By Stephen D’Allotte, EdTimes staff. With the fuss over the little film on YouTube denigrating the Prophet of Islam being used as an excuse to escalate, Muslim radicals and Imams (who, in my view, are synonymous with radical Islam), continue … Continue reading
This gallery contains 1 photos.
By Stephen D’Allotte, September 8, 2012. EdTimes Staff The internet chattering classes were certainly abuzz a couple of weeks ago when a few less than stellar females ratted Harry out on a “stays in Vegas” play weekend. A few moments … Continue reading
Published in: Melanie’s blog
Glad to see others also realising that organised agitation as well as opportunistic anarchy has been fuelling the British riots, which have now spread from London to other cities.
The most frightening aspect of these events is clearly the fact that the Metropolitan Police has been so conspicuously unable to get on top of the criminality and restore order. Indeed, a significant fact behind the rioting, looting, torching of buildings and unprovoked attacks on passers-by has been the perceived weakness of the police and that the thugs thus realise that nothing can stop them smashing up whatever or whomever they choose and stealing whatever they want.
If these disorders continue to escalate, the government will have no option but to call the army onto the streets. That of course would be an appalling indictment of both police and government in allowing the capital city to degenerate into such chaos that the only way to restore order is to abandon the civilian framework and call instead upon forces trained to make war. But the dismaying fact is that the Metropolitan Police has been unable to cope with what has happened, from a failure of intelligence at the beginning to a failure of strategy and tactics on the ground, because it is quite simply a force in disarray.
I wrote in yesterday’s Daily Mail that I was disturbed to read that the Home Office was thwarting the Prime Minister’s wish to hire the iconic American ex-police chief Bill Bratton to run the Met. At Conservative Home, Tim Montgomerie agrees. The collapse of the professional ethic of policing which has brought the Met so low extends throughout the country. So despite the obvious disadvantages, hiring an outsider untainted by this culture would seem to be essential. And Bratton’s record in turning round an ineffectual and demoralised force and transforming a lawless city into a law-abiding one is second to none. If I was sure of this yesterday, I am even more sure of it today—and what’s more, that he is needed in the UK right now.
I have written for more than two decades on the various elements that have contributed to this collapse of order: family breakdown and mass fatherlessness; the toleration and even encouragement of grossly inadequate parenting; educational collapse which damages most those at the bottom of the social heap; welfare dependency; political correctness and the vicious injustices and moral inversion of victim culture; the grossly irresponsible toleration of soft drug-taking; the shuddering distaste at the notion of punishment and the consequent collapse of authority in the entire criminal justice system; the implosion of the policing ethic and the police retreat from the streets; the increasing organisation and boldness of anarchist and left-wing subversive activity; and the growth of irrationality, narcissistic self-centredness and mob rule and the near-certainty of a fundamental breakdown of morality and order.
To every one of these arguments that I have made over the years, the left has responded with jeers and smears. Now, as terrified citizens see their homes and businesses torched, looters queue up in order more efficiently to steal from shattered shops and passing motor-cyclists are dragged off their machines and beaten up and robbed –all with near-total impunity — we can see all these chickens coming so frighteningly home to roost.
[Melanie Phillips is a British journalist and author. She is best known for her controversial column about political and social issues which currently appears in the Daily Mail. Awarded the Orwell Prize for journalism in 1996, she is the author of All Must Have Prizes, an acclaimed study of Britain's educational and moral crisis, which provoked the fury of educationists and the delight and relief of parents.]
that followed a long and no doubt deeply introspective courtship, Britain (and Will!) has, I think, acquired a most regal, most beautiful, and entirely capable Queen for William V, upon his ascension to the throne.
Watching her closely through the service and in various videos, this is no wallflower and shrinking violet. Kate demonstrated in presence, poise and performance, that while she was the star of the show and this was hers and Will’s wedding, she wasn’t “along for the ride”. She shared the spotlight graciously with all close to her that had a hand in bringing it all together, most especially with her exquisitely presented maid of honour, sister Pippa, and all of the kids. Without question, another jewel has been added to the British crown.
While it is fashionable amongst some to denigrate the monarchy for basically being who they are; these are working royals. Unbeknown to most, in the days previous to the wedding, William as Flt Lt. Wales, SAR pilot, attempted to rescue with his helicopter, a woman who fallen down a cliff, by trying to get a paramedic to her on the heli’s hoist. They were unable to rescue her in time.
As all Search And Rescue personnel know and understand, this is the truly difficult part of SAR – not being able to complete the mission, despite all best efforts, and so, William will depend heavily on his beautiful and capable new bride, to fulfill not only the pomp and foolery that comes with the trappings of royalty, but in those most private of moments, to comfort and sustain him in the other reality in which he lives. My read is that they have chosen each other wisely and carefully, and Britain may come to revere their new queen-in-waiting.
The following video from youtube is an excellent compendium of web images of Kate over time, and makes for a stunning portfolio of a stunning woman. Enjoy.
By Mark Steyn, Sunday, 01 May 2011
Here’s an unusual stroke of luck: On the eve of election day, all that stands between Canada and an historic political realignment is Jack Layton’s “happy ending” in a Toronto massage parlour. It’s not unusual in election campaigns for something to pop up at the last minute but I hadn’t expected it to be the NDP leader’s …oh, never mind, you don’t really need a professional for this, do you?
Before the revelations of Mr Layton’s encounter with Toronto’s vice squad, the Grits were on course to an unprecedented defeat. The Liberal Party of Canada is the most successful political party in the western world: It governed the nation for over two-thirds of the 20th century – a grip on power in a G7 nation unmatched by the US Democrats, the British Tories or anybody else. Its worst election result was the Dominion of Canada’s very first, back in 1867, when its share of the vote was a smidgeonette under 23 per cent. It was all but certain to do worse than that tomorrow night. And for the first time in the nation’s history the Liberals would be neither the Government nor the Official Opposition, but down in the also-rans vying with the Bloc Québécois for third place.
And then suddenly Happy Jack’s happy hour at what he calls a “community clinic” came along and put a big question mark over the NDP’s happy ending. When something unexpected breaks on the weekend before an election, it’s not an accident, and it always happens to the party doing well: You put it out there, there’s no time to poll, there’s barely time to do all but the most perfunctory damage control. Andrew Coyne, Jonathan Kay and, of course, Catsmeat Kinsella are among the media types bragging that they knew all about this story two years ago but, unlike Mr Layton, decided to keep it buttoned up. Mr Kay says it was a “Liberal fixer” who told him, and certainly this last minute leak has the Grits’ sticky fingers all over it. I mean, I’d like to think the Tory oppo-research hit team were nimble enough to plant this and frame the Liberals, but there’s not a lot of evidence they’re anywhere near that good. Whereas a party of such renowned “ass-kickers” as the Liberals would surely be savvy enough to figure out that if they broke this on Sun TV they might easily damage both their political opponents. Either way, poor old Jack never saw it comi …oh, forget it.
In normal circumstances, the revelation that a party leader had been found naked during a police raid on a house of ill repute would surely put a dent in his chances of being either Prime Minister or Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. But in this instance I’m not so sure Jacked Layton won’t enjoy a sudden last-minute surge. The dominant narrative of this election campaign has been the shrinkage of the post-Chrétien Liberal Party, and Masturgate (or Wankerquiddick, according to taste) doesn’t so much arrest it as confirm it. As I wrote six years ago:
Every week or so I get an e-mail along the following lines: “I was wondering if you could tell me what are the beliefs and philosophy of the Liberal Party of Canada.” It’s usually from a student of politics in America, Britain, New Zealand, India or Denmark, raising his eyes from the local scene and momentarily stunned into fascination by the dominance, unmatched in the free world, of the deranged Dominion’s ruling party. But that’s looking at it the wrong way. In a one-party state, the one party in power attracts not those interested in the party, but those interested in power.
So, when the “natural governing party” finds itself in the unnatural state of not governing, it has a huge number of hacks, opportunists, careerists and other mediocrities frantic to get back to enjoying their perks. The more high-minded ones think the answer is a philosopher-king like Trudeau. But there are none to hand within the jurisdiction, so they import a philosopher-king across the water from Harvard and the BBC. Alas, seeking to find a message that resonates with the people, the philosopher-king, unlike Mr Layton’s masseuse, can’t quite put his finger on it. And so the less high-minded hacks and opportunists decide that, with the once powerful party machine rusting up before their eyes, they might as well take it out for a spin one last time.
I gather the NDP spokeslady pointed out that, apropos Mr Layton’s Saturday night special, no charges were laid. Isn’t that an old vaudeville routine? Because the evidence wouldn’t stand up in court? Oh, well. “I went for a massage at a community clinic,” Layton told reporters in Burnaby, BC. “The police advised it wasn’t the greatest place to be, so I left and I never went back.”
Sure. Pity they didn’t say the same thing about his appointment at CASMO. Either that, or this is the new Islamist massage parlour and the otherwise attractive hostess has a faint touch of five o’clock shadow as she presents Jack with a souvenir clock showing the time he promised the Taliban he’d pull out by.
When this whole sorry episode is over, Iggy will be telling pretty much the same story to US Immigration about his long vacation: “I went for a quickie in Canada. Shortly after 7pm on Monday night I was advised it wasn’t the greatest place to be, so I left and I never went back.”
This is the way the Liberal world ends, not with a bang but a …oh, to hell with it.
The abdication of the West
From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Cancun, Mexico, Dec 9th, 2010
I usually add some gentle humor to these reports. Not today. Read this and weep. Notwithstanding the carefully-orchestrated propaganda to the effect that nothing much will be decided at the UN climate conference here in Cancun, the decisions to be made here this week signal nothing less than the abdication of the West. The governing class in what was once proudly known as the Free World is silently, casually letting go of liberty, prosperity, and even democracy itself. No one in the mainstream media will tell you this, not so much because they do not see as because they do not bl**dy care.
The 33-page Note (FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/CRP.2) by the Chairman of the “Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Co-operative Action under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”, entitled Possible elements of the outcome, reveals all. Or, rather, it reveals nothing, unless one understands what the complex, obscure jargon means. All UNFCCC documents at the Cancun conference, specifically including Possible elements of the outcome, are drafted with what is called “transparent impenetrability”. The intention is that the documents should not be understood, but that later we shall be told they were in the public domain all the time, so what are we complaining about?
Since the Chairman’s note is very long, I shall summarize the main points:
Finance: Western countries will jointly provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to an unnamed new UN Fund. To keep this sum up with GDP growth, the West may commit itself to pay 1.5% of GDP to the UN each year. That is more than twice the 0.7% of GDP that the UN has recommended the West to pay in foreign aid for the past half century. Several hundred of the provisions in the Chairman’s note will impose huge financial costs on the nations of the West.
The world-government Secretariat: In all but name, the UN Convention’s Secretariat will become a world government directly controlling hundreds of global, supranational, regional, national and sub-national bureaucracies. It will receive the vast sum of taxpayers’ money ostensibly paid by the West to the Third World for adaptation to the supposed adverse consequences of imagined (and imaginary) “global warming”.
Bureaucracy: Hundreds of new interlocking bureaucracies answerable to the world-government Secretariat will vastly extend its power and reach. In an explicit mirroring of the European Union’s method of enforcing the will of its unelected Kommissars on the groaning peoples of that benighted continent, the civil servants of nation states will come to see themselves as servants of the greater empire of the Secretariat, carrying out its ukases and diktats whatever the will of the nation states’ governments.
Many of the new bureaucracies are disguised as “capacity-building in developing countries”. This has nothing to do with growing the economies or industries of poorer nations. It turns out to mean the installation of hundreds of bureaucratic offices answerable to the Secretariat in numerous countries around the world. Who pays? You do, gentle taxpayer.
Babylon, Byzantium, the later Ottoman Empire, the formidable bureaucracy of Nazi Germany, the vast empire of 27,000 paper-shufflers at the European Union: add all of these together and multiply by 100 and you still do not reach the sheer size, cost, power and reach of these new subsidiaries of the Secretariat.
In addition to multiple new bureaucracies in every one of the 193 states parties to the Convention, there will be:
an Adaptation Framework Body,
a Least Developed Countries’ Adaptation Planning Body,
an Adaptation Committee, Regional Network Centers,
an International Center to Enhance Adaptation Research,
National Adaptation Institutions,
a Body to Clarify Assumptions and Conditions in National Greenhouse-Gas Emission Reductions Pledges,
a Negotiating Body for an Overall Level of Ambition for Aggregate Emission Reductions and Individual Targets,
an Office to Revise Guidelines for National Communications,
a Multilateral Communications Process Office,
a Body for the Process to Develop Modalities and Guidelines for the Compliance Process,
a Registry of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions by Developed Countries,
a Body to Supervise the Process for Understanding Diversity of Mitigation Actions Submitted and Support Needed,
a Body to Develop Modalities for the Registry of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions,
an Office of International Consultation and Analysis,
an Office to Conduct a Work Program for Development of Various Modalities and Guidelines,
a network of Developing Countries’ National Forest Strategy Action Plan Offices,
a network of National Forest Reference Emission Level And/Or Forest Reference Level Bodies,
a network of National Forest Monitoring Systems,
an Office of the Work Program on Agriculture to Enhance the Implementation of Article 4, Paragraph 1(c) of the Convention Taking Into Account Paragraph 31,
one or more Mechanisms to Establish a Market-Based Approach to Enhance the Cost-Effectiveness Of And To Promote Mitigation Actions,
a Forum on the Impact of the Implementation of Response Measures,
a Work Program Office to Address the Impact of the Implementation of Response Measures,
a Body to Review the Needs of Developing Countries for Financial Resources to Address Climate Change and Identify Options for Mobilization of Those Resources,
a Fund in Addition to the Copenhagen Green Fund,
an Interim Secretariat for the Design Phase of the New Fund,
a New Body to Assist the Conference of the Parties in Exercising its Functions with respect to the Financial Mechanism,
a Body to Launch a Process to Further Define the Roles and Functions of the New Body to Assist the Conference of the Parties in Exercising its Functions with respect to the Financial Mechanism,
a Technology Executive Committee,
a Climate Technology Center and Network,
a Network of National, Regional, Sectoral and International Technology Centers, Networks, Organization and Initiatives,
Twinning Centers for Promotion of North-South, South-South and Triangular Partnerships with a View to Encouraging Co-operative Research and Development,
an Expert Workshop on the Operational Modalities of the Technology Mechanism,
an International Insurance Facility,
a Work Program Body for Policy Approaches and Positive Incentives on Issues Relating to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries,
a Body to Implement a Work Program on the Impact of the Implementation of Response Measures,
and a Body to Develop Modalities for the Operationalization of the Work Program on the Impact of the Implementation of Response Measures.
The world government’s powers: The Secretariat will have the power not merely to invite nation states to perform their obligations under the climate-change Convention, but to compel them to do so. Nation states are to be ordered to collect, compile and submit vast quantities of information, in a manner and form to be specified by the secretariat and its growing army of subsidiary bodies. Between them, they will be given new powers to verify the information, to review it and, on the basis of that review, to tell nation states what they can and cannot do.
Continuous expansion: The verb “enhance”, in its various forms, occurs at least 28 times in the Chairman’s note, Similar verbs, such as “strengthen” and “extend”, and adjectives such as “scaled-up”, “new” and “additional”, are also frequently deployed, particularly in relation to funding at the expense of Western taxpayers. If all of the “enhancements” proposed in the note were carried out, the cost would comfortably exceed the annual $100 billion (or, for that matter, the 1.5% of GDP) that the note mentions as the cost to the West over the coming decade.
Intellectual property in inventions: Holders of patents, particularly in fields related to “global warming” and its mitigation, will be obliged to transfer the benefits of their inventiveness to developing countries without payment of royalties. This is nowhere explicitly stated in the Chairman’s note, but the transfer of technology is mentioned about 20 times in the draft, suggesting that the intention is still to carry out the explicit provision in the defunct Copenhagen Treaty draft of 15 September 2009 to this effect.
Insurance: The Secretariat proposes, in effect, to interfere so greatly in the operation of the worldwide insurance market that it will cease to be a free market, with the usual severely adverse consequences to everyone in that market.
The free market: The failed Copenhagen Treaty draft stipulated that the “government” that would be established would have the power to set the rules of all formerly free markets. There would be no such thing as free markets any more. In Cancun, the Chairman’s note merely says that various “market mechanisms” may be exploited by the Secretariat and by the parties to the Convention: but references to these “market mechanisms” are frequent enough to suggest that the intention remains to stamp out free markets worldwide.
Knowledge is power: The Chairman’s note contains numerous references to a multitude of new as well as existing obligations on nation states to provide information to the Secretariat, in a form and manner which it will dictate. The hand of the EU is very visible here.
It grabbed power from the member-states in four stages: first, acting merely as a secretariat to ensure stable supplies of coal and steel to rebuild Europe after the Second World War; then as a registry requiring member states to supply it with ever more information; then as a review body determining on the basis of the information supplied by the member states whether they were complying with their obligations on the ever-lengthier and more complex body of European treaties; and finally as the ultimate law-making authority, to which all elected parliaments, explicitly including the European “Parliament”, were and are subject. Under the Cancun propsoals, the Secretariat is following the path that the plague of EU officials here have no doubt eagerly advised it to follow. It is now taking numerous powers not merely to require information from nation states but to hold them to account for their supposed international obligations under the climate-change Convention on the basis of the information the nations are now to be compelled to supply.
Propaganda: The Chairman’s note contains several mentions of the notion that the peoples of the world need to be told more about climate change. Here, too, there is a parallel with the EU, which administers a propaganda fund of some $250 million a year purely to advertise its own wonderfulness to an increasingly sceptical population. The IPCC already spends millions every year with PR agencies, asking them to find new ways of making its blood-curdling message more widely understood and feared among ordinary people. The Secretariat already has the advantage of an uncritical, acquiescent, scientifically illiterate, economically innumerate and just plain dumb news media: now it will have a propaganda fund to play with as well.
Damage caused by The Process: At the insistence of sensible nation states such as the United States, the Czech Republic, Japan, Canada, and Italy, the Cancun outcome acknowledges that The Process is causing, and will cause, considerable economic damage, delicately described in the Chairman’s note as “unintended side-effects of implementing climate-change response measures”. The solution? Consideration of the catastrophic economic consequences of the Secretariat’s heroically lunatic decisions will fall under the control of – yup – the Secretariat. Admire its sheer gall.
Damage to world trade: As the power, wealth and reach of the Secretariat grow, it finds itself rubbing uncomfortably up against other supranational organizations. In particular, the World Trade Organization has been getting antsy about the numerous aspects of the Secretariat’s proposals that constitute restrictions on international trade. At several points, the Chairman’s note expresses the “decision” – in fact, no more than an opinion and a questionable one at that – that the Secretariat’s policies are not restrictive of trade.
The Canute provision: The conference will reaffirm the decision of its predecessor in Copenhagen this time last year “to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels”, just like that. In fact, temperature in central England, and by implication globally, rose 2.2 Celsius in the 40 years 1695-1735, as the Sun began to recover from its 11,400-year activity minimum, and rose again by 0.74 C in the 20th century. There has been no warming in the 21st century, but we are already well over 2 Celsius degrees above pre-industrial levels. The Canute provision, as some delegates have dubbed it (after the Danish king of early England who famously taught his courtiers the limitations of his power and, a fortiori, theirs when he set up his throne on the beach and commanded sea level not to rise, whereupon the tide came in as usual and wet the royal feet), shows the disconnect between The Process and reality.
Omissions: There are several highly-significant omissions, which jointly and severally establish that the central intent of The Process no longer has anything to do with the climate, if it ever had. The objective is greatly to empower and still more greatly to enrich the international classe politique at the expense of the peoples of the West, using the climate as a pretext, so as to copy the European Union by installing in perpetuity what some delegates here are calling “transnational perma-Socialism” beyond the reach or recall of any electorate. Here are the key omissions:
* The science: The question whether any of this vast expansion of supranational power is scientifically necessary is not addressed. Instead, there is merely a pietistic affirmation of superstitious faith in the IPCC, where the conference will “recognize that deep cuts in global [greenhouse-gas] emissions are required according to science, and as documented in the [IPCC’s] Fourth Assessment Report.”
* The economics: There is no assessment of the extent to which any of the proposed actions to mitigate “global warming” by cutting emissions of carbon dioxide or to adapt the world to its consequences will be cost-effective. Nor, tellingly, is there any direct comparison between mitigation and adaptation in their cost-effectiveness: indeed, the IPCC was carefully structured so that mitigation and adaptation are considered by entirely separate bureaucracies producing separate reports, making any meaningful comparison difficult. Though every economic analysis of this central economic question, other than that of the now-discredited Lord Stern, shows that mitigation is a pointless fatuity and that focused adaptation to the consequences of any “global warming” that may occur would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective, the Cancun conference outcome will continue to treat mitigation as being of equal economic utility with adaptation.
* Termination: Contracts have termination clauses to say what happens when the agreement ends. Nothing better illustrates the intent to create a permanent world-government structure than the absence of any termination provisions whatsoever in the Cancun outcome. The Process, like diamonds, is forever.
* Democracy: Forget government of the people, by the people, for the people. Forget the principle of “no taxation without representation” that led to the very foundation of the United States. The provisions for the democratic election of the new, all-powerful, legislating, tax-raising world-government Secretariat by the peoples of the world may be summarized in a single word: None.
How did this monstrous transfer of power from once-proud, once-sovereign, once-democratic nations to the corrupt, unelected Secretariat come about? The story begins with Sir Maurice Strong, an immensely wealthy UN bureaucrat from Canada who, a quarter of a century ago, established the IPCC as an intergovernmental, political body rather than as a scientific body precisely so that it could be maneuvered into assisting in the UN’s long-term aim, reiterated at a summit of senior UN officials this May by Ban Ki-Moon himself, of extinguishing national sovereignty and establishing a world government.
The Process began in earnest in 1988, when the IPCC was established. Shortly thereafter, on a June day in Washington DC deliberately chosen by Al Gore because it was unusually hot, his political ally and financial benefactor James Hansen appeared before a Congressional committee and put before it a wildly-exaggerated graph predicting global warming over the coming 20 or 30 years. Yet June 2008, the 20th anniversary of his testimony, was cooler globally than June 1988, and worldwide warming has happened at less than half the rate he predicted.
The Rio Earth Summit in 1992 allowed environmental groups and world “leaders” to grandstand together. From that summit emerged the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which began holding annual conferences on “global warming”.
The Kyoto Protocol in 1997 committed its signatories to cut back their national CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2012. Most are not going to make it. The US Senate, with Al Gore as its president, voted 95-0 to reject any treaty such as Kyoto, which bound only the West while leaving developing nations such as China to emit carbon dioxide without constraint.
Very little progress had been made by the time of the Bali conference in 2007: but at that conference a “road-map” was constructed that was to lead to a binding international treaty in Copenhagen in 2009.
Just one problem with that. The US Constitution provides that, even if the President has signed a treaty, his signature is meaningless unless the treaty has been debated in the Senate, which must ratify it by the votes of at least 67 of the 100 Senators. It became clear to everyone, after the Obama administration failed to cajole or bully even 60 Senators into passing the Waxman/Markey cap-and-tax Bill, that no climate treaty would pass the Senate.
Worse, the Secretariat grossly overreached itself. Believing its own propaganda to the effect that none but a few vexatious, fossil-funded sceptics believed that “global warming” would be small enough to be harmless, it drafted and posted up on its website a 186-page draft Treaty of Copenhagen, proposing to turn itself into an unelected world government with unlimited powers to impose direct taxation on member nations without representation, recourse or recall, to interfere directly in the environmental policies of individual nations, and to sweep away all free markets worldwide, replacing them with itself as the sole rulemaker in every marketplace (treaty draft, annex 1, articles 36-38). Some quotations from the draft reveal the sheer ambition of the UN:
“The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism. … The government will be ruled by the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies.” (Copenhagen Treaty draft of September 15, 2009, para. 38).
The three central powers that the UN had hoped to grant itself under the guise of Saving The Planet from alleged climate catastrophe were as follows:
“Government”: This use of the word “government” is the first use of the term to describe a world government in any international treaty draft.
“Financial mechanism”: The “financial mechanism” was a delicate phrase to describe a new power of the UN to levy unlimited taxation directly on the peoples of its member states: taxation without representation, and on a global scale.
“Facilitative mechanism”: This mechanism would, for the first time, have given the UN he power directly to coerce and compel compliance on the part of its member states, by force if necessary. The Treaty draft describes it as –
“… a facilitative mechanism drawn up to facilitate the design, adoption and carrying out of public policies, as the prevailing instrument, to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate.”
In short, there was to be a New World Order, with a “government” having at its command a “financial mechanism” in the form of unlimited rights to tax the world’s citizen’s directly, and a “facilitative mechanism” that would bring the rules of all formerly free markets under the direct control of the new UN “government”, aided by an already-expanding series of bureaucracies.
At no point anywhere in the 186 pages of the Treaty draft do the words “democracy”, “election”, “ballot”, or “vote” appear. As the EU has already demonstrated, the transfer of powers from sovereign democracies to supranational entities brings those democracies to an end. At the supranational level, in the UN, in the EU and in the proposed world government, decisions are not made by anyone whom we, the voters, have elected to make such decisions.
The exposure of the draft treaty in major international news media panicked the UN into abandoning the draft before the Copenhagen conference even began. Instead, the UN is now legislating crabwise, as the European Union does, with a series of successive annual agreements, the last of which was the Copenhagen Accord, each transferring more power and wealth from individual nations to its supranational bureaucracy. The latest of these agreements is being finalized here in Cancun.
The European Union, which has stealthily stamped out democracy over the past half-century by a series of treaties each transferring a little more power and wealth from elected hands in the member states to unelected hands in Brussels, has been advising the Secretariat on how to do the same on a global scale.
After the spectacular bloody nose the Secretariat got in Copenhagen, it was most anxious not to endure a second failure in Cancun. To this end, it obtained the agreement of the German government to host a monthly series of conferences in Bonn in the early part of 2010, some of which were open to outside observers and some were behind closed doors in a comfortable suburban palace, where the new way of legislating for the world – in secret – first came into use.
The Chinese regime, anxious to get a piece of the action, agreed to host an additional session in Tientsin a few weeks ago. The purpose of this near-perpetual international junketing – which the national delegates have greatly enjoyed at our expense – was to make sure that nearly all of the elements in the Cancun agreement were firmly in draft and agreed well before Cancun, so as to avoid what too many journalists have tediously and obviously described as a “Mexican stand-off”.
It is precisely because of all this massive and expensive preparation that the note by the Chairman, whose main points are summarized above, may well reflect what is finally decided and announced here in a couple of days’ time. The Chairman is not simply guessing: this Note reflects what the Secretariat now confidently expects to get away with.
However, following the Copenhagen disaster, our grim future New Masters are taking no chances. They persuaded their friends in the mainstream news media, who cannot now easily back out of their original declarations of blind faith in the Church of “Global Warming” and are as anxious not to lose face as the Secretariat is, to put it about that at Cancun this year and even at Durban next year very little of substance will occur.
The intention is that, after not one but two international climate conferences, the second of them in Rio in 2012 on the 20th anniversary of the Earth Summit that began it all, the Secretariat will have become so wealthy and will have accreted so much power to itself that no one – not even the US Senate – will dare to resist ratifying the Treaty of Rio that brings democracy to an end worldwide and fulfils Lord Mandelson’s recent statement that “we are now living in a post-democratic age.”
Over my dead body. The people know best what is best for the people. The governing class no doubt knows what is best for the governing class, but does not necessarily know what is best for the people, and must always be kept in check by the ballot-box.
If we are to have a world government at all (and, as the science of “global warming” alarm continues to collapse, the current pretext for world domination by a privileged few is wearing more than a little thin), then it is essential that the world government should be an elected government, and that, as Article 1, Section 1 of the US Constitution makes plain when it grants “All legislative power” to the elected Congress and to the now-elected Senate, none shall make laws for the world or impose taxes upon the world except those whom the people of the world have elected by universal secret ballot.
How can we, the people, defeat the Secretariat and keep the democracy we love? Simply by informing our elected representatives of the scope, ambition, and detail of what is in the Cancun agreement. The agreement will not be called a “Treaty”, because the Senate, particularly after the mid-term elections, will not pass it. But it can still be imposed upon us by the heavily Left-leaning Supreme Court, which no longer makes any pretense at judicial impartiality and may well decide, even if Congress does not, that the Cancun agreement shall stand part of US law on the ground that it is “customary international law”.
What to do? Send this blog posting to your legislators. It is their power, as well as yours, that is being taken away; their democracy, as well as yours, that will perish from the Earth unless this burgeoning nonsense is stopped.