International corruption and impotence …

One of my biggest pet peeves involving the United Nations is that they ONLY pretend to be a democratic representation of the world’s nations. Like all other political organizations, it is a hotbed of self-interest corruption, power brokering and public relations activity which mask its true impotency and promotes a dangerous reliance on an organization that lacks the guts to stand up for what is right over what is wrong.

How else can you explain their feigned ignorance of genocide? How else can you explain the cut-and-run behavior of so-called United Nations “Blue Hat” enforcement details? How else could you explain a non-governmental body that cedes the leadership of a committee on human rights to some of the worst violators of human rights in history? And how do they reconcile the wishes of those to live in a repressive 12th-century manner that openly promotes violence against non-believers?

This is the type of international panel, comprised mainly of lawyers and failed politicians that is being proposed.

Handing our enemies a loaded gun?

Against this type of international background, why would we even consider any extra-legal commission, court or panel which usurps the sovereignty of the United States in favor of a world filled with nations and leaders who do not wish us well – and are openly using our own Constitution and freedoms against us as they promote their malevolent agenda.

Lawyers do what lawyers do: first insure their survival and continuing income stream …

“Lawyers call for international court for the environment” 

“A former chairman of the Bar Council is calling for an international court for the environment to punish states that fail to protect wildlife and prevent climate change.”

First mistake …

The first assumption that man is responsible for global weather change is highly speculative and quite presumptive of the part of lawyers. Especially since the world’s scientists are not in agreement about the measurements, the causes or the remedies.

Second mistake …

There are some species which will die as a matter of the workings of nature. Shall we be forced to suspend human progress, cede control over our lives to politicians and spend inordinate amounts of money to save every last species? We have seen the great cost of allowing the snail darters of this world to halt development. Do we want to extend this power over our society to a bunch of pointy head theoreticians or, even worse, those malevolent interests that have infiltrated the environmental movement for the sole purpose of promoting their own radical political agenda on the world. An agenda which can often be described as enviro-Marxism.

“Stephen Hockman QC is proposing a body similar to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to be the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment.”

“The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.”

“But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the ‘right to a healthy environment.’”

Where does the money go, if not to the self-serving interest of the court? And by what enforcement mechanism will they fine nations like Russia, Syria, North Korea and others who traditionally do not respond well to fines and penalties imposed by extra-jurisdictional groups.

Neither new, nor innovative … just dangerous!

“The innovative idea is being presented to an audience of politicians, scientists and public figures for the first time at a symposium at the British Library.”

Usurpation of legislative rights …

Unfortunately, we have seen activist judges hand down rulings which create law which clearly usurps the rights of the legislature as the sole body that is constitutionally empowered to create such regulations. In many cases, we have seen the activists turn to the judiciary to secure what they cannot obtain at the ballot box … and even worse, thwart the will of the people who have already expressed their opinion by voting.

“Mr Hockman, a deputy High Court judge, said that the threat of climate change means it is more important than ever for the law to protect the environment.”

Enter the United Nations …

Why should we believe anything that emanates from this hotbed of corruption and hidden agendas. Especially since they have admitted fudging the Aids numbers in Africa in order to generate media attention, public support and contributions to their cause. The UN’s population projects which are at the basis of many of their assumptions has been dead wrong as population growth has been proven to be non-linear. In addition, many of their energy projections are based on the typical power profile of those in the United States, which upon even a cursory examination proves to not be the power mode of the majority of the world’s populated nations.

Likewise, the United Nations has locked into the matter of global warming to allow them to increase their influence and funding by promoting nothing more concrete than computer models which project a rise in global temperature. So lopsided is this projection, that the UN fails to consider the beneficial effects of such projected climate change – preferring the global gloom and doom scenario to raise awareness and funding.

Creating an economic crisis where one already exists …

“The UN Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland this month is set to begin negotiations that will lead to a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen next year. Developed countries are expected to commit to cutting emissions drastically, while developing countries agree to halt deforestation.”

Did anyone notice that the last UN proposals had the developed nations paying tribute to the developing nations as compensation for not clear-cutting forests or taking other actions? Massive wealth distributions to corrupt governments who sequester their wealth for use by the ruling class and their friends.

Can’t promote good works without actors …

“Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has agreed the concept of an international court will be taken into account when considering how to make these international agreements on climate change binding. The court is also backed by a number of MPs, climate change experts and public figures including the actress Judi Dench.” '

Dame Judy Dench may be a fine actress, but the farthest thing from a climate scientist. So why even cite her name?

“Mr Hockman said an international court will be needed to enforce and regulate any agreement.”

"The time is now ripe to set this up and get it going," he said. "Its remit will be overall climate change and the need for better regulation of carbon emissions but at the same time the implementation and enforcement of international environmental agreements and instruments."

Imagine the consequences …

Can you imagine some foreign power demanding that the coal-fired energy producers that feed power to Los Angeles cut back their energy production so that some global carbon credit bookkeeper can balance the atmospheric carbon content over Upper Wazooistan? Ludicrous!

“As well as providing resolution between states, the court will also be useful for multinational businesses in ensuring environmental laws are kept to in every country.”

Enter the Marxists, socialists, communists and other nutso-activists …

“The court would include a convention on the right to a healthy environment and provide a higher body for individuals or non-governmental organizations to protest against an environmental injustice.”

Climate justice?

Isn’t that what the Marxist-style activists in Chicago called their initiative when discussing racial, ethnic and class-warfare politics? All based on the theory that global weather mitigation will unduly impact the poor and disadvantaged who should receive some form of compensation for their suffering and misery. Can you say climate reparations?

“Mr Hockman said the court may be able to fine businesses or states but its main role will be in making ‘declaratory rulings’ that influence and embarrass countries into upholding the law.”

I declare that the Earth is warming. I declare that you need to reduce your lifestyle based on your energy consuming. I declare you need to pay higher taxes and a tribute to the court. I declare that this is all speculative bullshit and should be ignored in favor of cleaning up local pollution which is affecting our current health status.

What, it won’t provide a solution?

He said: "Of course regulations and sanctions alone cannot deliver a global solution to problems of climate change, but without such components the incentive for individual countries to address those problems – and to achieve solutions that are politically acceptable within their own jurisdictions – will be much reduced."

Just like the proponents of global warming initiatives cannot possible guarantee that any climate progress will be measurable for at least one hundred, and more likely, one thousand years, this is just another scheme without any provable results.

“The court would be led by retired judges, climate change experts and public figures. It would include a scientific body to consider evidence and provide access to any data on the environment.”

Public figures – you mean like Al Gore, Angelina Jolie, George Clooney? Retired judges – you mean the old codgers who have lapsed into senility? And of course, you mean those climate scientists who have already signed on to the UN-centric view of climate change?

“Most importantly, Mr Hockman said an international court on the environment would influence public opinion which in turn would force Governments to take the environment seriously. He said: ‘If there are bodies around that can give definitive legal rulings that are accepted as fair and reasonable that has its own impact on public opinion.’"

There is no such thing as a definitive legal ruling where matters of science are concerned. And isn’t that what we are basing this entire speculative scheme upon? Can a definitive ruling stop the Earth’s precessive motion, reverse the tides, change cloud patterns? No! And neither can today’s scientists. And neither will a fraud like carbon cap and trade policy!

“Friends of the Earth welcomed the idea.”

You mean the “perfect people for a perfect planet” based on Marxist philosophies which only create a ruling class and the rest of humanity? 

“A spokesman said: ‘We think any institution that is going to promote and help people enforce their right to a clean and healthy environment is a good thing.’"

If you believe this, then the best thing is a local court with jurisdiction over local polluters along with state agencies who can actually measure pollutants and assess fines. The answer to controlling pollution is, and always has been, local, not global. The only ones pushing for a global solution are those seeking extra-judicial control over sovereign nation-states for their own political power agendas.

What can YOU do?

The Brits are a curious sort. Regimented and all that. But in matters of consequence, they are followers, not leaders. Much of the Churchillian resolve has been bred away over the years as they have allowed malevolent foreigners to invade their country to the point of even considering Sharia law to be co-existent with British jurisprudence. Hardly the type of people to listen to in matters of forming extra-legal control structures. Consider that the Brits screwed up when they created the modern Middle East, why allow them to screw up the world?

Consider that, no matter what the United Nations claims: it’s all about power, money and self-interest. Theirs, not ours!

Consider that there is the real possibility that those who create global climate models are actually modeling the effects of localized urbanization, not global climate.

Consider that the matter that should be debated is not global weather control, but control over the world’s population based on dodgy science and the pipedreams of lawyers, politicians and those who add nothing to society as they buy-and-sell pollution credits.

Do not cede United States sovereignty to any foreign entity, especially one that contains a preponderance of people who do not wish the citizens of the United States well. After all, we are the country.

-- steve

Quote of the Day: “Behavior is a mirror in which every one displays his own image.” -- Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

Reference Links:

Lawyers call for international court for the environment|London  Telegraph