Remember COP25 in Madrid last year? It was the event Greta Thunberg was trying to get to without a carbon footprint. That was amusing but not the most humorous thing to emerge. One European Professor plotted out a path by which the United Nations might use military force to advance its agenda.
“The United Nations Security Council could, in principle, tomorrow decide that climate change is a threat to international peace and security,” he says.
“And then it’s within their competencies to decide ‘and you are doing this, you are doing this, you are doing this, this is how we deal with it’.”
That distinction supposedly affords out Globalist masters with the will to use armed UN “peacekeepers” to do what? March into your country and take over?
“If there was something that was decided internationally by some more centralised procedure and every country was told ‘this is your emission target, it’s not negotiable, we can actually take military measures if you don’t fulfil it’, then you would basically have to get that down the throat of your population, whether they like it or not,” he says.
“A bit like what we saw in southern Europe with countries like Greece and the debt crisis and so on. There were decisions that were made for them .”
Sorry, this is nothing like that. India, China, and Russia are significant polluters. And the only motivation they ever had for joining any climate agreement, Paris included, was because it suppressed economic development in the US and allowed them to emit as much as they wanted.
No sudden act of will by any council is going to see UN forces headed for China to get them to comply with some arbitrary emissions target. Not that UN would ever give them one that would require such action. They are already communists.
Besides, the entire exercise has only ever been about redistributing wealth from the US to the UN and then to whomever else it chooses, if there’s any left. A problem that is a non-problem for the UN if Democrats are running things. They’d give up your jobs, businesses, and lifestyles in a heart-beat to appear progressive globalists.
Mr. Trump, however, and far too few Republicans would resist, which gets us to the amusing part.
Say we refuse to be plundered under the climate agenda, or any other? What is the UN or any other nation going to do about that?
Trump would cut all their funding, and that pointless (barely breathing) institution would collapse and take all of its meddling agencies with it.
If we disregard that option, even if the US Military was not set to the task of telling them where to put their resolutions, hundreds of millions of firearms separate anyone, anywhere, from taking away our individual rights.
A lot more guns and willpower than the UN has.
But hey, give it a shot. I’m curious to see how it works out.