xfdfx BECK-01
<Show: BECK>
<Date: October 30, 2009>
<Time: 17:00>
<Tran: 103001cb.258>
<Type: Show>
<Head: BECK for October 30, 2009 - Part 1>
<Sect: News; Domestic>
<Byline: Glenn Beck>
<Guest: Christopher Monckton, John Bolton>
<Spec: Politics; Policies; Government>
GLENN BECK, HOST: Welcome to the Glenn Beck program.We've got --oh, those are -- come here. These are Huffington Post masks. Come here, Harry. Come on. These are -- these are Halloween masks by The Huffington Post. And there's -- there's also -- there's also this one from Forbes magazine.
Come on, I'm not that bad, am I?
I can't believe The Huffington Post is actually more kind than
Forbes magazine.
Tonight, here are the questions that we're going to ask.
Number one, is the science settled?
Two, are we headed for one world government?
And, three, if we save the Earth, do we destroy our children's future?
America, if you believe this country is great but you -- you're not really into that whole one world government thing, watch out --because the masks are coming off.
Stand up.
Come on, follow me.
Well, hello, America.
In case you missed last night's show, I urge you, go back online and watch it or, you know, look at it on DVR. Please DVR this program every day.
We showed you last night very clearly the people of real influence in and around the White House who want to fundamentally transform this country into something revolutionary, almost Venezuelan in nature -- completely different than what our founders intended.
They want to turn us into a country that focuses more on spreading the wealth than actually creating it, a place where success is punished, mediocrity is encouraged, everybody will get a trophy, and personal freedoms are relinquished in favor of a nanny state that just knows better than you do.
I can't help but think that we are at a crossroads. Maybe the White House will call me on that statement.
Did I get that one wrong?
Because I don't think we did. We're at a crossroads. We have to choose.
Do you want to turn back toward our founders and more freedom, more personal liberty and more personal responsibility and accountability or do you want to continue down this reckless path where it doesn't seem that anybody who does anything wrong actually pays for it?
They'll try to tell you that this is a directless path that President Obama and his henchmen are actually planning for us. They'll say this health care is -- is deficit -- deficit neutral.
Isn't it like a trillion dollars?
So we're spending a trillion dollars?
How is that deficit neutral?
They've got to raise the money. They've got to find that money someplace.
The health of our country just is not good. We can't afford more massive government programs. Our dollar will eventually go away if we continue down this path.
And when it collapses, who is going to save us?
Because American is too big to fail, you know?
Will it be France?
People will argue another stimulus -- you know, kind of a --another adrenaline shot is the answer. Hey, that's why our GDP is up now, is the stimulus.
Well, those stimulus shots are as bogus as the adrenaline shots in the movies.
Do you remember this one from Mission Impossible III?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM MISSION IMPOSSIBLE III)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm a journalist (INAUDIBLE).
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ethan, thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: OK. Those adrenaline shots will shock the system and come back for a little while, but in the end, it doesn't work. We all know what happens when government tries to shoot an injection into the heart. It fails.
The real answer and the answer that nobody in Washington wants to give you is you, the individual. Government is going to say -- mark my words -- it's the IMF or the U.N. Government and even bigger government will come to the rescue when this government can no longer afford to do it.
With me now, Lord Christopher Monckton, former adviser to British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher and climate change expert; also, John Bolton, former ambassador to the U.N. and Fox News contributor.
I was trying to decide -- I was in a meeting today and I was thinking if I were on the extreme left, I wouldn't know which one of us was the most sane.
Is it Lord Monckton?
Is it you, the evil emperor, or is it me?
I just don't know.
So we want to talk a little bit about what I have seen on video from you, Lord Monckton, about this. This is the -- the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Explain what this is first.
LORD CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON, ADVISED FORMER U.K. PRIME MINISTER MARGARET THATCHER: Right. This is an agreement that was reached many years ago by about 190 countries have now signed up to it. And the idea is that we are screwing up the planet with too much CO2...
BECK: Right.
MONCKTON: And therefore, we have to do something about it.
Now, what is now coming up at Copenhagen, at what will be the 15th meeting of the states party to this convention -- 190 countries in Copenhagen from December the 7th to the 18th. There will be a conference at which the treaty which you now have in front of you on the desk there will be signed unless you and everybody watching can stop it.
Now, that treaty, among other things, says there's going to be a world government...
BECK: OK. Hang on just a second, before we get into that. This is - - I mean in case -- I've been here a week and you're probably reading that 2,000 page health care bill. This one -- this one is only, what, 181 pages.
It is a treaty and treaties sound fine. Nations come together, etc. Etc. And, you know, hey, let's sign it and what's the harm in signing it, we don't have to live up to it?
Let me go to you, John.
Before we get into this, what -- explain how treaties work here in America.
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Well, the -- the idea of a treaty is something that the United States enters into voluntarily, presumably because we think it's in our best interests. The Constitution provides a lot of protection against the abuse of executive power, since it's the executive that negotiates, requiring two thirds of the Senate to approve of a treaty. That's a Constitutional provision. It's very, very important.
And it's one reason why any president's ambitions, including President Obama's, run up against a wall if they try and go too far. That's one reason why the original Kyoto Protocol never even made it to a vote on the Senate floor.
BECK: Right.
Under Clinton, right?
BOLTON: Right. Exactly.
BECK: Yes, which everybody seemed to leave out here, because in reading this, do you think there's a chance of this going through the Hou - - the Senate?
BOLTON: Well, let's be clear, what we have now -- what you can see on Web sites is a negotiating draft. And one of the reasons it's confusing is that in negotiation terms, it's filled with brackets, meaning it's filled with provisions that are in disagreement. So there's an incredible amount of nonsense in this treaty and some of it's not in disagreement.
But there's also a lot here that has not been agreed to. They've only got five weeks to go.
BECK: OK. Let me start with a little bit -- this is Lord Monckton in, I think it was Minnesota, right?
MONCKTON: Yes.
BECK: I've had so many watchdogs e-mail this. This is on fire on the Internet.
So he's a little bit of what he said in Minnesota.
(AUDIO GAP)
BECK: Or -- or not.
Why don't you instead perform it for us now?
What exactly did you say in Minnesota?
MONCKTON: I said in December, just weeks away, at Copenhagen, a treaty will be signed that will, for the first time, create a world government with powers to intervene directly in the economy and in the environmental affairs of individual nations, to transfer or redistribute wealth to the tune of 2 percent of GDP, at least, from wealthy countries like the United States, to poorer countries, in alleged reparation for imagined and largely imaginary climate debt, and for enforcement on those countries who haven't signed and don't carry on and do what they said they would sign to do.
BECK: There is so much in just that. There's the climate debt thing, which is unbelievable.
MONCKTON: Yes.
BECK: But let's just start at the beginning here.
You have the -- you say there's a global government.
What page is the global government on?
MONCKTON: Right. You go to Annex 1, Paragraph 38.
(CROSSTALK)
MONCKTON: And the ambassadors rightly said there are many alternatives and options here.
(CROSSTALK)
BECK: ...at least one paragraph.
MONCKTON: Yes, there are several annexes.
(CROSSTALK)
BOLTON: You've got to get with the annexes, Glenn. I mean I don't know what...
BECK: I mean never going to be an international negotiator, I can tell you that.
(CROSSTALK)
BECK: How does anything know what anything means anymore?
MONCKTON: That's the idea.
BECK: Look, here's -- here's the thing. If -- if you -- if you look at this and read it, which, of course, I have, you can make the argument that it is a -- it is not a global government that they're looking at, it is a governance of this treaty, because you're going to need framework to be able to monitor, true or false?
BOLTON: Well, there are different aspirations by different countries that are negotiating at Copenhagen. Some want to carry it further than others, principally the Europeans. One reason this is, I think, going to turn out badly from their point of view, is you've got countries like China and India that have absolutely no intention of signing onto one of the key elements here, which is numerical limits on carbon emissions.
Believe me, India and China want exactly -- as Lord Monckton says, they want all the climate debt repaid. They want a vast increase in foreign assistance. But they're not prepared to sign on to what --what needs to happen to make this work.
BECK: If we sign on and others -- China doesn't sign on, and India...
BOLTON: Yes?
BECK: ...and we're bound by it, but they're not...
MONCKTON: That's right.
BECK: So will all the damage be done to us?
BOLTON: But that's why Kyoto failed.
MONCKTON: (INAUDIBLE).
BOLTON: Because the -- the agreement tried to limit the industrial countries and gave the developing world a pass. And the U.S. Senate looked at that and said no way.
MONCKTON: And, in fact, they voted 95-0, under the presidency of the Senate of Al Gore, to turn down any treaty like Kyoto that exempted the Third World countries.
The problem is you asked is the word government there?
It's not governance, it's government. And I've negotiated international treaties, as the ambassador has. And I've attempted some, I've even written some. And never before have I seen the word government put in a treaty in this capacity, with enormous powers.
They're going to close down the free market, Paragraph 36 of Annex 1. They are going to take powers in that treaty to operate in interference of and control of all financial markets worldwide.
Further down, in another of the annexes, a provision whereby they are going to take a tax of 2 percent on every financial transaction into an annex one country. That's a country -- a rich country like America. Now, if you take a 2 percent levy on financial transactions where the margins are absolutely tiny, you can destroy the entire financial system of New York, Wall Street, of the Chicago Exchange, close it all down.
That is the powers that would be transferred to this new government entity. So don't fall for the ambassador's very characteristic that this will all be all right on the night (ph). With respect, Ambassador, I don't think it will. I think we are heading here for what could be a global government.
And this was first presaged 25 years ago by Sir Morris Strong, the U.N. bureaucrat who set up intergovernmental, rather than scientific structure, of the U.N. panel on climate change, which is what this is about.
And he said then that he hoped it would be transmogrified into what became a world government.
Jacques Chirac of France has said the same thing.
Al Gore talks of global governance all the time. This is something which is being menaced (ph) everywhere you look.
BECK: (INAUDIBLE).
MONCKTON: And now they've put the word government in the treaty and they have given this body powers which I have never seen transferred before to any transnational entity by any treaty ever.
BECK: OK. By the way, I mean just people -- if you just speak with an English accent, you're just so much more credible.
(LAUGHTER)
BECK: It's true. I think...
(CROSSTALK)
BECK: ...said there, too, for a while.
The -- Ambassador, you know -- we have spoken on the program before. You know where I think we're headed economically, whether it is tomorrow or five years or eight years down the road. We're headed for debt. Unless we turn things around, we're headed for debt that leads us to a banana republic, leads us to a place where you just can't pay for it.
We're already at $105 trillion debt or actual, you know, non-paid for programs that we've promised.
I really believe we have a group of radicals in the White House now, and in and around Washington, that are pushing for redistributive wealth, Marxism, socialism, global government. I mean it's all there.
Why do you think that this sounds nuts -- or do you think it sounds nuts?
BOLTON: Yah. I don't think it sounds nuts. I think you have to --to try and look at it incident by incident. I do not think we should understate the desire of many people -- many in the Obama administration and widely in Europe -- to move toward global governance.
But I don't think we should overstate what the consequences of any one agreement are. In fact, it's precisely because the pace of this change is hard to measure that it's difficult to get people excited about it.
So by disagreeing about the potential consequences of this draft on Copenhagen, I don't mean to ignore the risk to American sovereignty, which I think exists. And it's one reason I called President Obama the first post-American president. And it's why he's so popular in Europe.
But on this draft, I think that what will happen is that certainly something will out of Copenhagen -- I agree with Lord Monckton --because they have to declare victory, much like the president has to have victory on health care. Some bill will pass.
But the more likely result, given the lack of progress, is that they just kick the can down the road and we'll have these battles to fight again.
BECK: What happens if they, you know -- this is the disagreement that I had with -- with Mitt Romney. I like Mitt Romney. I think he's an honorable man. I think he's a deal maker. And when he was in Massachusetts, he came up with Romney Care.
And he said, you know, it was responsible, we needed to have it, I had to, you know, broker a deal, etc. Etc. And it was responsible.
And I said, Mitt, you're not king. It's going to evolve. You leave - - you know, under your hands, maybe it might have done it. But you leave and now the door is open. We're opening up a door here we don't want to open.
MONCKTON: That's absolutely right. And the danger, also, which we've seen time and again in the negotiation of European treaties, by which Britain's democracy has all but gone. Ninety percent of our laws are now made by commissioners who we don't elect and can't remove and can't hold to account. They're made in secret and then our parliament is made to pass them. It has no option but to do so.
We've lost our democracy through exactly this kind of carelessness, where people say, oh, well, of course, the treaty doesn't really say government. It does say government. It does transfer to this government the power to shut down or regulate the financial markets. It does allow it to levy taxes and enforcement penalties up to 10 times the price of a ton of cargo on the international exchange from America.
This whole treaty is targeted at America. Now, one must agree that it is only a draft. But that's why I am shouting now, because you are going to have to get on to your senators. Ring up the White House, ring your senators, go to www.WEBCommentary.com and sign up for the instrument of repudiation of this treaty.
Because if you don't make a loud noise now, there is enough in that present treaty draft, if it stands unamended -- and it's been through several rounds of negotiations before it got to this draft, let's not forget. If you don't stop it and that treaty does, by some mischance, go through -- and we've seen this time and again in European treaties. We've been told, oh, they'll never reach agreement. And at the last moment, they do. They have an all night session. They come out with their ties around their ears, bags under the eyes and they say, oh, we've done it. And suddenly another slice of our freedom is gone.
Do not relax. Do not take a risk with your Constitution.
BECK: Wow, there's a lot to do. Remember the good old days, when we could sit back and just watch TV and it really didn't matter?
Not anymore.
In a minute when we come back, I -- I want to poke some holes in Lord Monckton's theories and see if he can plug them up.
(INAUDIBLE)
BECK: We'll do it next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
SCIENCE CZAR JOHN HOLDREN: There has been a strain of what many people call U.S. exceptionalism in the United States. And I think ultimately, the rate of growth of material consumption is going to have to come down. And there's going to have to be a degree of redistribution of how much we consume in terms of energy and material resources in order to leave room for people who are poor to become more resourceful and prosperous.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Instead of increasing and the business as usual path forward, by the way, if we keep doing what we're doing, we will double those emissions over the next 50 years. And what we need to do instead is having those emissions sharply declining over the next 50 years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: OK. I mean, if you care about the planet, I guess that's great. I don't know anybody who doesn't care. I don't know anybody that gets up in the morning and is like, man, I want this planet to go away.
We all live on the planet. But if you have no way of life, gosh, what does that mean for our future?
We need to coexist with the planet. And I have to tell you this, the science seems shoddier and shoddier as the days go by and we're going to talk about some of the science coming up in just a little while.
But then there is this attitude that you just saw. And it is the strain of American exceptionalism. I'm going to let the -- I'm going to let the Englishman sit for a while whilst we -- while we talk about the strain of American exceptionalism.
BOLTON: It's -- it's our fault. That -- that's what he's saying. It's basically that we think -- the attitudes we take are the source of the problem. And -- and there is a lot of this in the draft treaty and a lot of expectation that we are supposed to redistribute our wealth to the Third World. That fits in with Mr. Holdren and some of these other people.
BECK: Right.
BOLTON: That's exactly what they want to see.
BECK: And that's -- that's called -- in this treaty, that's called climate debt.
MONCKTON: Climate debt. We've been burning CO2. They say that's been screwing up the planet, as we'll see later. In fact, we now know that CO2 is harmless, however.
That's the science, but they don't care about the science. This panjandrum is going to roll on. They say we owe climate debt to countries that haven't burned lots of CO2 and we're going to have to pay very large amounts of money, from multiple different parts of the treaty, to Third World countries.
I haven't yet been able to add up just how much it's going to cost to America, but it's going to be very expensive. And there isn't the slightest scientific or economic case for any of it.
BECK: How -- how -- how is it possible to play -- to pay a climate debt with the debt that America has?
BOLTON: Well, in part, this is really not about climate debt. The same people who are arguing for this redistribution of wealth from the developed world to the developing world were arguing it 60 years ago because it was the debt of the colonialists and imperialist to pay to the newly independent colonies. And then a few years after that, it was our responsibility to pay it because the terms of trade disadvantaged suppliers of basic commodities.
And then there was another reason. And then another reason. Now, there's the environment, which is why, to me, the whole argument about why you need more government control in this country because of the environment, why you need redistribution of income in this country and worldwide because of the environment, suggests that the environment is just a convenient excuse for a lot of these people.
BECK: All right. Well, let me go for a PolitiFact. It's a fact checking Web site.
Are you familiar with it?
MONCKTON: Yes.
BECK: OK. It says that you are lying declared you a pants on fire. MONCKTON: Britches on fire.
BECK: (INAUDIBLE) you know what it is?
MONCKTON: Yes.
BECK: They said -- they said a couple of things. First of all, let me play the first clip. This is you say everyone will sign the treaty.
Go ahead and play it, the first clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MONCKTON: A treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the Third World countries will sign it, because they think they're going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes around the world (INAUDIBLE) the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won't sign it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: They're saying that Copenhagen is proving, increasingly unlikely to produce anything ready to sign.
MONCKTON: Here's the point, do you want to take a risk with your precious Constitution of liberties, Glenn?
I thought you, of all people, believed in defending and protecting and upholding this great Constitution of this great nation that I so much love.
BECK: Yes.
MONCKTON: I'm a great admirer of your Constitution. I don't think you should put it at risk.
BECK: I -- I just want you to know, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't want to hurt the carbon. I wouldn't want to hurt the Earth and burn all the carbon to fly over to Copenhagen. So I wouldn't even be in attendance, but I'm not the president.
OK. Second is, signing a treaty doesn't mean that its provisions become binding. Clinton signed Kyoto II. He never sent it to the Senate to ratify, so we don't have to actually worry about this.
MONCKTON: Right. Now, let's look at Law of the Sea Treaty, which Ron Reagan, who was, I think, more in your camp and mine than the present guy. He refused to sign it on Constitutional grounds because it set up an international tribunal with powers far more limited than what is now going to be given to this world government. It was called a tribunal, not a government.
But it still had powers to transfer wealth and technology --proprietary technology from your oil companies drilling on the sea bed, for instance, to Third World countries.
President Clinton signed it. It was never ratified. It never went near the Senate. But the State Department insists because it was signed, the United States was bound by its provisions. So your own bureaucrats are going to say even if he just signs it, that it is binding.
BOLTON: Yes, it is.
MONCKTON: So you've got to be very careful not to sign anything you don't support.
BOLTON: There is -- there is a point here. That is true, what some people in the State Department say. But as matter of basic policy decision, we are not bound by it and...
(CROSSTALK)
BOLTON: ...and nobody should
BECK: Look, I mean...
MONCKTON: Don't take the risk...
(CROSSTALK)
BECK: We haven't...
(CROSSTALK)
BOLTON: But we -- it's out of our control. I mean if -- if...
(CROSSTALK)
BOLTON: If Obama wants to sign, we can't stop him, because our...
BECK: I understand that. But...
BOLTON: ...our protection is in the Senate at the moment.
BECK: Right. But we don't -- we have a lot of people in the Senate and a lot of people in the House that don't even look at the Constitution anymore. They don't even find it relevant anymore.
BOLTON: That -- that's why the super majority provision for the ratification of treaties -- two-thirds of the Senate, not just 60 to cut off a filibuster.
MONCKTON: Right, 67.
BOLTON: Sixty-seven is so important and why it's critical that anything like this be directed down the treaty path.
(CROSSTALK)
MONCKTON: How confident are you that he won't sign this as an executive agreement?
It's been very carefully worded as the Copenhagen agreement...
(CROSSTALK)
MONCKTON: ...so he can do that.
BOLTON: The environmentalists would like that, but I think it would be a political firestorm in this country if he did. Let's not forget, the Clinton administration presented Kyoto as a treaty. The notion that he could shift and declare Kyoto II not a treaty. It would be devastating politically.
BECK: All right, Lord Monckton has requested the use of my blackboard -- a national treasure. Someday it will be in The Smithsonian.
No, it won't.
We'll be back in just a second. He'll take it over.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS BREAK)
BECK: America, we're at a crossroads and I think it's time to make a decision. I showed you last night. Are you going to stand with the new revolutionaries of 2009? Or are you going to stand with the original revolutionaries of 1776?
You want Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi mandating how big your car can be, how many miles you can drive? You want Charlie Rangel dictating the number of Big Macs you can eat or if you can eat meat at all?
And as crazy as that sounds, in Baltimore - the city of Baltimore right now, it is meatless Monday in all the schools so kids can learn how to make healthy choices, not only for them, but also for the planet. I don't know about you but I would rather make my own choices. It seems like an easy choice, but yet, here we are.
Back again with Lord Christopher Monckton, former adviser to the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and climate change expert. And John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador and also FOX News contributor.
OK. Lord Monckton, up at the blackboard - boy, that is intimidating. Have I ever done that to you? That's not good. Yes, my lord!
LORD CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON, FORMER ADVISER TO MARGARET THATCHER: Pay attention, Beck.
BECK: Yes.
MONCKTON: Five points from Gryffindor for smiling in class.
BECK: All right. What do you have?
MONCKTON: Right. Here is why there is no point, economically speaking, in doing anything to curb our carbon emissions even if, as we now know, in fact, the U.N. is wrong. But let's pretend it's right.
