McConnell Links Sarkozy-Cameron Auld Alliance To Chicago NATO Bomb

Presidential Field McConnell has linked an ‘Auld Alliance’ agreement between David Cameron and Nicholas Sarkozy to covert preparations to bomb or threaten to bomb Chicago during the NATO Summit of May 20-21.

McConnell claims that the Auld Alliance strategy by Cameron and Sarkozy for a joint-command attack on Chicago [Cf. CCX] emerged after Barack Obama’s failure to secure a binding 350 ppm cap in CO2 emissions at the Copenhagen conference in December 2009.

Prequel:
Alien At the Foreign Office - Federal Bridge Certification Authority - Auld Alliance Allies - Pedophile Traps (cf. Holly Grieg) - Extorting Silence

“Cameron and Sarkozy Announce Joint Military Command Centre After Libya “Success” Keelan Balderson Wide Shut February 22, 2012 After shamelessly declaring their obliteration of Libya a success, UK Prime Minister David Cameron and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, have announced the creation of a joint military command and control centre to streamline future operations [to support a sequel to NATO 9/11]. At a [Auld Alliance] summit today in Paris, Cameron lauded their “incredibly strong relationship based on shared interests”. Although they hid behind the Orwellian euphemism of defence, it’s quite clear that those shared interests are that of military aggression and corporate imperialism. There is no foreign army storming Normandy, and no air-force bombing London. To defend, is to protect one’s homeland, however Cameron and Sarkozy revealed plans to produce a series of unmanned fighter drones, the kind that regularly prey on sovereign nations in the Middle-East and strike innocent civilians.”

“[Spoliation inference that the Auld Alliance Socialists have to move fast with an attack on Chicago before Obama and his Socialists are voted out in November] PARIS – French President Nicolas Sarkozy lost his bid for a second term Sunday to Socialist candidate Francois Hollande, in a vote that could have reverberations across Europe and around the world – and especially in Washington. The decision marks a sharp turn away from the budget-cutting policies trumpeted by Sarkozy and other European leaders who tried to respond to the financial crisis by tightening their belts. By contrast, Hollande has called for more spending, financed by more taxes. His election means a Socialist is taking power in Paris for the first time since Socialist Francois Mitterrand was president from 1981 to 1995. In Washington, the White House has not yet put out a statement on the results. President Obama worked closely with Sarkozy last year on the military intervention in Libya, and will get his first up-close glimpse of Hollande’s foreign policy stance at the looming NATO summit in Chicago later this month.”

“PIERRE CLAUDE NOLIN (CANADA [Sarkozy was a Desmarais Socialist puppet])
SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR
I. INTRODUCTION
II. THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE
III. COPENHAGEN SUMMIT ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
A. FROM KYOTO TO THE COPENHAGEN ACCORD
B. WHAT WAS HOPED FOR AND WHAT WAS ACHIEVED
C. DIFFERING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES
1. The developed countries
2. Developing countries: BASIC
3. Developing countries: the African Group and the Alliance of Small Island States

IV. THE POST-COPENHAGEN STRATEGY: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The intense climate change negotiations that took place in Copenhagen in December 2009 brought together the top heads of states, ministers and state officials in an attempt to reach a legally binding treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. The Copenhagen Accord was equally described as an absolute failure and lauded as a positive and significant step forward to slowing or reversing the phenomenon of global warming.

2. The Copenhagen Accord set the goal of limiting the rise of global temperatures by 2ºC, compared with pre-industrial levels; it provided for an increase of financial aid for the developing nations, emissions transparency via international monitoring, and a review of progress by 2015. Perhaps, the most important and positive outcome of the Summit is that its final document was endorsed by all major emitters, including the United States and China.

3. However, the Copenhagen Accord was taken “note of”, rather than properly adopted by the parties. It is non-binding and does not entail a path towards a legally binding agreement. Moreover, the Accord is incomplete in many areas and achieved much less than what was initially hoped for. It has no long-term global emission reduction target, nor does it establish peaking data for emissions, not even for the developed countries.

4. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and its Science and Technology Committee in particular, has been constantly discussing climate change and its global security implications. The Assembly has been consistent in its support for a concerted global response to this global challenge. NATO parliamentarians also supported the notion that climate change must occupy an important place on the Alliance’s agenda and be included into the new NATO Strategic Concept. Although the Assembly has adopted several climate change related reports and policy recommendations in recent years, the Copenhagen Summit has been a milestone event that requires a fresh look at the new global climate policy landscape. In particular, the Summit raises the question of whether the UN-led climate effort is still viable, or if other – national/bottom-up or regional – approaches provide a more feasible alternative.

5. Another major recent development is the partial reopening of the scientific debate behind climate change, once seemingly closed by the release of the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The so-called “Climategate”, the scandal involving the leak of conversations between some of the world’s top meteorologists and researchers from the University of East Anglia, United Kingdom (although they were subsequently cleared by a special inquiry panel), made climate change sceptics more vocal in discrediting IPCC’s scientific work. Some of the intercepted e-mails indicated that there were attempts to manipulate or suppress data, which is incompatible with scientific practice. The scandal has become an important factor influencing Copenhagen and post-Copenhagen negotiations. Therefore, this paper will begin with a discussion on the basic scientific premises of the climate challenge.”

Presidential Field invites you to check the links and enter the Auld Alliance’s OODA loop and thwart the NATO attack before people in Chicago suffer a sequel to 9/11.



Presidential Mandate

http://www.abeldanger.net/