Lots of backlash from the Copenhagen climate change summit (Climategate, nations agreeing to disagree, etc.) finally came to the forefront when the U.N.’s top climate change official, Yvo de Boer, made the decision to resign.

The main reason? Mainly because the nations (all 193 of them) who were dumb enough to attend the climate change summit in Copenhagen, for reasons known only to them and God, couldn’t put together a money/power grab climate change deal together. Which, in the grand scheme of things, is a blessing in disguise.

But then again, he contributed either directly or indirectly to his own demise when he admitted in an interview to the BBC that there’s been no global warming within the past 15 years. Ouch!

The resignation of de Boer simply illustrates the sham that global warming is. the meeting of the 193 assembled nations wasn’t so much a concern about climate change as it was a way for them to attempt to cobble together some sham agreement that is more about money and eventually, a one-world government.

de Boer’s resignation also brings to the forefront the ineffectiveness of the U.N. The organization is just a cover for a select group of nations that want to have this “one-world order”, which inevitably would be the start of a non-democratized world. In other words, they prefer the Socialist and/or Marxist model of government.

If the United States was smart, they would do  two things: quit paying membership dues to the U.N., and better yet, resign from the United Nations altogether. The U.S. would be better off with their non-participation in this sham organization.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Global warming does exist – at the studios of MSNBC. Please note the “according to the U.N.” references. That should tell you everything that you need to know.

With willing one-world accomplices in Washington, D.C., gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.

In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”

Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.

Ultimately, the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.

That’s why it’s vital you sign special petition I’ve made up for your signature that DEMANDS your U.S. Senators vote AGAINST ratification of the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty!”

So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new scheme under wraps.

But looking at previous versions of the UN “Small Arms Treaty,” you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.

If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:

• Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally.
• CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course)
• BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons
• Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.

You see, this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.

Ever since it’s founding almost 65 years ago, the United Nations has been hell-bent on bringing the United States to its knees.

To the petty dictators and one-worlders who control the UN, the U.S. isn’t a “shining city on a hill” — it’s an affront to their grand totalitarian designs for the globe.

These anti-gun globalists know that so long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they’ll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide oppressive power they crave.

And the UN’s apologists also know the most effective way to finally strip you and me of ALL our freedoms would be to DESTROY our gun rights.

And you and I know good and well how Germany, Great Britain, France, Communist China or the rest of the anti-gun members of the United Nations are going to vote.

So our ONE AND ONLY CHANCE of stopping the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty” is during the ratification process in the U.S. Senate.

As you know, it takes 67 Senate votes to ratify a treaty.

With 40 Republicans, that should be easy, right?

Unfortunately, that couldn’t be further from the truth.

First, you know just as well as I do that not all the remaining Republicans in the Senate are “pro-gun” in any sense of the term.

Second, even with the partisan rancor in Washington, D.C., many GOP Senators get “queasy” about killing treaties for fear of “embarrassing” the President — especially with “international prestige” at stake.

They look at ratifying treaties much like approving Presidents’ Supreme Court nominees.

And remember, there were NINE Republicans who voted to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

A dozen more GOP Senators only voted against Sotomayor after receiving massive grassroots pressure from the folks back home.

So if we’re going to defeat the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty” we have to turn the heat up on the U.S. Senate now before it’s too late!

So won’t you click here to sign IMMEDIATELY?

Jim sent this in:

Recently, President Barack Obama named Chuck Hagel, a left-leaning Republican, as co-chair of his Intelligence Advisory Board. Although a leader in the GOP, Hagel developed a close relationship with Obama during his presidential campaign. Reportedly both men are Internationalists with some observers claiming they are more concerned with foreign nations than their own country and its people.

Former US Senator Hagel is a member of various Globalist organizations, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFP), according to Washington sources. The CFR has worked to create and preserve a system of worldwide economic, political, and military dependencies/protectorates. This system initially was used to “contain” the Eurasian and Latin American left, but has evolved into a welfare system for United States-based multinational corporations.   Hagel is quoted as saying, “The UN is more relevant today than it has ever been” and “U.S. interests are not mutually exclusive from the interests of its friends and allies.”     In addition, “the United States and the European Union can benefit by teaming up to address the global issues of the coming era” and the “United States can continue to set an example, not arrogantly, but cooperatively, through strong leadership and partnership,” the former senator said.

Meanwhile officials unveiled a United Kingdom government security plan examined by reporters from the London-based Daily Telegraph, several countries — U.S., U.K., France, Germany, etc. –would submit classified information into a central intelligence unit so that any member nation will have access to it.

But the proposals risk hard won intelligence gathered by U.S. agents being leaked by less scrupulous security services, particularly in the former Communist states of Eastern Europe, according to security experts Bruno Waterfield and Duncan Gardham. 

Although the Government has contributed to the proposals being drawn up as part of unifying European countries and their resources, Britain’s security services — MI5, its internal agency, and MI6, its foreign intelligence agency – will likely put up stiff opposition to these plans, claim Waterfield and Gardham.

“This is serious business even for the United States,” said former US Marine intelligence officer and NYPD detective Sid Frances.

“The United States shares top secret intelligence with the British intelligence and law enforcement agencies. That means that very soon, U.S. secrets will be distributed to nations that should not have access to our military and law enforcement secrets,” claims the decorated Marine and cop.

“What worries me is that the people who these Internationalists will spy on, just may be you and me,” he added.

Historically British intelligence officers have enjoyed a good relationship with their U.S. counterparts, regularly exchanging information particularly in the fight against terrorism.

However, there has been a degree of mistrust between the British authorities and European security agencies. In the 1990s the French intelligence service was blamed for leaking information shared by MI6 to the Serbian military,

“We have well-worked principles about how we share information using bilateral relationships built up over many years,” said Waterfield and Gardham.

“We share information whenever we need to do so and while the idea of dumping everything in a big pool may have a superficial attraction, we would want to know that everyone was contributing equally and the information shared was properly protected.”

The intelligence-sharing plan from the European Union Future Group is expected to form the basis of legislation next year and calls on countries to abandon the “principle of confidentiality” which has governed the sharing of intelligence for decades.

The proposals stop short of calling for a European spy agency but say there is a need for “increased synergies between police and security intelligence services.”

It suggests a network of “antiterrorist centers” in each country coordinated by SitCen, the European Union’s intelligence assessment center in Brussels.

“While the U.S. won’t directly be involved in consolidating intelligence, any secrets we share with Britain, France, Germany or other countries will be open to espionage by enemy nations or terrorist groups,” warns Det. Frances.

“Once we submit classified information to foreign entities, we no longer have control over what groups have access to our secrets,” he added.

Other proposals suggest standardizing police surveillance techniques and extending the sharing of DNA and fingerprint databases to include CCTV video footage and material gathered by “spy drones.”

The plans are based on the idea that the EU can do better than national governments with the report adding: “It appears that this sector cannot be managed politically by individual member states.”

It is also suggests that the European Gendarmerie Force (EGF), which currently only involves France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands, should become an EU body.

The latest proposal will step up pressure on the UK to allow the deployment of armed foreign police officers intp Britain during a ”crisis” situations, including public order disturbances at international summits.

Other proposals include the formation of a paramilitary police force which can be deployed by a Brussels “mission command” in international hotspots outside the EU’s borders.

The confidential 53-page document, called European Home Affairs in an Open World, sets out plans for an EU program of security measures from 2010 to 2014.It has been drafted by a top-level group consisting of justice ministers from Germany, Portugal, Slovenia, France, the Czech Republic and Sweden as well as the European Commission.

The plans have alarmed conservatives and civil libertarians as both an erosion of national sovereignty and a threat to freedom.

Dominic Grieve, the Shadow Home Secretary, told the British press, ”This report reveals the enormous scope of Brussels’ ambitions for EU control over vital areas of national security policy. While practical cooperation between EU partners is important — the Government must resolutely resist any attempt to fetter British control over this important policy area.”

Government sources said they were still considering the proposals but were keen to see greater cooperation in gathering intelligence at European borders. A Home Office spokesman said: “The UK has followed the workings of the Future Group and has [cooperated when] possible.The report contains some useful ideas regarding how EU countries can cooperate on global issues such as combating terrorism.”

For those of us “skeptics” and “deniers” who have been jumping up and down, pointing at the Sun, and saying, “See, it’s the Sun that determines how warm or cool the Earth is. See it? Up there in the sky?” The truth about some of the scientists behind the global warming hoax has finally arrived.

The hoax has its roots in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an instrument of the United Nations Environmental Program, for whom global warming was the open sesame to achieving a one-world-government by scaring nations into signing a treaty that would control their use of energy, the means of producing it, and require vast billions to be sent to less developed nations in exchange for “emitting” greenhouse gases.

Energy is called “the master resource” because, if you have lots of it, you can call your own shots. If you don’t, you are condemned to live in the dark and keeping people in the dark about the global warming hoax was essential.

For years the IPCC has been controlled by a handful of the worst liars in the world, utterly devoted to taking actual climate data and twisting it to confirm the assertion that the Earth was not only warming dramatically, but that humanity was in peril of rising oceans, melting glaciers and polar ice caps, more hurricanes, the die-off of countless animal species, and every other calamity that could possibly be attributed to “global warming”, including acne.

So, around November 20, when some enterprising individual hacked into the computers of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), making off with thousands of emails and documents that demonstrate the level of collusion and deception being practiced by its scientists.

It’s a climate hoax expose that some are calling the revelations a “little blue dress” while others are comparing it to the Pentagon Papers. It has also been dubbed “climategate.”

As James Delingpole wrote in the Telegraph, one of England’s leading newspapers:

“Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more” was revealed in the 61 megabites of confidential files released on the Internet for anyone to read.”

The conspirators had a visceral hatred for scientists who challenged their phony statistics and climate data, but they also agonized over the difficulties of hiding a long established climate cycle such as the Medieval Warm Period. At one point it was left out of a graph that famously became known as “the hockey stick” because it depicted a ludicrous sudden rise in warming, ignoring the previous natural cycle.

At the heart of the revelations were the intense efforts to ensure that no legitimate scientist, particularly those dissenting from the various IPCC reports, would be allowed to participate in the peer review process. Peer review is an essential element in science as it permits other scientists to examine and test the data being put forth to substantiate a new interpretation or discovery.

The IPCC reports were the basis by which popular media such as National Geographic, Time and Newsweek magazines could spread the lies about a dramatic “global warming”, passing them off to an unsuspecting and scientifically illiterate general public. At the same time, the lies were integrated them into school curriculums and maintained by Hollywood celebrities, politicians and others, duped or deliberately ignorant.

To this day, otherwise legitimate news media outlets continue to trumpet and repeat absolute nonsense about “global warming” like brain-dead parrots.

Now that Hadley CRU and its conspirators have been exposed, there truly is no need to hold a December UN climate change conference in Copenhagen; one in which nations would be required to put limits on “greenhouse gas emissions” even though such gases, primarily carbon dioxide, have nothing to do with altering the Earth’s climate.

And that is why you are going to hear more about “climate change” and far less about “global warming.” Hidden in such discussions, intended to justify legislation and regulation, is that the Earth’s climate has always and will always change.

It is, for example, shameful and deceitful for the EPA to claim carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” that should be regulated. The same applies to “cap-and-trade” legislation with the same purpose.

Billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted on studies of global warming and poured into agencies such as NASA that have lent credence to the global warming hoax.

According to Christopher C. Horner, a longtime global warming skeptic:

“The U.S. taxpayer has much exposure here in the joint projects and collaborations which operated in reliance upon what the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit was doing. There are U.S. taxpayer-funded offices and individuals involved in the machinations addressed in the emails, and in the emails themselves.”

Horner, the author of “Red Hot Lies”, said that the initial revelations “give the appearance of a conspiracy to defraud, by parties working in taxpayer funded agencies collaborating on ways to misrepresent material on which an awful lot of taxpayer money rides.”

The climate, defined as long term trends, and the weather has nothing whatever to do with human activity and suggesting it does reveals the depth of contempt that people like Al Gore and his ilk have for humanity and those fleeced by purchasing “carbon credits” or paying more for electricity when their utility does.

The East Anglia CRU charlatans have been exposed. Most certainly, the United Nations IPCC should be disbanded in disgrace. It belongs in a museum of hoaxes right beside the Piltdown Man and the Loch Ness Monster.

I had always sensed that President Obama’s support among the Jewish population here in the U.S. had slipped, courtesy of some of his actions overseas, but I didn’t have any idea how much. Well folks, it appears that the president’s “overwhelming” support by American Jews has dropped – big-time.

How much so? According to Morton Klein, head of the Zionist Organization of America, a poll commissioned by Gallup indicates that Obama’s approval rating recently has dropped from 83% in January to 64%. And there’s several factors that contribute to his big drop in popularity.

The first thing that comes to mind is the Cairo speech in which Obama he equated Palestinian suffering to the Jewish suffering during the Holocaust. The president also said that the Palestinian situation is much like the situation for U.S. blacks in our country before the civil rights movement – basically calling Jews “oppressors”.

Then there is the instance where our president gave a Presidential Medal of Freedom to a pair of obviously anti-Semite people – Mary Robinson of Ireland and Desmond Tutu of South Africa. Oh, let’s not forget when Obama, during his U.N. speech in New York recently, coupled supporting Israeli security along with Israel fulfilling Palestinian claims and rights. Sounds just from that statement alone that Obama is decidedly anti-Israel.

The thing about all of this is that Jews are worried that in the Cairo speech he never mentioned Iran, and more recently he seems to be doing everything he can to delay any real, true sanctions, and he seems to have taken the military option off the table.

So American Jews and others are now worried that he’s not even serious about doing something about this ideologically fanatical terrorist-supporting regime. He’s not doing anything about allowing them to get nuclear weapons, which they could use to harm Israel, the West, and even America.

So in the grand scheme of things, from beginning to end, Obama has to be considered the most anti-Israel president this side of Jimmy Carter.

Remember during the early days of Barack Obama’s presidency (January to be exact) when Rush Limbaugh said, “I hope he fails”? That small statement, in the eyes of the left (radical and otherwise) who cannot fathom the possibility of  anything succeeding outside of taxpayer-funded government programs, gave them the notion that Rush wanted the U.S. to fail.

As we already know, the lefties think that America can only succeed if Obama succeeds. As we also know, this mentality is wrong on many levels, from the welfare state to the public school system to the various “family service” agencies that consistently peddle their poisonous anti-family agenda, it is liberalism itself that fails America on every occasion that it gains any new toehold in society.

So in essence, Limbaugh’s words held this meaning: he wanted Obama’s policies to fail. Not the man – his policies. Funny thing is, Rush’s words illustrate everything that Obama is doing right now. Actions such as the liberals’ attempts at state-sponsored “compassion”, for example. Rush, like the rest of us, simply does not want a continuation of international disasters that have been a direct result of naive, morally and spiritually bankrupt leftists sticking their nose where they do not belong.

And of course, this is exactly what Obama, with his “Can’t we all just get along?” mentality not to mention his utter and complete incompetence, is doing. Small wonder the Europeans like our president. A good example of how the international community respects Obama would be the International Olympic Committee eliminating Chicago as a possible host of the 2016 Summer Olympic Games – which is a blessing in disguise, in my humble opinion.

Now when former president George W. Bush was in office, the world treated our country completely differently. All it takes to remember this is the 9/11 incident back in 2001; back then, foreign leaders, liking us or not, at least respected us. If you remember, Bush basically told the international community that they were “for us or against us” – and to be held accountable, as well.

Meanwhile, Bush’s edict got the predicted backlash; during that time, while these other countries should have been shoring up their national defenses agaisnt militant Islamics, they – especially the Europeans – were cutting underhanded deals with the Middle East. Remember the so-called “oil-for-food” (way to go United Nations on that one!) program? That’s right – that program was chock-full of corruption while on the U.N.’s watch.

This was a case of European leaders lining their pockets while empowering terrorist states. And what does this get Bush? Being despised by the left and especially the international community for having a set balls while standing firm and shutting the door on the “oil-for-food” scam. Now enter Barack Obama into all of this.

Obama has this problem – and this goes back even before his visit to Copenhagen, Denmark – he genuinely thinks that the rest of the world was supportive of him. I think we know that isn’t the case here. The trip to Copenhagen wasn’t so much a lame attempt in getting Chicago to host the 2016 Olympics insomuch as trying to get the world to “like America” once again. And as much as I don’t trust a majority of the European nations, I will give them credit for this: they saw right through Obama, knowing that he was being narcissistic while making a pitch for Chicago.

So basically, the trip by Obama and his wife overseas was a waste of time completely. What it did accomplish was this: it gave the international community another reason not to like America – or at least like a weaker version of America. Folks, there is a reason why America is a superpower – because of our strength. Obama, at his current rate, will try to ensure that our country is on “equal footing” with the rest of the world. That policy is along the lines of what the United Nations’ grand goal is – to make everyone equal.

I learned a long time ago that respect among your friends, colleagues and peers is a whole more important than worrying about whether you’re liked. Obviously Obama didn’t learn that while under the tutelage of Saul Alinsky. Our president needs to understand that this is not a high school mixer where friendships supersede character.