Israel - Hamas War > Stephen Harper, Why Don't You Support Israel? Hamas Leaders Living it up in Doha

 

Hamas Commander: Our Leaders Betrayed Us

Apparently, the leaders of Hamas are not too interested in the 72 virgins waiting for them in Paradise.

NOV 12, 2023 10:00 AM BY HUGH FITZGERALD

As Hamas crumbles, literally — one building and one tunnel after another — and figuratively, with the desperation of its decimated operatives ever more apparent, one of its commanders, known as Abu Mohammed, in Gaza has publicly condemned the terror group’s leaders — Ismail Haniya and Yahya Sinwar — for having “betrayed” the group’s fighters. Almost all of Hamas’ leaders, including Haniya, Khaled Meshaal, and Mousa Abu Marzouk, are living in five-star hotels in Doha (Qatar), where they watch the fighting in Gaza from afar, and count the money they have each stolen over the years from funds donated to support the people of Gaza. The only senior Hamas leader known to be in Gaza is Sinwar, head of its military wing, but instead of joining his troops in fighting the IDF, the way Israeli commanders lead their troops into battle, he prefers to stay hidden in a bunker. More on this Hamas commander’s rage at the terror group’s leaders, who he claims gave the orders for the October 7 attack without considering the consequences, can be found here: 

Hamas commander: Haniyeh and Sinwar ‘destroyed us

Jerusalem Post, November 8, 2023:

A senior Hamas commander told the UK’s Daily Mail that Hamas leaders Ismail Haniyeh and Yahya Sinwar had “destroyed” the lower levels of the terrorist movement by ordering the October 7 attack, according to a report by the British newspaper on Sunday.

The commander, calling himself Abu Mohammed, told the newspaper in an interview over Telegram that originally the plan was to kidnap a few Israeli soldiers, but the orders were changed at the last minute by Hamas military leaders to conduct the massacre which ended up taking place on that tragic Saturday morning a month ago.

“Our reason to speak is that we want to raise our voice to the world. My dear Gaza is under bombardment,” he lamented: “The problem is because of our leadership. The commander pointed to the fact that Haniyeh and other leaders live in splendor abroad while he’s sustaining himself on some dates and olive oil.

This rage against the leaders of Hamas who ordered the October 7 massacres to take place, without considering what Israel was capable of doing in response, and who since October 7 have not shared any of the hardships endured both by the commanders, and the low-level combatants, in Gaza, is palpable. This Hamas commander is well aware that not one of the senior leaders has joined the battle against the IDF, a stark contrast to the way the Israelis operate, with the IDF commanders leading their soldiers into battle. He knows the Hamas senior leadership is living in luxury in Doha, save for Sinwar, who, since the very beginning of the war, been hiding in a bunker in Gaza.

Abu Mohammed also accused Sinwar of “acting like a street fighter,” saying Hamas terrorists were told to “do what they like” when attacking Israel.

A curious charge against Sinwar. Does “Abu Mohammed” regret the Hamas atrocities of October 7 and blame Sinwar for giving the okay to fentanyl-fueled killers to “do what they like”? It sounds as if he regrets those murderous attacks, which Sinwar’s open-ended instructions let loose, not because he found them morally abhorrent, but because they led inexorably to the Israelis to rise up as one to smash the terror group with a ferocity Hamas never expected..

The commander additionally stated that contact had been lost with Hamas’s political bureau, saying “We don’t know what direction to go in next. We don’t know which path to take. They destroyed us.”…

That is an admission by a Hamas commander of despair and defeat: “We in Hamas are leaderless, rudderless. From Doha, there is no leadership. From Yahya Sinwar, sitting in his bunker, there is only silence.”

The commander Abu Mohammed feels, rightly, betrayed by the Hamas leaders. And no doubt others at his level, and below, share his fury at the senior leadership. Those leaders take care to stay far from Gaza, living in luxury in Doha while the Hamas combatants both above and below ground in the Strip, are being methodically destroyed by the IDF.

That this commander has so bitterly, and openly, criticized both Ismail Haniyeh and Yahya Sinwar shows that the terror group faces great disarray in its ranks. The commanders are tired of not having clear direction from above; they were only told to go into Israel on October 7 and “kill anyone they wanted,” but not told of the consequences; now much of Gaza lies in ruins, and Hamas has been decimated. And more and more people, including Hamas fighters, have been learning that Ismail Haniyeh has a fortune of $3 billion, Khaled Meshaal has a fortune of $4 billon, and Mousa Abu Marzouk has a fortune of $4 billion, all of it stolen from the money foreign donors provided for the people of Gaza. Meanwhile, Hamas combatants and commanders, such as Abu Mohammed, who are fighting and dying in Gaza, are now living on dates and olive oil.

In Gaza, Hamas combatants are now in despair. Those who actually have to face the ferocity and complexity of the IDF attacks, every hour of every day and night, feel abandoned by their leaders. They don’t know where to put their feet and hands. They don’t know when the IDF will collapse the next tunnel, killing all those inside, or strike the next above-ground hideout of weapons and rocket launchers in a kindergarten, a mosque, an apartment building, a hospital. These Hamas terrorists are now, as Milton described Samson, “eyeless in Gaza.”

Australia PM Adviser Says Climate Change is 'UN-led Ruse to Establish New World Order'

Tony Abbott's business adviser says global warming a fallacy supported by United Nations to 'create a new authoritarian world order under its control'

Note: This article was written in May 2015 when Tony Abbot was still PM of Australia

Please check out the links and comments at the bottom of this article, the links were mostly written within a year or so of this and reveal a frightening scenario.

Maurice Newman, chairman of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council Photo: AP

By Jonathan Pearlman, Sydney 

Climate change is a hoax developed as part of a secret plot by the United Nations to undermine democracies and takeover the world, a top adviser to Tony Abbott, Australia’s prime minister, has warned.

Maurice Newman, the chief business adviser to the prime minister, said the science showing links between human activity and the warming climate was wrong but was being used as a “hook” by the UN to expand its global control.

Tony Abbott

“This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN,” he wrote in The Australian.

“It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.” Born in Ilford, England, and educated in Australia, Mr Newman, a staunch conservative and former chairman of the Australian Stock Exchange, has long been an outspoken critic of climate change science.

He was appointed chairman of the government’s business advisory council by Mr Abbott, who himself is something of a climate change sceptic and once famously described climate change as “absolute cr**” – a comment he later recanted.

In his comment piece – described by critics as “whacko” – Mr Newman said the world has been “subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years”.

“It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error,” he wrote.

“The real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook. Eco-catastrophists [ ...] have captured the UN and are extremely well funded. They have a hugely powerful ally in the White House.”

Not anymore, thank God!

Environmental groups and scientists described Mr Newman as a 'crazed’ conspiracy theorist and some called on him to resign.

“His anti-science, fringe views are indistinguishable from those made by angry trolls on conspiracy theory forums,” said the Climate Change Council.

Professor Will Steffen, a climate change scientist, told The Australian Financial Review: “These are bizarre comments that would be funny if they did not come from [Mr Abbott’s] chief business adviser.” Mr Abbott’s office did not respond but his environment minister said he did not agree with Mr Newman’s comments.

The article was written by Mr Newman to coincide with a visit by Christiana Figueres, the UN climate change negotiation, who has urged Australia to reduce its reliance on coal. Australia is one of the world’s biggest emitters of carbon emissions per capita.

Since his election in 2013, Mr Abbott has abolished Labor’s carbon tax, scaled back renewable energy targets and appointed sceptics to several significant government positions.

I first blogged of this theory in 2015. Lord Christopher Monkton, British Peer, was the first to publicize the UN's plot, that was in 2014 before any of the events he described happened. 

According to Monckton, a former policy adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Monday's Canadian election will decide if Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whom he calls the last man standing against the establishment of a 'one world government', will remain against a deliberate international effort to remove him. 

One-World Government if Harper Loses Election - Margaret Thatcher Advisor

The second last, Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott, was overthrown, as predicted by Monckton in 2014, in order to clear the way for this international scheme. 

As Monkton predicted, he was ousted in a caucus coup by Malcolm Turnbull, in Sept. 2015, after a failed attempt in February of that year.

With Harper out of the way, warned Monckton, world governance will finally begin with a successful December, 2015 Paris Climate Conference. 

Justin Trudeau and Malcolm Turnbull both signed the Paris accord after their predecessor refused.

Millions in Foreign Funds Spent in 2015 Fed Election to Defeat Harper, Report

USA's Own Climate Change Rep Ominously Threatens US

Yes, the planet is warming. That it is anthropogenically driven by CO2 and other greenhouse gasses is speculation. One thing that is for sure - the rate of hysteria over this subject increases daily, just as the UN want's it.

OPINION: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Speech at NYU Under Scrutiny

Indeed! A beautifully written and very insightful, often hilarious,

take on Canada's popular but vacuous, far-left Prime Minister.

Washington Post
BY J.J. MCCULLOUGH

As is common among sheltered men of extreme privilege, when Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau attempts to share relatable thoughts on modern life, his words tend to expose a speaker who has no actual familiarity with social trends but has clearly been briefed to their existence. The commencement speech he delivered Wednesday at New York University is a classic study of an obliviously cloistered poseur trying desperately to feign compliance with current fashions. A belabored reference to Pokemon Go was the least of it.

Trudeau – or whatever team of speechwriters and handlers who do the heavy thinking on his behalf – seems broadly aware that North America is mired in a state of intense sociopolitical polarization, and that amid all this shouting and anger, it is the role of great minds to reassert the case for virtues of free speech and intellectual diversity.

Such was the tone Trudeau’s NYU speech correspondingly struck, with tender protestations to “let yourself be vulnerable to another point of view” accompanied by route denunciations of accompanying sins. One must not “cocoon ourselves in an ideological, social or intellectual bubble,” he implored, or “engage only with people with whom we already agree,” but instead “fight our tribal mind-set” and the dreaded “identity politics.”

To be sure, these are good sentiments. Unfortunately, there is no evidence whatsoever that Trudeau takes them seriously in the context where his opinions most matter: his performance as Canada’s ruler.

In his political capacity, a consistent hallmark of Trudeau’s partisan rhetoric has been the portrayal of absolutely all dissent toward his party, administration and agenda as frivolous and darkly motivated. His 2014 memoir was striking in how deeply incurious it seemed about conservative philosophy, defining the motives of his opponents with one-dimensional slanders about “dividing Canadians” and seeking “power for its own sake.” More recently, he declared before a crowd of partisan supporters that the agenda of the Conservative Party could be summarized in its entirety as “the politics of fear and division.”

“If anything,” he added, “they’ve been emboldened by successful campaigns elsewhere in the world to divide people against one another,” an allusion to global populism that’s hardly brimming with intellectual charity.

There’s almost nothing about Trudeau’s political career, in fact, that suggests he’s ever had even slightest interest in “discovering that someone you vehemently disagree with might have a point,” as he extolled NYU’s grads to do.

Indeed, Trudeau’s speech comes at a particularly ironic time, given he has spent much of the spring embroiled in scandal surrounding his government’s so-called values test for summer job grant applicants, a policy quite explicitly cooked up to cripple the philosophical effectiveness of Canada’s anti-abortion movement.

For years, Canadian pro-life youth groups have made use of Ottawa’s summer jobs fund to finance their activism – activism, it should be noted, that exists for no other purpose than to start conversations and change minds. Yet because Trudeau has insisted Canada’s abortion debate is closed, it was announced that there was to be no further subsidizing of such dialogue on his watch. A checkbox was added to grant forms asking if applicants agreed with “reproductive rights” – such as, as the grant overview says, “the right to access safe and legal abortions” – and if not ticked, there would be no funding.

This wide net ended up catching all manner of faith-based organizations, and rejected applications have soared in the aftermath. But it was the logical consequence of a prime minister who constantly insists there exists no conceivable motive for opposing abortion beyond “restricting women’s rights,” even citing the logic as rationale for an across-the-board ban on pro-life candidates in his party. In his NYU speech, the prime minister happily cited the “pro-choice” community as an example of a close-minded tribe without any apparent irony.

No less hypocritical was his government’s infamous Bill C-16, the legislation that helped make Jordan Peterson into a global celebrity. Though framed as merely extending legal protections to the transgender community, the effort strengthened the most regressive anti-free-speech sections of the Canadian Criminal Code that make it a crime to communicate public “statements” or create “any writing, sign or visible representation” that, in Ottawa’s eyes, “promotes hatred against any identifiable group.”

The debate over transgender accommodation and acceptance is incredibly live at the moment, featuring people of good faith arguing a variety of perspectives. It is perhaps our most pressing modern example of a situation in which “reaching out to people whose beliefs and values differ from your own” will help “find that common ground,” as Trudeau cajoled NYU students. Faced with that reality in his professional capacity, the prime minister elected to use his control of the Canadian state to help preemptively criminalize one side of the conversation.

I do not begrudge Trudeau for building a brand as the world’s “woke boyfriend,” as Anthony Fisher at Reason so memorably put it. Empathy and tolerance are traits that come to him naturally, and there is perhaps some use, if only as a calibration point, for a world leader who places these values at the blind forefront of his politics.

But please, please spare us the reign of Trudeau the intellectual scold. Open-mindedness would have to search pretty hard to find a less credible champion.

Vacuous might be too strong a word, but certainly shallow is not. I heard one politician who once worked with him suggest he was about as deep as a finger-bowl. Why would we say such things? 

Aside from the obvious hypocrisies listed so eloquently above there is the matter of Trudeau's cabinet. Appointed entirely on appearances, Trudeau passed over some imminently qualified people to appoint someone based on their gender, sexual persuasion, colour, disability, and probably even religion - as long as it wasn't Christianity. He has Sikhs, Hindus, several Muslims, no end of athiests, but not a single Christian can be found. In fact, he made it a point of barring anyone who actually believes in the God of the Bible, and he did it in the name of unity.

He has a very colourful cabinet for certain, but one considerably less capable than it could be. No matter, I guess; he runs the show and there will be no debate about anything he has made up his mind about. Stephen Harper was like that, but he received endless criticism from the press for it; Trudeau gets none, at least from Canadian press.

Bizarre Criminal Record for Guantanamo Bay Youth Survivor

Omar Khadr's criminal record in Canada shows 'absolute ignorance,' lawyer says

Document refers to conviction by Guantanamo Bay 'youth court,' refers erroneously to concurrent sentences

By Colin Perkel, The Canadian Press 

Omar Khadr was released from prison in 2015 pending an appeal of his U.S. conviction,

which could take several more years. (Terry Reith/CBC)

Omar Khadr's official criminal record in Canada contains oddities and errors that are at odds with how the federal government viewed him on his return from the notorious prison on the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The record, obtained by The Canadian Press, makes no reference to the fact that Khadr, 30, was convicted by an internationally condemned U.S. military commission for purported offences he committed as a 15-year-old in Afghanistan.

Instead, the document states only that he was convicted at "Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Youth Court)." It makes no reference anywhere to the United States or the commission.

While it's not clear when the record was first created, Khadr's Canadian lawyers call it bizarre. For one thing, they note there's no such thing as a Guantanamo Bay youth court.

However, despite the document, the Canadian government argued strenuously for years against treating Khadr as a young offender — placing him, for example, in a series of maximum security adult prisons on his return to Canada in September 2012.

I voted for Stephen Harper in every election he participated in and would again. Not because I like him, but because I like his opponents even less. Harper did a lot of things that I disliked intensely and leaving this kid hang out to dry was one of them. 

His mother and sisters are radicalized and should never be trusted, but Omar certainly appears to me to be as honest and sincere a person as there is. How he became such a person after enduring so many years in Guantanamo is worth a closer look. I hope he writes is story.

Additionally, the lawyers say, the record appears to formalize the fact that Khadr was convicted as a youth for alleged crimes that occurred in a war zone, which would make him a child soldier — a label the government has also always avoided.

No youth court in Guantanamo

Dennis Edney, one of Khadr's lawyers, who was initially unaware of the document, expressed profound surprise at its contents.

"There's not such a being as a criminal youth court in Guantanamo," Edney said from Edmonton. "Why would you do that? Internationally, the place was condemned because it didn't distinguish between Omar being a child and Omar being an adult."

The Americans captured the horrifically wounded Khadr in the rubble of a bombed out compound in Afghanistan in July 2002 following a fierce firefight that left an American special forces soldier dead and another partly blinded.

In October 2010, the Canadian citizen pleaded guilty to five war crimes before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay, and was handed an eight-year sentence. The Toronto-born Khadr, who has long maintained the Americans tortured him during his lengthy captivity, later said he only pleaded guilty so he could return to Canada.

Omar Khadr is shown in a Guantanamo Bay interrogation room in this image taken from a 2003 surveillance video. (Handout/Canadian Press)

Edney said it's important people understand the context of the convictions — something sorely lacking in the official record.

"It shows absolute ignorance. It misstates itself in a very fundamental way," Edney said. "It shows no understanding of what Guantanamo is (and) demands an explanation as to why it is so described."

Concurrent sentences?

The RCMP document also erroneously states that Khadr was sentenced to five concurrent eight-year terms for each of his five charges. In fact, Canadian courts have ruled Khadr was handed a single eight-year sentence on all counts.

Co-counsel Nate Whitling, who also had not seen the document, called it unsurprising Khadr has a record in Canada given his transfer here to serve out his sentence. But Whitling still called it "weird." He noted there's no such thing as a concurrent sentence at Guantanamo Bay, and suggested Canadian authorities had "tried to fit a square peg into a round hole."

Khadr's lawyers say his conviction record should not enjoy legal recognition in Canada given that it has no reference to a legitimate court in a foreign country but arises out of military commissions that were set up to avoid U.S. constitutional scrutiny. Still, the criminal record could have an impact on Khadr, who hopes to study nursing, when he applies in the future for employment.

Barney Brucker, the Justice Department's lead lawyer on the Khadr file, did not respond to a request for information. Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale was not immediately available to comment on Monday.

Khadr was granted bail in Alberta in 2015 pending an ongoing appeal of his U.S. conviction — a process that will likely take several more years at least. The appeal rests on the fact that he was convicted for acts that were not crimes at the time he did them.

Bowing to Islamism Brought Down Canadian NDP Leader

by Tarek Fatah
The Toronto Sun

Former New Democratic Party (NDP) Leader Thomas Mulcair defended the right of a Muslim woman to wear the niqab during her Canadian citizenship swearing-in ceremony.

Thomas Mulcair, the man who could have been Canada's first New Democrat prime minister, will now be remembered as a blip in the country's political history. Having lost last year's election, and not having had the grace to step down as leader of the party at that time, Mulcair was unceremoniously dumped by party activists at last week's NDP convention in Edmonton.

Mulcair and the NDP led the polls before the election and continued to lead them at about the halfway mark. Many NDP'rs and non-NDP'rs thought he was a shoe-in to become Prime Minister.

The conventional wisdom is he was fired by the NDP for losing the election by trying to steer the party towards victory along a path that sacrificed the party's social democratic heritage.

The truth, however, lies elsewhere. Despite Mulcair's lurch to the right, he could still have been prime minister had it not been for his outlandish support for the right of a Muslim woman to wear the Islamic niqab at her Canadian citizenship swearing in ceremony. The issue so captured the minds of Canadians that Maclean's, in its Sept. 25, 2015 issue, labelled the campaign "The niqab election."

By his own admission to CBC radio on Feb. 13, Mulcair said his backing of the niqab cost the NDP heavily. He told Chris Hall on CBC Radio's The House, "(The niqab) hurt us terribly ... I can share with you that the polling we did showed we dropped over 20 points in 48 hours here in Quebec because of the strong stand I took on the niqab."

20 points from which he never recovered. One could argue that it wasn't the niqab issue that cost him the election because Justin Trudeau, who won the election was equally as adamantly in favour of keeping Muslim women invisible. Also, Steven Harper, who was the PM who raised the issue, was defeated. However, that 20 point drop in Quebec clinches it.

Even in this admission, Mulcair made it sound as if he had stood up for Rosa Parks, not a Pakistani immigrant telling Canadians how we need to change our laws to accommodate her.

Even though Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, as leader of the then third place Liberal party, also backed the niqab, there was more at stake for Mulcair because the NDP's power base was in Quebec, where people were vocally against all things overtly Islamist.

Indeed, in the middle of the federal election campaign, at least four sitting MPs of the NDP from Quebec denounced the party's niqab policy.

But this subject, central to the NDP's election debacle, did not come up at last weekend's convention. Not one word was said about Mulcair's decision to defend the most misogynistic apparel on earth, one that stamps women as physical possessions to be protected from the supposed sexual depravity of men. Like ostriches, and similar to left wing parties around the globe, the New Democrats simply wanted to stay away from any culture war involving Islamists.

Islamism has become the new sacred cow for the left. No criticism of anything related to Islamic sharia is permitted, as if such discourse itself is blasphemy.

There is also a bizarre movement among left wing feminists to label oppressive anti-women laws written by Muslim men as a human right of Muslim women, with any criticism of these laws labelled as Islamophobia.

New Democrats had a chance to fight Islamist misogyny but instead chose cowardice and, post election, have avoided discussing the niqab issue as if it had never happened.

Canadians, especially the Québécois, will not elect NDP apologists for Islamism today or in the future.

New Democrats should recognize the elephant in the room for what it is -- a challenge to secular liberal democratic society and individual liberty.

They should listen to Trevor Phillips, Britain's former human rights commissioner, who popularized the term "Islamophobia" in 1997, but now admits he "got almost everything wrong" on Muslim issues, noting many followers of Islam are creating "nations within nations" in the West.

Tarek Fatah, a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress and columnist at the Toronto Sun, is a Robert J. and Abby B. Levine Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

One-World Government if Harper Loses Election - Margaret Thatcher Advisor

Monckton: Harper defeat in Canada election will allow 

“world government” win at UN Paris climate meet

 Lord Christopher Monckton giving 2014 presentation in Australia titled
"Our Last Year of Freedom?"

Andrew Smith, Australian correspondent
 and Steve Jalsevac
Life Site
BRISBANE, Australia, October 18, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – According to Lord Christopher Monckton, a former policy adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Monday's Canadian election will decide if Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whom he calls the last man standing against the establishment of a 'one world government', will remain against a deliberate international effort to remove him. 

The second last, Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott, was overthrown, as predicted by Monckton in 2014, in order to clear the way for this international scheme. 

With Harper out of the way, warned Monckton, world governance will finally begin with a successful December, 2015 Paris Climate Conference. Another major factor for the Climate treaty’s likely success this time, after many past failures, is the unprecedented, strong public support of the Roman Catholic Church under Pope Francis.  

The Harper Conservative government has consistently opposed these binding international agreements that impose dramatic limits on the sovereignty of nations in order to resolve still-much-disputed, environmentalist claims of dangerous man-induced climate change.

Organizers of the Paris summit are proclaiming that “for the first time in over 20 years of UN negotiations,” they “aim to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate.” At risk, according to Monckton and many other critics of the “fraudulent” climate change movement, is democracy, its associated freedoms, and the Christian way of life worldwide.

In September 2014, Monckton spoke in Brisbane, detailing his claims of the fraud behind the global warming 'science'. Monckton exposed what he says are the true intentions of what has been presented to the world as a noble environmentalist cause that demands urgent action. 

One of my biggest problems with global warming deniers is their claim that it is all a fraud. I could never see the motive behind committing such a fraud until now. If the UN is able to get all countries to agree to climate goals with penalties for failure, they will, in effect, have formed the basis for a one-world government. Spreading from the innocuous climate portfolio into more substantial areas of our lives will be so much easier.

This concealed push for a one-world government began at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in 2009, with a treaty draft containing “The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism …” (UNFCCC draft of the Copenhagen Treaty, Annex 1, Para. 38, 15 September 2009)  (emphasis added)  It was blocked by China.  The Copenhagen conference also included an emphasis on population control as the final solution.

As Monckton points out, “This (environmental treaty) process has nothing to do with the weather.  It has nothing to do with man's impact on the weather.  It has everything to do with establishing the socialist international at the heart of the UN and making every nation bow the knee to this new dictatorship, and the climate is merely a fig leaf to cover what they are trying to do.”

"We'll make sure (Harper) is removed"

Monckton recounted a conversation when Sir David King, William Hague's United Kingdom “climate change ambassador” was asked by the Environmentalist Committee of the House of Commons in May 2014 “whether all the nations of the world were in principle ready to sign their peoples rights away in such a treaty,” to which he replied “Oh yes, but there are two stand-outs.  One is Canada, but don't worry about Canada.  They've got an election in the spring of 2015 and we and the U.N. will make sure that the present government is removed.”  Monckton recalled his absolute bluntness about the matter.

The other holdout was Australia which was in an arguably stronger position as there was no election until after the 2015 Paris Climate Change Conference.  With Tony Abbott as leader there was no chance that Australia would be signing the treaty.  In 2014, Abbott had taken the unusual step of sending an additional minister to accompany foreign minister Julie Bishop to ensure that she did not vote for the treaty at the 2014 Climate Change Conference in Lima.


Monkton predicts Abbott's fall

Monckton warned of the need to protect Abbott and the danger from the Turnbull faction, in conjunction with the United Nations, doing their best to remove him ahead of this year’s Climate Change Conference. 

In February this year, barely five months after Monckton's warning, Abbott survived a first attempt on his leadership from the Turnbull faction.  However, incessant negative and biased media coverage influenced the perception of Turnbull by the Australian population, and hence depressed his polling figures. Consequently, a substantial number of government MPs became anxious with an election less than a year away.  In September, as reported by LifeSiteNews, Abbott was replaced by Turnbull 54-44 in a leadership spill ballot.

The outcome of the Canadian election remains to be seen, but the aim of any behind the scenes involvement by the UN and other climate extremists would be to effect a change of government so that Canada's vote at the December climate conference will be changed.

Monckton has urged people to write to their MPs and ask them to ensure that any treaty draft or treaty that is signed has a clause added that enables a country “when it eventually comes off the Kool-aid and wakes up” to withdraw at a later date after giving sufficient notice.  He provided a previously used example from Article 27 if the Kyoto protocol which Canada itself has used to withdraw from that treaty.

“At any time after three years from the date on which this Protocol has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Protocol by giving written notification to the Depositary.”
By default, the 2015 Paris treaty agreement will not have this.  According to Monckton, we need to “make sure that the nations of the world are not locked into something which in due course they would very nearly all bitterly regret.”

Mr. Monckton was Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher as U.K. Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986. In 1986 he was among the first to advise the prime minister that “global warming” caused by carbon dioxide should be investigated. Two years later she set up the Hadley Centre for Forecasting: but she, like him, later changed her view. On leaving 10 Downing Street, he established a successful specialist consultancy company, giving technical advice to corporations and governments. His two articles on global warming in The Sunday Telegraph in November 2006 crashed its website after attracting 127,000 hits within two hours of publication.

A speech by Mr. Monckton to 1,000 citizens of St. Paul, Minnesota in October 2009, in which he drew public attention to a then little-known draft plan by the U.N. to establish an unelected world government at the (now-failed) climate summit at Copenhagen in December 2009, received 1,000,000 YouTube hits in a week – thought to be the fastest-ever YouTube platinum for a political speech. Some five million have now seen the presentation on various websites.