Globalists Aim to Destroy the United States through Climate Change

A Special Report - by David W. Lowe

March, 15, 2008
[approximate time needed to read: 10 minutes]

The perceived threat of global warming, or climate change, is now being used as reason for nations to give up their national sovereignty. This includes the United States of America.

Richard N. Haase is the president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He was also named by Presidential hopeful Governor Mike Huckabee as political advisor to the campaign and would no doubt be a member of a Huckabee Administration. Former CFR presidents include Vice President Dick Cheney.

The CFR bills itself as a think tank that provides opinion and guidance to the United States government on a myriad of foreign policy topics. The truth is that the CFR has as its goal the destruction of the United States as a sovereign nation, the destruction of national boundaries, and the establishment of global governance. This was so declared by CFR member and establishment insider Carroll Quigley. In addition, Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member, stated that "the main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government."

Any questions?

In a February 2006 publication on the CFR website titled "Sovereignty and Globalism," CFR President Haase candidly cited global climate change as a reason that nations should give up their national sovereignty.

Confused? Here is how Haase attempts to spin this:

"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 United States, China and India, accept emission limits or adopt common standards because they recognise that they would be worse off if no country did. All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if [nation] states are to cope with globalisation."

The entire publication is an attack on national sovereignty. Over and over, Haase provides reasons for nations to no longer be seen as nation states, but rather as a one-world global conglomerate subject to one-world government. Here are some additional quotes from the publication [emphasis added]:

• "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function."
• "Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change."
• "All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalisation."
• "Globalisation 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."
• "Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty
  when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy,
  is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens."
• "Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute."
• "The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalisation..."

This should cause anyone with dedication to the U.S. Constitution to shudder and shiver to the core. The U.S. Constitution is the ultimate law of the land and is clear on the notion of national sovereignty, and this man is treating it as toilet paper in order to advance global governance ...ultimate power residing in a global body in which citizens around the world have no national identity.

And what happens if we dare not heed this advice? Why, the drug cartels and the terrorists will be able to run wild! This is a lie, but they know the uninformed will fall for it because it sounds right. The truth is these groups have thrived and flourished without the threat of global climate change and would continue to flourish in the future with or without it. In addition, elements of the governments of the world, including the United States, are themselves responsible for funding and enabling terrorists, drug cartels, and other criminal elements.

For many years, those in favor of global governance have been searching for a global threat around which they could rally in order to drive humanity toward a one-world government. In 1991, the Club of Rome, another global "think tank," published a report titled, "The First Global Revolution." In this report, the Club admitted that they were "searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite." And what enemies did they come up with? Pollution [can you say carbon emission standards?], the threat of global warming, water shortages and famine. So, they would choose one or all of these "enemies" to rally around. Since human beings are responsible for all these dangers by intervening in natural processes, they mused, they concluded that "the real enemy then is humanity itself."

Did you get that? You are the enemy.

This was in 1991. And so now we have the publication by CFR President Richard N. Haase in 2006 proclaiming global climate change is reason for nations to give up their sovereign status.

But that's not all. In 2007, there was a flurry of activity around the threat of global climate change. But this time, the talking point was that global climate change is a threat to national security. Yes, that right. For some reason, now, and never before this time, the threat of global warming and severe weather is a direct threat to the security of the United States.

Want proof?

In March 2007, Senators Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) introduced a bill titled the "Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act" which commissioned the highest intelligence branches of the government to come up with an assessment of whether global warming is a threat to our national security. It seems, though, that Durbin already had his mind made up by stating, before the investigation had even commenced, "We now need to consider it [global warming] as a security concern."

In April 2007, the U.S. Navy funded and teamed up with CNA Corporation to put out a report titled "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change." A military advisory board consisting of retired generals made recommendations to this project. They concluded “Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and it presents significant national security challenges for the United States.”

In November 2007, two more global think tanks teamed up to produce "The Age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Global Climate Change." The think tanks were the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Center for a New American Security, and authors of this particular publication included former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta, and former CIA director R. James Woolsey. This report features the globe in the eye of a hurricane that also doubles as a whirlpool. It gives off the impression that the globe, in its current state, is heading down the drain unless we listen to their recommendations. They also jerk with your emotions by showing a polar bear climbing on an iceberg, appearing to look out at the surrounding water with disdain. This is, of course, the fault of global warming...so they want you to think.

Again in November 2007, Dr. Joshua Busby published for the CFR an extraordinarily silly paper entitled, "Climate Change and National Security" in which he concluded that our national security is at risk due to the threat of severe weather that could result from global warming. On its face, this is patently ridiculous, but to read it for yourself is extremely rewarding. For example, on page 6 of this piece of propaganda, Busby wrote [emphasis mine]:

Climate change could, through extreme weather events, have a more direct impact on national security by severely damaging critical military bases, thereby
diverting or severely undermining significant national defense resources.

Got that? In other words, global warming could cause extreme weather events. And if those extreme weather events materialize, they could hit our military bases. This is about as likely as an asteroid hitting the earth, folks. And if even a military base somewhere happens to be hit, there plenty of other bases around the country...indeed, around the world...to cover for any temporary loss.

And how is that global climate change is reason to strengthen national security, while at the same time reason to weaken national sovereignty?

What is more troubling to me is that even when our military bases are in perfect functioning order, they cannot protect us. On September 11, 2001, military jets were not scrambled to protect either New York or Washington D.C., even though bases were just nearby. They were ordered to stand down by Dick Cheney, according to eyewitness testimony of Norman Mineta. Thus, this "national security threat" posed by global warming and severe weather is simply ridiculous. There will always be unpredictable severe weather events for all nations, just as there will be unpredictable terrorist attacks.

I've read these publications, and they are pure crap. Each and every one of them. The conclusions are weak and based on a whole bunch of "what-if" scenarios about global warming that may never take place.

One the key phrases that they use to prove that we must do something about global warming is that global warming is a "threat multiplier for instability" in certain parts of the world. But please recall one of most devastating global catastrophes in the history of the world: the December 2004 Sumatra tsunami. Did this cause thousands of deaths? Yes, it was a horrific tragedy and human disaster. But, was it a threat multiplier for instability?

NO! It was the exact opposite. Not only did nations of the world come to their aid to help, but local parties that were in disagreements at the time of the disaster actually came together in unity after the disaster, agreeing to temporarily put aside their differences in a time of tragedy. Instead of being a threat multiplier for instability, the tsunami disaster was a threat multiplier for stability.

Consider this quote by former President Bill Clinton, who teamed with former President George H.W. Bush after the tsunami? "I am grateful for the opportunity that this terrible tragedy gives for religious reconciliation in the world. . .[in which people around the world are] “reaching out for the Muslims of Indonesia, for the Hindus and the Buddhists, and the Muslims and the Christians in Sri Lanka to reconcile." Indeed, there are many examples of reconciliation between enemies in the times of major disasters caused by hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, and other natural disasters. Thus, this argument is in complete disagreement with historical fact.

The conclusion to this is that the globalists are using global warming, also known as global climate change, to:

1. Argue for the ceding of national sovereignty by nation states, including the United States.
2. Argue that our national security is at risk.
   
3. Argue for a global tax on carbon emissions.
4. Rally around a common global threat to all peoples in order to get them to accept global governance.

That's really what this is all about. I have done a lot of work in putting together all the documents in one place so you can do your own homework. Global warming is not a threat to our national security. It is not a threat multiplier for instability. It is NO THREAT AT ALL, in fact, if you believe the mountain of evidence put forth by scientists who explain the sun is currently in a cycle of slightly higher temperatures, and this cycle will end and bring on slightly cooler temperatures.

We must not let these globalists continue to lie to the American public about global warming. We must educate our friends neighbors about the dangers of the globalist agenda.

If you like this report, please consider reading my report on the biblical view on global warming.