climate agenda is to erode national sovereignty and move towards world government. Haass writes, “Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.”
So how does this affect us? Seeing that we have a Constitution, which not very many people in the federal government actually care to follow, this would make the document completely conditional for us and instead of dealing with just a bloated federal government, we would be dealing with a even more intrusive United Nations no doubt. As Haass went on to write, “Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute.”
“The goal,” says Haass “should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.”
Oh no! The only choices are fully sovereign states, world government, or anarchy. Hmmm, I think I would like to choose sovereign states. That has worked just fine. In fact, when sovereign states became part of a larger conglomeration, namely the United States, it wasn’t that it wasn’t a good idea because the people were overall of the mindset of freedom and individual responsibility, but we now see just what happens when the larger structure begins to encroach upon those things the people once held. Should I even bring up the spending issue we face as a collection of states? Now just imagine people from all over the world having a say in taxing you, determining your rights and what you can or cannot do. That will be nothing short of tyranny and it’s all coming under the guise of “climate” and “taking care of the planet.” Don’t fall for it.