The Global Trends 2025 report released from the US National Intelligence Council (NIC) has confirmed what analysts have been saying for years: The United States is in the beginning stages of a long period of decline.
Reporting from Washington -- A new assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies predicts that American influence in the world will decline over the next two decades as surging powers such as China and India, as well as independent entities including tribes and criminal networks, gain international clout. The report, meant to serve as a guidepost for President-elect Barack Obama's administration, offers a vision of a future in which the U.S., while the most powerful, is but "one of a number" of important players in the world. Describing the findings, Tom Fingar, deputy director of National Intelligence for analysis, said there would be a "diminished gap between the United States and everybody else. . . . The unipolar moment is over."The report, titled "Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World," represents the U.S. intelligence community's most comprehensive examination to date of long-term security issues. It sees a possible increase in terrorist violence even as support for extremism starts to wane. Source: latimes.com
Global Trends 2025 Report (Table of Contents and Excerpts) Introduction: A Transformed World Chapter 1: The Globalizing Economy Chapter 2: The Demographics of Discord Chapter 3: The New Players Chapter 4: Scarcity in the Midst of Plenty? Chapter 5: Growing Potential for Conflict Chapter 6: Will the International System Be Up to the Challenges? Chapter 7: Power-sharing in a Multipolar World
Infowars: Bilderberger Fareed Zakaria Challenges Obama to ‘New Grand Strategy’ COMMENT: "Aside from the new world order propaganda and absurdly glowing praise for President-Elect Obama, this article shows perhaps the most naked admission yet that the much-hailed "change" of the next administration will, in substance, be only a greater manifestation of global government while giving the impression that Obama can better handle the ongoing world-and-nation building agenda. We’ve already had more than enough of this with PNAC & co.; A new dose of Brookings, CFR & co. new world architecture will be no better, even under the guise of ‘multi-lateralism,’ ‘regional cooperation’ or any other mask of psuedo-jurisdiction."
Any attempt at a grand strategy for today must also begin with an accurate appraisal of the world. For that, the Obama administration should study the National Intelligence Council's newly published forecast, "Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World."
"The international system -- as constructed following the Second World War -- will be almost unrecognizable by 2025," the document says, owing to the rise of emerging nations, a globalizing economy and a dramatic power shift. "In terms of size, speed and directional flow, the transfer of global wealth and economic power now underway -- roughly from West to East -- is without precedent in modern history."
Some have seized on the fact that emerging markets are slumping to argue that the era of Western dominance isn't over yet. But the rise of the non-Western world -- which began with Japan in the 1950s, then continued with the Asian tigers in the 1960s, China in the 1980s and India and Brazil in the 1990s -- is a broad and deep trend that is likely to endure.
For some countries, the current economic crisis could actually accelerate the process. For the past two decades, for example, China has grown at approximately 9 percent a year and the United States at 3 percent. For the next few years, American growth will likely be 1 percent and China's, by the most conservative estimates, 5 percent. So, China was growing three times as fast as the United States, but will now grow five times as fast, which only brings closer the date when the Chinese economy will equal in size that of the United States.Then contrast China's enormous surplus reserves to America's massive debt burden: the picture does not suggest a return to American unipolarity.
The "rise of the rest," as I have termed it, is an economic phenomenon, but it has political, military and cultural consequences. In one month this past summer, India was willing to frontally defy the United States at the Doha trade talks, Russia attacked and occupied parts of Georgia, and China hosted the most spectacular and expensive Olympic Games in history (costing more than $40 billion). Ten years ago, not one of the three would have been powerful or confident enough to act as it did.
Even if their growth rates decline, these countries will not return quietly to the back of the bus. The "Global Trends" report identifies several worrying aspects of the new international order--competition for resources like oil, food, commodities and water; climate change; continued terrorist threats; and demographic shifts. But the most significant point it makes is that these changes are taking place at every level and at great speed in the global system. Nations with differing political and economic systems are flourishing. Subnational groups, with varied and contradictory agendas, are on the rise. Technology is increasing the pace of change.Such ferment is usually a recipe for instability. Sudden shifts can trigger sudden actions -- terrorist attacks, secessionist outbreaks, nuclear brinksmanship...
National rivalries, some will say, are in the nature of international politics. But that's no longer good enough. Without better and more sustained cooperation, it is difficult to see how we will solve most of the major problems of the 21st century. The real crisis we face is not one of capitalism or American decline, but of globalization itself. As the problems spill over borders, the demand for common action has gone up. But the institutions and mechanisms to make it happen are in decline. The United Nations, NATO and the European Union are all functioning less effectively than they should be. I hold no brief for any specific institution. The United Nations, especially the Security Council, is flawed and dysfunctional. But we need some institutions for global problem-solving, some mechanisms to coordinate policy. Unless we can find ways to achieve this, we should expect more crises and less success at solving them.
In a world characterized by change, more and more countries--especially great powers like Russia and China and India--will begin to chart their own course. That in turn will produce greater instability. America cannot forever protect every sea lane, broker every deal and fight every terrorist group. Without some mechanisms to solve common problems, the world as we have come to know it, with an open economy and all the social and political benefits of this openness, will flounder and perhaps reverse.
Now, these gloomy forecasts are not inevitable. Worst-case scenarios are developed so that they can be prevented. And there are many good signs in the world today. The most significant rising power--China--does not seem to seek to overturn the established order (as have many newly rising powers in the past) but rather to succeed within it. Considerable cooperation takes place every day at the ground level, among a large number of countries, on issues from nuclear nonproliferation to trade policy.
Sometimes a crisis provides an opportunity. The Washington G20 meeting, for instance, was an interesting portent of a future "post-American" world. Every previous financial crisis had been handled by the IMF, the World Bank or the G7 (or G8). This time, the emerging nations were fully represented. At the same time, the meeting was held in Washington, and George W. Bush presided. The United States retains a unique role in the emerging world order. It remains the single global power. It has enormous convening, agenda-setting and leadership powers, although they must be properly managed and shared with all the world's major players, old and new, in order to be effective.
President-elect Obama has powers of his own, too. I will not exaggerate the importance of a single personality, but Obama has become a global symbol like none I can recall in my lifetime. Were he to go to Tehran, for example, he would probably draw a crowd of millions, far larger than any mullah could dream of. Were his administration to demonstrate in its day-to-day conduct a genuine understanding of other countries' perspectives and empathy for the aspirations of people around the world, it could change America's reputation in lasting ways.
This is a rare moment in history. A more responsive America, better attuned to the rest of the world, could help create a new set of ideas and institutions -- an architecture of peace for the 21st century that would bring stability, prosperity and dignity to the lives of billions of people. Ten years from now, the world will have moved on; the rising powers will have become unwilling to accept an agenda conceived in Washington or London or Brussels. But at this time and for this man, there is a unique opportunity to use American power to reshape the world. This is his moment. He should seize it.
Gary Allen, in The Rockefeller File, states that the CFR is behind the many regional government plans, which would abolish city, county, and state lines, leaving us at the mercy of federal bureaucrats; and that the CFR is behind the push for "land use" controls. They want "federal control of everything since they intend to control the federal government."
By Executive Order No. 11647 on February 10, 1972, President Nixon officially abolished through regionalism the American system of government. Regionalism is the consolidation of local and state governments into large regional units and the centralization of power in bureaucratic authorities, boards and commissions, whose primary function is to administer plans and programs dictated by Washington.
Executive Order No. 11647 divided the United States into 10 Federal Regional Councils, each controlled by an appointed bureaucrat for the stated purpose of improving coordination of the activities of all levels of government. The 10 federal regions were to be empowered to control all forms of regionalism within the United States. Regional divisions supplementing the 10 federal regions include state subregions, Federal Reserve regions, population regions, and regions to control the land, water and natural resources of America. [Executive Order 11647 was replaced by Executive Order 12149, Federal Regional Councils, on July 20, 1979.]
Executive Order No. 11490 assigned numerous emergency preparedness functions to federal departments. Financing of regional governments is acquired through federal revenue sharing. Revenue sharing is a mechanism whereby the state and local governments become financially dependent upon the federal government. Pressure can then be applied to any level of state government that refuses to comply with the dictates of the regional government rulers. All but one of the 10 federal regional capitals is either a Federal Reserve Bank or branch bank city.
The goal of regional or metropolitan government is to eventually merge the U.S. into the "New World Order" (NWO): a one-world totalitarian goverment under the United Nations (UN). The global elite's agenda is nothing less than the complete revolutionizing of the very foundations of not only America but the entire world. Such a plan calls for the total restructuring of planetary civilization into an enlightened one world federation in which national boundaries and sovereignty are secondary and "planetary citizenship" in the "global village" is the order of the day.
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, For Immediate Release January 11, 2010
Executive Order will Strengthen Further Partnership Between the Federal and State and Local Governments to Better Protect Our Nation
The President today signed an Executive Order (attached) establishing a Council of Governors to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards. When appointed, the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.
The bipartisan Council will be composed of ten State Governors who will be selected by the President to serve two year terms. In selecting the Governors to the Council, the White House will solicit input from Governors and Governors’ associations. Once chosen, the Council will have no more than five members from the same party and represent the Nation as a whole.
Federal members of the Council include the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs, the U.S. Northern Command Commander, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. The Secretary of Defense will designate an Executive Director for the Council.
The Council of Governors will provide an invaluable Senior Administration forum for exchanging views with State and local officials on strengthening our National resilience and the homeland defense and civil support challenges facing our Nation today and in the future.
The formation of the Council of Governors was required by the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act which stated, “The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions.” (NDAA FY2008, Sec 1822)
Regular readers of this column will doubtless recall my recent column in which I reported on the new Council of Governors (CG) that President Barack Obama has created. See my column at:
Well, Obama's CG is quickly beginning to take shape. According to the Associated Press (AP),
"President Barack Obama has selected Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon to serve on an advisory council for defense and national security issues.
"Nixon was one of 10 governors named Thursday [February 4, 2009] by Obama to the newly created Council of Governors."
The 10 governors (and one of them is not even a State governor) selected by Obama are:
Governor James Douglas (R-Vermont) *Co-chair
Governor Chris Gregoire (D-Washington) *Co-chair
Governor Brad Henry (D-Oklahoma)
Governor Jay Nixon (D-Missouri)
Governor Martin O'Malley (D-Maryland)
Governor Janice Brewer (R-Arizona)
Governor Bob McDonnell (R-Virginia)
Governor Michael Rounds (R-South Dakota)
Governor Beverly Perdue (D-North Carolina)
Governor Luis G. Fortuno (R-Puerto Rico)
As I have already written, the creation of a CG should be of serious concern to all liberty loving Americans. That more of us are not as concerned as we should be can be traced to the mistaken belief that the American people have nothing to fear from an overreaching federal government. This is pure folly! As I have said many times, we have far more to fear from Washington, D.C., than from Iran, Iraq, North Korea, or any other potential terrorist state. It is Washington, D.C., — and Washington, D.C., alone — that has the power, opportunity, and propensity to squash our freedom and sell us into tyranny.
As Kurt Nimmo reports,
"In other words, with the stroke of a pen, Obama significantly increased the ongoing effort to federalize the states and take control of the National Guard in violation of the now more or less moribund Posse Comitatus Act. Posse Comitatus was effectively annulled by the 2006 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act. The act provides the president with power to declare martial law under revisions to the Insurrection Act and take charge of United States National Guard troops without state governor authorization. Parts of the act were repealed in 2008."
What most Americans fail to realize (thanks to a national propaganda press corps that refuses to reveal the conspiratorial machinations of America's ruling class, which, by and large, is totally disconnected from — or unaccountable to — elected officeholders: especially those in Congress) is that the subdivision of the United States into a 10-region country (thereby minimizing or even negating the sovereignty and authority of the 50 independent and autonomous states) goes all the way back to the Richard Nixon administration.
In response to pressure from the United Nations, President Richard Nixon issued Executive Order #11647 on February 10, 1972, which carved up the United States into 10 "standard Federal regions."
For the doubters out there, Wikipedia has a rather detailed web page mentioning the federal 10-region breakdown of the United States.
Still not convinced? Try a casual web search of the 10 US regions and you will quickly discover that each major federal agency, such as the EPA, OSHA, DOT, FEMA, etc., has their agency already divided into these 10 regions. As an example, here is the official district map for FEMA:
Commenting on the creation of the 10 "super" regions initiated by President Nixon, CuttingEdge.org director David Bay very astutely said, "This regional system is also apparently a military structure." This is a very insightful observation, because I'm sure this was said long before President Obama took office, yet, that is exactly what his CG accomplishes. It grants federal executive power to these 10 governors — with the specific responsibility of providing leadership and direction to the National Guard and related homeland military activities. And is it any coincidence that the number of governors appointed to this new CG is exactly 10? Even more telling is the fact that the 10 governors come from each US region (the governor of Puerto Rico represents Region 2), except for Region 5, and guess what? Region 5 is President Obama's region!
Now, get this: the only region that has two governors represented on the CG (making up for Region 5's lack of a representative — who will be Obama himself, no doubt) is Region 3. And put this in your pipe and smoke it: the two governors from Region 3 are from Maryland and Virginia, which are the two states that border Washington, D.C. But all of this is mere coincidence, right?
So, here is the list of the Council of Governors, as it coincides with the respective 10 regions. If you know anything about what is going on, you should easily be able to see the logic of how and why these governors were selected. Obviously, the two basic criteria would be 1) The location of necessary government infrastructure, facilities, personnel, etc., combined with 2) The compliant attitude and overall disposition of the governor selected. Here is how it looks:
Region 1: Governor Douglas of Vermont
Region 2: Governor Fortuno of Puerto Rico
Region 3: Governor O'Malley of Maryland and Governor McDonnell of Virginia.
These are necessary, as these are the two border states of Washington, D.C.
Region 4: Governor Perdue of North Carolina
Region 5: President Barack Obama of Illinois
Region 6: Governor Henry of Oklahoma
Region 7: Governor Nixon of Missouri
Region 8: Governor Rounds of South Dakota
Region 9: Governor Brewer of Arizona
Region 10: Governor Gregoire of Washington State
And while it is true that President Jimmy Carter revoked President Nixon's "Federal Regional Council" (what Nixon's Executive Order created in 1972) in 1979, the concept never died. It was merely incorporated into other Executive Orders. And there can be no question that President Obama's CG certainly builds on Nixon's initial "Regional Council" model.
Neither is it a coincidence that Missouri Governor Jay Nixon is included in the list of 10 governors appointed to the CG. Why? Does anyone remember the MIAC flap in the State of Missouri last year? I sure do, because I (along with Ron Paul and Bob Barr) was listed in the MIAC report as being a potential dangerous militia member or terrorist. And anyone who supported or voted for the three of us was similarly maligned in the MIAC report. Plus, the report also targeted people who opposed any of the following as being potential dangerous militia members:
The New World Order
The United Nations
Gun Control
The violation of Posse Comitatus
The Federal Reserve
The Income Tax
The Ammunition Accountability Act
A possible Constitutional Convention (Con Con)
The North American Union
Universal Service Program
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
Abortion on demand
Illegal immigration
Remember, this was an official Missouri State Police report that was distributed to all Missouri State law enforcement officers. And Governor Jay Nixon authorized and strongly defended the MIAC report!
Later, of course, Governor Nixon and other State leaders were forced to withdraw the report, due to immense public pressure from both the citizens of Missouri and angry Americans all across the country.
I have a web page set aside with all the pertinent information regarding the MIAC fiasco, including the most recent updates, at:
Now we learn that President Obama has appointed this very same Governor Jay Nixon to the newly formed Council of Governors. Doubtless, Nixon's support for the MIAC report brought him into the good graces of this Marxist President, who, in his inaugural address, pledged to "remake America." Without a doubt, the newly established Council of Governors is helping Obama do just that.
Of course, the big question is not, Is America being "remade"? It most certainly is — and it started long before Obama moved into the White House. The question is, Will this "remade" America be something we can live with?
President Nixon, through an Executive Order, quietly reorganized the United States' 50 individual states with a 10-region plan. The implementation of this regional plan, unbeknownst to the masses, has occurred. It needed a crisis: 9/11 provided that globalist opportunity. (Deanna Spingola)
The 10 Federal Regions:
Region 1 - Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont
Region 2 - New Jersey, New York, the territory of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
Region 3 - Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia
Region 4 - Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, N. Carolina, S. Carolina and Tennessee Region 5 - Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin
Region 6 - Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas
Region 7 - Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska
Region 8 - Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming
Region 9 - Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and the territories of Guam and American Samoa
Region 10 - Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington
The above map shows the 10 regions under which the United States has actually been operating since 1972.These 10 regions are Administrative Units of the United Nations. All the people of the United States, including Hawaii and Alaska, were placed under the control of the above 10 regions.
"On March 27, 1969, President Richard Nixon divided the country into 10 regions via the Government Reorganization Act. Then, with Nixon’s Executive Order 11647, the nation was divided up into 10 administrative regions... which also established the Federal Regional Council for the newly designed 10 regions... He did so because the United Nations passed a resolution that the United States must reorganize into 10 regions...
"And the reorganizing of our former nation, achieved more than 25 years ago, and of which you know nothing, certainly suggests that 'government' as we knew it changed a long time ago...
What would happen in the event of a really big, national 'crisis?' What powers do your states hold, or for that matter, your counties or local governments hold–especially since they are all bankrupt AND have regional managers.
"In 1964, the Ford Foundation funded an outfit called the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions to write a new constitution for our nation. After 40 drafts, a staff of 100+ people, and at a cost of 2.5 million dollars a year, a decade later (1974) the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America was finished... And two years later in 1976, Mr. Nelson Rockefeller, who at that time was the president of the Senate, introduced HCR 28, which called for an unlimited Constitutional Convention... [He failed to get the needed support]
"A new Constitutional Convention is right around our corners again... with most American states now totally, conveniently, bankrupt... The current economic 'crisis' is the tool, the highly planned and patient tool, to set up the global governing bureaucracy for real and for certain, with the second convening of the Constitutional Convention in the wings...
"Here is just a taste of your global privileges from your Constitution for the Newstates of America:
"Article 1A Sec. 1 - 'Freedom of expression shall not be abridged except in declared emergency."
"Article 1A Sec. 8 - "The practice of religion shall be privileged."
"Article 1B Sec. 8 - "Bearing of arms shall be confined to the police, members of the armed forces, and those licensed under law." See the note below from a respected teacher [and friend] in the UK:
"Britain is already divided into regions. The region of Kent includes a bit of France. Most of our laws now come from Brussels. We have never agreed to this. After Heath lied to get a 'yes' to the Common Market in 1879 or so, Lib Lab Con in the house of Commons have steadily, traitorously handed over government of our land to Brussels. We do not elect the officials in the regions. Most people are unaware they exist.... MPs have given up representing us. Many people are just TV fodder."
President Richard Nixon issued Executive Order #11647 on February 14, 1972, which created this new country. How did he conceive this reorganization plan? The United Nations passed a resolution that the United States must reorganize into 10 super regions, and President Nixon complied with this Executive Order. Obviously, this plan would not have survived the exposure that would have been necessary for Congress to have enacted this plan. Therefore, Nixon utilized the awesome, and often, illegal, power of the Executive Order to create this reorganization.
Whenever the United Nations issues an order to any nation in this world, the leading governmental authority in each country is under obligation to utilize all the power at his disposal to accomplish the UN order. Remember, President George Bush called the United Nations "the superior body" and did everything in his power to submit United States' sovereignty to the UN. He even refused to make war against Iraq until he had the authority of the United Nations.
Under our Constitutional system, the President needs to go to Congress for authority to declare war. Yet, very few people in our nation thought it odd that Bush would go to the UN for his war-making authority, rather than to Congress. Even members of Congress, who usually guard their authority vigorously, did not complain that they have been bypassed in the Iraqi Gulf War!
The unconstitutional goal of this reorganization into 10 super regions is to set the stage for the abolishment of governments from the federal, to the state, to the county, and even to the local, levels. The objective is to set in place the form of government that could be implemented during a planned crisis, that would effectively strip us of our elected representational form of government. Suddenly, we would find ourselves being governed by officials who are not elected, nor responsible to any voters.
This regional system is apparently unlimited in its scope and powers. Thus, Americans could very well discover that they are back under the control of the type of government that our Founding Fathers spent their lives and fortunes overthrowing! Worse still, we could find ourselves facing the type of dictator which we have seen ruling Russia and Nazi Germany.
This regional system is also apparently a military structure. We will see this more clearly when the federal program called "General and Complete Disarmament" (Public Law 87-297) is fully integrated according to this 10-region system of government. We also will probably not see this 10-region system implemented until we are under the simultaneous crises of which we have spoken many times.
When America is under the following planned crises, we will witness this changeover to this 10-region system, most likely with FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) exercising initial control. These are apparently the crises that are planned:
All-out nuclear warfare in the Middle East (or neutron warfare).
All-out nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula (or at least the threat of such a war).
Arab terrorists threatening to devastate American cities with atomic, chemical or biological weapons (or actually carrying out this threat).
Total oil embargo from the Arab nations in support of Arab forces fighting Israel in the Middle East.
Earthquakes deliberately caused to create panic.
Simultaneous riots in many American cities to further cause panic.
American Presidency weakened because of scandal and infighting with Congress and the Courts to further cause panic among American voters.
The Stock Market will crash, causing absolute panic amongst all Americans. Jobs will immediately begin to be lost, thus further adding to the panic.
Antichrist is supposed to appear at the end of the Middle East crisis. If this occurs, then aliens and visible "angels" are to appear to urge all peoples of the world to support him and his plan.
At this moment, the head of FEMA will suddenly appear, announcing that he is taking "temporary" control, and quoting all the various Executive Orders and laws passed by Congress giving him all the authority he needs to assume the powers of government, of all branches of our former Constitutional government.
Once this changeover to the new 10-region system of government occurs, amidst all these contrived and planned crises, you may rest assured the End of the Age is upon us.
Remember the words of the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively..."
A White House document titled, "The National Strategy for Homeland Security," admits that "American democracy is rooted in the precepts of federalism—a system of government in which our state governments share power with federal institutions." But it ignores the wise restrictions placed on the federal government. Ponder this statement:
"The Administration's approach to homeland security is based on the principles of shared responsibility and partnership with the Congress, state and local governments, the private sector, and the American people... The federal government will employ performance measures—and encourage the same for state and local governments—to evaluate the effectiveness of each homeland security program."
Guess who would be the controlling partner? It would not be the state! In a government partnership between unequal members, the one who sets the standards, defines the terms, and pulls the purse-strings will always rule. Through its calculated distribution of much-needed government grants, the federal government holds all its partners accountable to its top-down agenda.
Those partners include a vast network of interlocking government systems, organizations, agencies, offices and churches. In fact, every part of society has been assigned a place in this massive web. And—as our government joins hands with corporations, private agencies, civil society and faith-based organizations around the world—we may soon be trapped within the politically correct boundaries of the "common values" and "community oneness" so often touted by former President Clinton.
Clinton's second executive order on Federalism set the stage. It redesigned and redefined the relationship between states and the White House. Neither Congress nor the Bush administration chose to challenge it. In the end, we may well see Clinton's vision of community oneness fulfilled. But by the time the manipulated masses have tuned their minds to the collective heart beat of the new "greater whole," the personal freedom we have treasured may be history...
This speech was delivered in Kalispell, Montana and Spokane, Washington to County Republican Lincoln Day dinners in late March. This editor attended the Spokane presentation. The speech caused a firestorm in Spokane, resulting in a battle with the local city council over its partnership with ICLEI and radical environmental policy. One elected official said DeWeese had exposed too much—as he walked out on the presentation. The battle goes on today. - The August Review
Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve come a long way to get here and I have such a short time to be with you. So, let’s just get everything out on the table right now, shall we?
I believe the American people, and their every action, are being ruled, regulated, restricted, licensed, registered, directed, checked, inspected, measured, numbered, counted, rated, stamped, censured, authorized, admonished, refused, prevented, drilled, indoctrinated, monopolized, extorted, robbed, hoaxed, fined, harassed, disarmed, dishonored, fleeced, exploited, assessed and taxed to the point of suffocation and desperation.
America is drowning in a sea of rules and regulations, particularly under the guise of “saving the environment.”
We all know something is very wrong and we are trying to fix it.
Many in America attempt to fight against one issue or another as they try to understand what is happening to their country. But most fail to see the whole picture and are being crushed under a well organized “divide and conquer” tactic that keeps them reeling from crisis to crisis.
Tonight, I’m going to try to give you at least a peek at the all-encompassing, gut wrenching national transformation that we face—and, hopefully, help to lift the veil of confusion.
To put things in perspective, here are some questions every American should ask their elected officials—especially those supporting “climate change” legislation.
If it is proven that climate change is not man-made, but natural, will you be relieved and excited to know that man is off the hook?
We’ve been terrorized into accepting that human society was on the brink of extinction because of man-made global warming. We’ve been warned that, unless we take drastic action to reverse it—then islands will disappear, whole cities will be destroyed, and polar bears will drown.
So, if it’s not true, will you now help to remove all of the draconian regulations passed during the global warming hysteria? Will you help to restore our Republic with common sense and sound economics?
Their answers to these questions should be very illuminating as to the true agenda they seek to impose.
If they are supporting climate change legislation because of a genuine concern for the environment, then they should now be greatly relieved to know that true science is showing more and more evidence that there is no man-made global warming and, in fact, a natural cooling period has begun.
I have just returned from one of the most important Climate Change conferences ever held. Sponsored by the Heartland Institute, more than 700 scientists from all over the world came together to testify that man-made Global Warming does not exist.
Harvard scholar and climate scientist Willie Soon said it best in a recent article he titled, “It’s the Sun, Stupid.”
Dr. Mark Campbell, professor of chemistry at the U.S. Navel Academy in Annapolis recently wrote, “The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice.”
Said U.S. Government atmospheric scientist Stanley B, Goldenberg, “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”
In the past year, more than 650 scientists from around the world have expressed their doubts. That’s 12 times the number of UN IPCC global warming alarmists. Top that with the fact that more than 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition saying there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing disruption of the Earth’s climate.
Of course most of the hysteria has been fueled by Al Gore’s Oscar-winning, Nobel prize-winning film “An Inconvenient Truth,” which almost every American school student has been forced to watch endless times in their classroom. Well, guess what, the government of Great Britain just ruled that the film cannot be shown in English classrooms unless it carries a disclaimer that says the film is full of mistakes and propaganda.
An overwhelming majority of scientist are now telling us that investigative research shows any warming actually stopped in 1999. And, in fact, they say the brief warming period we experienced in the past decade was completely natural, caused in part by storms on the sun, not CO2 emissions from SUVs.
The sun storms have ended and now a cooling period has begun.
That’s it. Done. Crisis over. Man is not to blame. Hurray! The nation should be rejoicing.
No need for expensive green cars, mercury-filled light bulbs, special home building materials, expensive alternative energy, no bird-killing windmills, no special energy taxes, no extra government oversight committees, no more global climate change conferences—and no need for a Climate Czar—Carol Browner can go back into mothballs.
We can finally clean out the ten feet of fuel on the bottom of the forests and prevent the massive forest fires. We can reestablish the timber industry and all the jobs that were killed.
We can drill American oil and end our dependency on foreigners who hate us. In fact, that stable source of energy will help restore the Detroit auto industry and all of those jobs. And it will help us to stop funding terrorists. What’s not to like about drilling American oil?
We didn’t need a stimulus package after all—the economy will rebound on its own. We are free. The environment is not in crisis. Rejoice! Rejoice!
That silence you hear is the news media, which refuses to report what any skeptic has to say. That silence you hear is the lack of effort on Capitol Hill to start to pull back from the climate change hysteria.
That silence you hear is from the White House where President of Change, Barack Obama now has an EPA director, a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) director, and a full blown Climate Change Czar, all working to impose huge cut backs in energy use, with more taxes and more rules and regulations that will bring an already damaged economy to its knees—all in the name of man-made Global Warming—which doesn’t exist.
…And that silence you hear is from global corporations which have bought into Al Gore’s lie and invested heavily in the promised green economy. In fact, their dollars are the only thing green about any of it. Their commercials are promoting the lies and changing our way of life. “Going Green” is the mantra of the day. None of them are about to change any of these policies simply to accommodate a few inconvenient scientific facts.
In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, in spite of literally thousands of real scientists joining the ranks of the skeptics, Gore just told Congress that the Global Warming crisis is even worse than predicted. Obama, our newly-crowned king said, “The science is settled.”
Why do they continue to promote a lie?Because global warming never was about protecting the environment.It’s nothing more than the excuse to enforce global governance on the planet by creating a new global economy based on the environment rather than on goods and services.
In fact, the most important debate in the history of the United States is about to begin—it’s the battle over a completely new economic system based on Climate Change called Cap and Trade. It should be called Tax and Trade as it will force up the price of every item created or run by energy from gasoline to toothpaste to natural gas to hotel rooms as we sit in our cold, dark homes.
Cap and Trade will throw out the old system of a free market based on goods and services and operate on the idea that CO2 is a pollutant. Instead of money, wealth will be determined by how many government-issued emission permits you own to allow you to operate your business.
In short, it’s all about wealth redistribution—your wealth into a green rat hole.
During the Cold War, communists tried to get us to surrender our liberties and way of life for the wisdom of Karl Marx. Americans didn’t buy it. But now they have taken the same clap trap and wrapped it all in a nice green blanket, scaring us with horror stories about the human destruction of the environment—and so we are now throwing our liberties on the bonfire like a good old fashioned book burning—all in the name of protecting the planet.
It sounds so friendly. So meaningful. So urgent. But, the devastation to our liberty and way of life is the same as if Lenin ordered it.
You know, we have a new language invading our government at all levels. Old words with new meanings fill government policy papers. The typical city council meeting discusses “community development,” “historic preservation,” and “partnerships” between the city and global corporations.
Civic leaders organize community meetings run by “facilitators,” as they outline a “vision” for the town, enforced by “consensus.” No need for debate when you have consensus! People of great importance testify before congressional committees of the dire need for “social justice.” Free trade, social justice, consensus, global truth, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, open space, heritage, comprehensive planning, critical thinking, and community service are all part of our new language.
What are they really talking about? What mental pictures come to mind when those words are used? George Orwell realized that those who control language and manipulate key phrases can control policy.
The language is being changed and manipulated to quietly implement a very destructive policy—one outlined in a UN soft-law document called Agenda 21, first revealed at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992. The working name is Sustainable Development.
Rather than good management of resources, Sustainable Development has come to mean denied use and resources locked away from human hands. In short, it has become a code word for an entire economic and social agenda.
I have spent most of the past 12 years studying every facet of this new political agenda, which is fast becoming a revolution—touching every aspect of our businesses, our public education system, our private property, our families, and our individual lives.
Interestingly, it is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It’s not liberal or conservative. It is being implemented on a purely bipartisan basis.
It is now the official policy of the United States, put in force by literally every department of the government. It is the official policy of every state government, and nearly every city, town and county in the nation.
But, I warn you, accepting the perception that Sustainable Development is simply good environmental stewardship is a serious and dangerous mistake.
So what is Sustainable Development? The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society.
To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components: global land use, global education, and global population control.
Keep in mind that America is the only country in the world based on the ideals of private property.But, private property is incompatible with the collectivist premise of Sustainable Development.
If you doubt that, then consider this quote from the report of the 1976 UN’s Habitat I conference which said: “Land… cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth; therefore, it contributes to social injustice.”
It is a social injustice for some to have prosperity if others do not? It is a social injustice to keep our borders closed? It is a social injustice for some to be bosses and others to be merely workers?
Social justice is a major premise of Sustainable Development. Another word for social justice, by the way, is Socialism—Karl Marx was the first to coin the phrase “social justice.”
Some officials try to pretend that Sustainable Development is just a local effort to protect the environment—just your local leaders putting together a local vision for the community. Have you heard that one? Then ask your local officials how it is possible that the exact language and tactics for implementation of Sustainable Development are being used in nearly every city around the globe from Lewiston, Maine to Singapore. Local indeed.
Sustainable Development is the process by which America is being reorganized around a central principle of state collectivism using the environment as bait.
The best way to understand what Sustainable Development actually is can be found by discovering what is NOT sustainable.
According to the UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report, items for our everyday lives that are NOT sustainable include: "Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paved and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment" (e.g., capitalism, free markets).
Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Rio Earth Summit in 1992 said, “…Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class--involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”
Are you starting to see the pattern behind Cap and Trade, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and all of those commercials you’re forced to watch about the righteousness of Going Green?
And one of the most destructive tools they use to force it on us is something called the “precautionary principle.” That means that any activities that might threaten human health or the environment should be stopped—even if no clear cause and effect relationship has been established—and even if the potential threat is largely theoretical.
That makes it easy for any activist group to issue warnings by news release or questionable report and have those warnings quickly turned into public policy—just in case.
So how is this wrenching transformation being put into place?
There are four very specific routes being used.
In the rural areas it’s called the Wildlands Project.
In the cities it’s called Smart Growth.
In government it’s called Stakeholder Councils and Non-elected Boards and Regional Government.
In business it’s called Public/Private Partnerships.
The Wildlands Project was the brainchild of Earth First’s Dave Foreman, and it literally calls for the “re-wilding” of 50% of all the land in every state--back to the way it was before Christopher Columbus set foot on this land. It is a diabolical plan to herd humans off the rural lands and into human settlements. Crazy you say! Yes. Impossible? Not so fast.
From the demented mind of Foreman, the plan became the blueprint for the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty. So now the scheme is international in scope.
But how do you remove people from the land? One step at a time. Let’s begin with a biosphere reserve. A national park will do. A huge place where there is no human activity. How about Yellowstone National Park? Then you establish a buffer zone around the reserve. Inside the buffer only limited human activity is allowed. Slowly, you squeeze until you squash that human activity.
Once accomplished, you extend the area of the biosphere to the limits of the former buffer area—and then you create a new buffer zone around the now larger biosphere and start the process over again. In that way, the Biosphere Reserve acts like a cancer cell, ever expanding until all human activity is stopped.
And there are many tools in place to stop human activity and grow the reserve.
Push back livestock’s access to river banks on ranches—300 feet ought to do it. When the cattle can’t reach the stream, the rancher can’t water them—he goes out of business.
Lock away natural resources by creating national parks. It shuts down the mines, and they go out of business.
Invent a Spotted Owl shortage and pretend it can’t live in a forest where timber is cut. Shut off the forest. Then, when no trees are cut, there’s nothing to feed the mills and then there are no jobs, and they go out of business.
Locking away land cuts the tax base. Eventually the town dies. Keep it up and there is nothing to keep the people on the land, so they head to the cities. The wilderness grows, just like Dave Foreman planned.
It comes in many names and many programs: heritage areas, land management, wolf and bear reintroduction, rails to trails, conservation easements, open space, and many more.
Each of these programs is designed to make it just a little harder to live on the land—a little more expensive—a little more hopeless. Now tell me how they can deny that the process is herding people into human habitat areas?
Today, here in your area, one of the latest Wildlands scheme is called Yukon to Yellowstone or Y2Y: a 2000 mile no-man’s land corridor from the Arctic to Yellowstone.
The second path is called Smart Growth. After they herd you into the city, they have more plans for you in regimented and dense urban communities. They put a line around the city and tell you no growth can take place outside that line. Urban sprawl, they say disdainfully.
They refuse to build more roads as a ploy to get you out of your car into public transportation, restricting mobility. Those able to build apartment houses may find it impossible to provide parking—we don’t want any stinking cars!
Because there is a restriction on space inside the controlled city limits, there is a shortage of houses, so prices go up.That means populations will have to be controlled, because now there is a shortage of land.
Third, inside the human habitat areas, government is controlled by an elite ruling class called Stakeholder Councils. These are mostly non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, who, like thieves in the night, just show up to stake their claim to enforce their own private agendas.
The function of legitimate government within the system will be simply to enforce the dictates of the councils.
The councils are unelected, but all powerful. They are controlled by a small minority in the community.They will make you ask permission for anything necessary to live in the community. They can dictate the kind of building materials you may use in your home—or whether you can build on your property at all.
Then, if they do grant a permit for building, they might not decide to let you acquire water and electricity for your new home—and they may or may not give you a reason for being turned down.
They can even dictate that you get the proper exercise—as determined by the government. San Francisco has built a new federal building—the greenest ever built. But the elevators will only stop on every third floor so riders are forced to use stairs, for their own health, of course.
These councils fit almost perfectly the definition of a State Soviet: a system of councils that report to an apex council and then implement a predetermined outcome. Soviets are the operating mechanism of a government-controlled economy.
The fourth path is Public/Private Partnerships. Today, many freedom organizations are presenting PPPs as free enterprise and a private answer for keeping taxes down by using business to make a better society.
In truth, many PPPs are nothing more than government-sanctioned monopolies in which a few businesses are granted special favors like tax breaks, the power of eminent domain, non-compete clauses, and specific guarantees for return on their investments.
That means they can charge what they want and they can use the power of government to put competition out of business. That is not free enterprise. And it is these global corporations that are pushing the green agenda.
For example, using government to ban its own product, General Electric is forcing the mercury-laden green light bulb on you, costing five times the price of incandescent bulbs. Such is the reality of green industry.
PPPs are building the Trans Texas Corridor, using eminent domain to take more than 580,000 acres of private land—sanctioned by the partnership with the Texas government. And PPPs are taking over highways and local water treatment plants in communities across the nation.
It is not free enterprise, but a Mussolini-type fascism that will only lead to Tyranny. And it’s all driven by the Agenda 21blueprint of Sustainable Development.
Truly, Sustainable Development is designed to change our way of life. Local communities are now being targeted by international forces. Here’s how:
In June 2005, I reported on the UN’s efforts to recruit the nation’s mayors to directly impose Sustainable Development policy into our local communities. The mayors were invited to attend the UN’s World Environment Day conference in San Francisco.
The mayors weren’t there to simply discuss policy; they actually committed to an agenda with specific goals. As part of their participation, the mayors were pressed to commit to specific legislation and policy goals by signing a slate of UN accords. Two documents were presented for the mayors’ signature.
The first document was called the Green Cities Declaration, produced by the United Nations Environment Programme. This document was essentially a statement of principles which set the agenda for the mayors’ assigned tasks.
The Declaration is amazingly bold in that it details exactly how the UN intends to implement a very specific agenda in every town and city in the nation. The final line of the Declaration explained the UN’s goal very explicitly: "Each year cities shall pick three actions to adopt as policies or laws."
The second document signed by the mayors was called the Urban Environment Accords. The document includes exactly 21 specific actions (as in Agenda 21), for the mayors to take—controlled by a time table for implementation.
For example, under the topic of energy, action item number 1 called for the mayors to implement a policy to increase the use of “renewable” energy by 10% within seven years. Energy action item numbers 2 and 3 dealt with reducing energy consumption.
These action items are classic examples of the UN trying to go around the U.S. Congress and federal energy policy and force a backdoor implementation of the UN’s Kyoto Accord, which the U.S. has never ratified.
Perhaps the most egregious action item offered in the Urban Environmental Accords dealt with the topic of water. Action item number 19 called for adoption and implementation of a policy to reduce individual water consumption.
The UN document begins by stating: “Cities with potable water consumption greater than 100 liters per capita per day will adopt and implement policies to reduce consumption by 10% by 2015.” There is no scientific basis for the 100 liter figure other than to employ a very clever use of numbers to lower the bar and control the debate over water consumption.
You must be aware that 100 liters is equal to about 26 gallons per person, per day. According to the UN, each person should have less than 26 gallons each day to drink, bathe, flush toilets, wash clothes, water lawns, wash dishes, cook, take care of pets, and more.
But, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, Americans actually need about 100 GALLONS per day to perform these basic life functions. The use of the 100 liters number versus 100 gallons is a direct attempt to mislead and actually cut water use by 75%...
The objective is to control the people by relocating them from suburbs and rural areas to cities ('human settlements').
Bicycles instead of cars? Dense apartment clusters instead of single homes? Community rituals instead of churches? "Human rights" instead of religious freedom? The UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), which met June 3-14 in Istanbul, painted an alarming picture of the 21st century community. The American ways - free speech, individualism, travel, and Christianity - are out. A new set of economic, environmental, and social guidelines are in. Citizenship, democracy, and education have been redefined. Handpicked civil leaders will implement UN "laws," bypassing state and national representatives to work directly with the UN. And politically correct "tolerance" - meaning "the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism" as well as "appreciation" for the world's religions and lifestyles - is "not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement." - Berit Kjos, Habitat II - The UN Plan For Human Settlements, June 1996
"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." - David Rockefeller,Speaking at the UN, September 14, 1994
"Globalization is not a random-walk process. It moves forward according to a tangible, coherent and well-planned strategy." - Patrick Wood,The August Review By The Green Agenda Originally Published on July 9, 2008
Over the last decade, the United Nations has brazenly been reinventing itself into a global government, striving to obtain the legal framework, financial resources, and grassroots support to implement its policies. As outlined in my preceding articles, it has effectively seized legal and regulatory control in many countries, through Agenda 21, and developed a Constitution, the Earth Charter, for its vision on a transformed global interdependent society.
In 1992 the UN formed a Commission on Global Governance charged with devising a system of future global management. Second in charge of the Commission, and lead author of its report, was Maurice Strong, with whom readers will be quite familiar by now. After several years of “extension consultation” with “world leaders, philosophers and futurologists,” the Commission produced a report entitled Our Global Neighbourhood.
The report contained many highly controversial recommendations. It was warmly welcomed by activists within the UN, but harshly criticised by libertarians around the world who claimed that its recommendations entailed abolishing national sovereignty and suppressing the freedom of individuals. The report specifically denied it was supporting "global government," preferring the term "global governance," but its contents reveal all elements required for a genuine government. Besides, a little reflection yields the following question: How can one have global "governance" without global "government?"
One of the primary thrusts of 'Our Global Neighbourhood' was the formation of “regional blocs or unions to enhance political, economic and environmental security.” The report proposed that “Regional Neighbourhoods” be established, modelled closely on the successful example of the European Union.
Recent years have seen a large number of such regional unions emerging, or being strengthened, including the African Union, the Mediterranean Neighbourhood Partnership, the Gulf States Coalition, and the proposed North American Union.
The report also recommended a gradual reduction in the sovereignty of independent states, arguing strongly in favour of international “courts of accountability,” binding global agreements, and significantly enhancing the legal authority of the UN. Dr Robert Muller, Assistant Secretary-General of the UN and co-founder of UNESCO, clearly describes this UN plan for a new 'World Union:'
In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government... There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems—if systems they are—are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways. The less we loose time, the less species' and nature will be destroyed.
Since the United Nations is the only worldwide, universal organization that is presently available, since it had fifty years of valuable experience and many successes, and since it paved the way to proper Earth government (instead of putting it on the defensive, unjustified attacks and criticism, reduction of resources and non-payment of obligatory contributions) governments should honestly ask themselves if a better way would not be to consider a second generation United Nations upgraded by a true quantum jump into a proper Earth-preserving and human-well-being and justice-ensuring organization of our planet.
The continental approach to a world union remains an important avenue. One could conceive five continental unions: the European Union, an American, an African, an Asian, and an Australian Union.A World Union could be constructed as a super-structure and common political, economic and environmental instrument to achieve these objectives. - The Earth Charter in Action
This strategy appears to be based on theClub of Rome's proposalto divide the earth into 10 administrative regions, which they outlined in their report Mankind at the Turning Point.You can find their original map in my previous article on that topic. Interestingly, the UN is currently in the process of reviewing and reforming the organization, with particular emphasis on the Security Council.
Several alternative models have been proposed which will make the Council more 'representative and democratic.' One of these, the Italian Model, proposes replacing the current 10 seats held by individual nations with 10 seats representing 'regional unions,' two seats for Europe, three for Asia, etc. You can compare the different proposals here.
'Our Global Neighbourhood' concluded with 12 key recommendations which I have listed below, and it was these that caused such a furore that the rest of the report barely received a comment. The UN claimed that the report was merely a “visioning exercise” intended to generate discussion and did not represent official UN policy goals. The report was effectively shelved and the Commission was disbanded:
Consolidation of all international agencies under the direct oversight of the United Nations.
Regulation by the United Nations of all transnational organizations and financial institutions.
Independent source of revenue for the United Nations, and taxes on aircraft and shipping fuels, and licensing the use of the global commons.
Eliminate the veto power and the permanent member status on the Security Council.
Authorize a United Nations ready reaction force.
Require United Nations registration of all arms and the reduction of national armies as a part of a multilateral global security system under the authority of the United Nations.
Require individual and national compliance with all United Nations Human Rights treaties.
Activate the International Criminal Court, make the International Court of Justice compulsory for all nations, and give individuals the right to petition the courts to remedy social injustice.
Create a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by ensuring sustainable development.
Cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions, and equitable sharing of global resources as allocated by the United Nations.
One of Kofi Annan’s first actions when he became Secretary-General of the United Nations was to appoint Maurice Strong as his Senior Policy Advisor. He then tasked Strong with preparing a plan to “reform the institution of the United Nations.”
In 2002, Strong produced a 95-page document entitled Renewing the United Nations: A Programme for Reform, which was basically a step-by-step program to implement many of the recommendations of 'Our Global Neighbourhood.' Many of these reforms have been slowly working their way through UN system. However, after Maurice Strong was indicted for his involvement in the Iraq Oil-for-Food scandal, he was forced by pressure from the United States to resign from his UN roles.
The reforms Strong designed are being implemented by the UN, but they have not been the transformation that he desired. It is the opinion of this author that the current bureaucratic and unwieldy structure of the United Nations is unlikely to ever deliver the “global interdependent society” that the Earth Charter, and the Green Movement, is fervently calling for. Most members of the general population are not motivated to change by mere words in a charter, and the majority are likely to resent further intrusion into their lives.
True fundamental change is most often born out of crisis.A common creed among the Green Agenda activists has long been “order out of chaos.” They believe that people from all nations will literally beg for their New World Order if it can promise safety and security at a time when people feel under personal imminent threat.
To once again quote the famous words of David Rockefeller “A New World Order is coming… all we need is the right major crisis.” And remember, it was the Rockefeller family that donated the land on which the United Nations now stands.
Thus it seems far more likely that the UN itself will be transformed, most likely after some major international crisis which the UN is unable to prevent or respond to adequately. After all, the League of Nations was born after the first truly global crisis, World War 1, and then it was “reformed” into the United Nations following World War 2. However there are some serious impediments to the implementation of the final phase of the Global Green Agenda:
Evangelical Christianity – True Bible-believing Christians are very likely to resist the imposition of any system of global governance, especially if it based around an earth-centred religion. Christian realise that this earth is temporary and will soon pass away. The Bible specifically warns them that humans will eventually end up “worshipping the creature instead of the Creator.” However the leaders of certain denominations seem to have no problem with the Agenda. Pope Benedict proclaimed, during Live Earth that “environmental degradation is a sin, and global warming is a defilement of the Divine Will.”
Islam – Moslems are also likely to fiercely resist any New World Order that mandates a form of earth-worship. There are more than one billion followers of Islam, and they show remarkably little enthusiasm for accommodating New Age eco-theology into their doctrines. Hence it is likely that the power of Islam will have to be shattered before the Global Green Agenda can be fulfilled.
The United States of America – The USA has long been a bastion of individual liberty and freedom. Thank God George Bush defeated Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential election. If Gore had won, I have no doubt we would now be deep in the midst of the Green Reich. President Bush has bravely defended American sovereignty from the clutches of the global elitists. However this could soon change. If Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is elected President it could well be the end of the American dream.
Communist China – The totalitarian Communist Party of China is very unlikely to relinquish much of its power to a new transformed United Nations. However, China is currently treading a precarious path. Its economic miracle is in fact a house of cards built on slave labour and artificially managed conditions. China is very vulnerable to an economic collapse, which could lead to a popular revolution or bankrupt the country.
Authoritarian Russia – Putin has established a tight authoritarian grip on Russia and is unlikely to bow willingly to a resurrected UN. However, Putin could soon be gone and a new Gorbachev could arise. Another possibility is that Russia could also once again lose its position as a global power broker through economic problems or war.
So, to quickly summarise, the activists behind the Global Green Agenda have established regulatory control in many societies through Agenda 21, they have written a Constitution for their transformed global society with the Earth Charter, and they have even described, in detail, how their new global system will operate in 'Our Global Neighbourhood.'However, several obstacles must be removed before the final phase of the Agenda, global governance based on a system of earth-worship, can be fulfilled:
Firstly, a situation must arise where otherwise apathetic, or even hostile, members of society will beg for a new global system. They must feel so personally threatened that they will eagerly give up their personal liberty for the promise of safety and security. 'Our Global Neighbourhood' said the surrender of liberty is "a principle that will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation." In my opinion, global warming is currently being used as a conditioning tool with its fervent call for global unity to save a wounded planet.
Secondly, certain nations and religious groups are unlikely to accept a new global system that involves the loss of national sovereignty, the loss of individual liberty, and reverence for the earth as a divine being.
So what events could possibly bring about the conditions that would allow the emergence of a one world government? I will briefly describe what I consider to be the most likely scenario:
Ezekiel 38 and 39 describe an attack on Israel by a coalition of Islamic nations and Russia. It seems that this conflict also involves other parts of the globe. The invading forces are completely destroyed by God’s divine intervention. The military power of Russia is annihilated, and Islam, which promised its believers a final ultimate victory, is shattered.
The world economy lies in total ruin. Significant areas of the planet are devastated. People everywhere are distraught and in despair. Emergency meetings are held at the United Nations where the blueprints for a new global system are presented and quickly adopted.
“We need a new beginning” they will say; “We all must change and renounce our old destructive ways.” Amazingly everything is already in place. The Earth Charter would be endorsed as a Planetary Constitution and the Security Council replaced with some new 'United Earth Council.' The world would be divided into 10 administrative regions with each one represented by an Earth Councillor.
The blame for the recent conflict, and many of the world's other problems, would be placed firmly on traditional religions.They would be swiftly outlawed and replaced by reverence for the earth itself. “We nearly destroyed Gaia!” they would say, “We nearly destroyed our own Mother!”
As David Rockefeller stated, “all we need is the right crisis.” Everything is now in place. They are just building momentum and waiting for the storm they know is coming. You don’t need to look in the shadows for the coming world government: it is standing right before your eyes. When they bring “order out of chaos,” the United Nations will be transformed and the final global empire will be born.
Club of Rome's 10 Regions and the 10 Kings of Daniel and Revelation - The "10 horns" are explained in Daniel 7:23-25 and Revelation 17:12 to be 10 kings, and the whole vision is of the last form of Gentile world-power, a confederated 10-kingdom empire, most likely covering the whole earth. Now it's interesting to note that, in 1972, the Club of Rome proposed a plan to divide the whole world into 10 regions. Could these 10 regions be the 10 horns of the Bible? -his2ndcoming
The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast. These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them (Revelation 17:12-14).
And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled (Revelation 17:16-17).
And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army (Revelation 19:19).
Once the 10 Nations Have Arisen, Antichrist Will Appear - In 1957, Alice Bailey, then the leader of the House of Theosophy, wrote in her collection of writings, "The Externalisation of the Hierarchy," that the world must first be reorganized into "spheres of influence" before it could be organized into a global government (page 209). She made it very clear that this reorganization would not follow traditional national boundaries, but would be a completely different organization. Bailey did not specify how many "spheres of influence" would be created, but her plan was fleshed out in 1974 by New World Order authors, Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel, in a book entitled, "Mankind At The Turning Point." They wrote that the world would be reorganized into 10 Super Nation States, listed below. - David Bay, Cutting Edge Ministries
(1) North America (2) Western Europe (3) Japan (4) Australia, South Africa, and the rest of the market-economy of the developed world (5) Eastern Europe, including Russia (6) Latin America (7) North Africa and the Middle East (8) Tropical Africa (9) South and Southeast Asia (10) China
The 'Little Horn' (Antichrist) Rises Up AFTER the Ten Kings Come to Power- So let us remember the basics here: the man of sin, little horn or antichrist, rises out of a system of 10 kings. The system of 10 kings is controlled by the harlot, Babylon, and the entire system is given its power by the dragon, Satan. Many people get a little too hung up on if it is a 'Masonic conspiracy' or a 'Jesuit conspiracy' or a 'globalist conspiracy.' They are all the same conspiracy. It is part of a Satanic conspiracy to control the globe for the prince of darkness. God has given us a witness as to the final form the system will take: 10 kings ruled by a harlot controlled by the devil. That system is not fully here yet, but true, born-again Christians who are awake and are not sleeping can and are seeing this system coming into being. It is not far off. - Mark S. Watson
There are powerful men seeking to destroy the basic foundations of our liberty. They have been quite successful in their plans so far. They are disrupting the family, corrupting our governments, destroying morality, and attacking religious faith and religious freedom.
Their objective is to "eliminate liberty—economic, political and religious—and establish in its place the most widespread and complete totalitarian system ever to oppress mankind.
These men have been working under such perfect disguise that many Americans have not been able to recognize them or their methods" ["Freeman Digest," May 1978, p.53]. They scheme and plan, manipulate and destroy. They use crime and murder, lies and fear. They are not bound by law, for they control most of the judgment seats.
With enough study, it is possible to learn the goals of these power brokers from their own documents.
Their goal is worldwide control with themselves in charge. They fully intend to control all governments, control the money, control the military, control the courts, destroy all religions except those that actually teach evil rather than good, and control access to food and medicine.
They have a large measure of control over many of these things now. If they gain full control, we will have little recourse except to do what they say, unless we have prepared well in advance.
How can a group of individuals so dictate the events of the world? Many times a government creates a crisis, then offers the "solution"—a solution that exchanges one or more of our freedoms for some version of government-enforced safety and security. Our response to these crises has become conditioned. We turn to government to take care of us, and they do—at the price of our liberty. When the crisis appears to be worldwide, we turn to a worldwide government, thus playing right into their hands.
The Prophet Hosea declared "my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" [Hosea 4:6]. This summary has been prepared to offer a basic knowledge of the methods being used to obtain control of people and nations. It is hoped that this knowledge will assist us to better uphold correct principles that support the inalienable rights given to all people by God, and oppose programs and proposals that violate these principles. It is recognized that the U.S. Constitution was divinely inspired by God for the very purpose of protecting these inalienable rights.
There are several areas that these powerful men seek to control. They are listed below, and a brief explanation is given of each.
Government: The objective is to create a single government with power to rule the people of the world, sometimes referred to as a New World Order. All people will be ruled by the same laws, judicial system, monetary system, religious worship, and armed forces.
Every President and Secretary of State since Woodrow Wilson has been a member of a group which is actively pursuing the goal of obliterating national boundaries and establishing a single world government. Known as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), this group is the American branch of a society which originated in England. David Rockefeller serves as its Chairman; George Bush is a past chairman and Bill Clinton was also a member ["The Shadows of Power," James Perloff, 1988]. The effort to achieve this goal is aided by the media, since every major media (newspaper, radio, television) and communications network is owned by a member or associate ["FREE" 'The CFR/Trilateral Connection,' 1991] .
At a cost of $10 million to the U.S. taxpayers, the Rockefeller Foundation has developed a "New States Constitution" that is intended to replace the constitution that we now have. This document does not have a Bill of Rights, does not include the right to own firearms, and does not protect freedom of religion. It uses the term "national emergency" 134 times ["A Review & Commentary on Rexford E. Tugwells' book 'The Emerging Constitution,'" by Col. Curtis B. Dall & E. Stanley Rittenhouse].
Listed here are a series of Executive Orders, already approved, which authorize the President to call a national emergency and, thereafter, authorize FEMA to mobilize other agencies to implement rationing and/or confiscation of public and private property – including food, guns, precious metals, businesses, homes, etc.:
EO 10995 provides for the takeover of the communications media. EO 10997 provides for the takeover of all electric power, petroleum, gas and other fuels and minerals. EO 10998 provides for the takeover of all food resources and the nation's farms. EO 10999 provides for the takeover of all modes of transportation, control of highways, seaports etc. EO 11000 provides for mobilization of all civilians into work brigades under government supervision. EO 11001 provides for government takeover of all health and welfare functions. EO 11002 designates the postmaster general to operate national registration of all persons. EO 11003 provides for the government to takeover airports and aircraft. EO 11004 provides for the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations. EO 11005 provides for the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.
All these Executive Orders were combined into one Executive Order, #11490, which was signed by President Richard Nixon on October 28, 1969.
On Sept. 26, 1961, Congress passed Public Law 87-297, which calls for arms control and the disarmament of the American people at the determination of the President. Legislation which has recently been signed into law and legislation now pending in Congress is moving toward the completion of this goal.
On April 2, 1992, the U.S. Senate voted unanimously for SB1425, which ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This placed the human rights clause of the United Nations Charter in a superior position to our constitutional Bill of Rights, since the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Missouri v. Holland that a treaty supersedes the constitution. The acceptance of this treaty places judgment of American citizens under the umbrella of the United Nations and the world courts, where trials are not by a jury of our peers, and judgments are not based on inalienable rights given to us by God and protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Monetary: "A single currency, a single monetary policy, and a single authority issuing the currency and directing the monetary policy" ["Foreign Affairs," Fall 1984, Richard Cooper].
In 1913, the U.S. Congress, in violation of the Constitution, turned control of the monetary system of the United States over to a privately owned organization of 12 individuals, 11 of whom are not citizens of the United States. Misleadingly called the Federal Reserve, this group manipulates the money supply and controls the debt of nations. This gives them the wealth and power to dictate the economic conditions of the world ["Secrets of the Federal Reserve," Eustice Mullins].
A plan has been advanced by these men and their international partners to bring all nations under a single rule, with themselves in charge. By creating economic crises and the collapse of a nation's economy, they force those nations indebted to them to trade their assets—gold, natural resources, and land—for the backing of the International Monetary Fund, which they created and control. Once they own a nation's land and resources, they own and control that nation ["Ambushed, 'Insider Report,'" Larry Abraham, p.12].
They have made much progress toward this goal. Already every nation in the world is backed by the International Monetary Fund except the United States. Brazil, Argentina, Costa Rica, and other countries have been forced to trade assets and land to exonerate their debt.
The specific plan to bring the U.S. under this monolithic control includes economic disruption, the collapse of more banks, and national bankruptcy. They believe that under these conditions most Americans will clamor for the "help" they offer, willingly trading our nation's land and resources for the backing of the International Monetary Fund to bail us out of our predicament. Their stated deadline to accomplish this goal is the year 2000 [Ambushed, "Insider Report," Larry Abraham p.12].
Another method of obtaining control of a nation and its lands is being accomplished in the United States with the help of the environmentalists. Wilderness areas are set aside, transferred to the Nature Conservancy and then to the Federal Reserve, placing those lands under the direct control of these same individuals ["Ambushed, Insider Report,'" Larry Abraham, p.15-16].
It is worth noting that the European countries recently met in the Netherlands and agreed to a single currency for all of Europe.
Military: The plan is to control the armed forces of the world. The world has been divided into 10 regions. A country may do whatever it chooses within the confines of that region, but if it oversteps its bounds it will be disciplined by the United Nations armed forces, economic forces, and judicial forces.
Prior to the conflict in Kuwait, a meeting was held to discuss the possibilities of a country in which the combined forces of the United Nations could seize, upon the name of humanity, to stamp out oppression and to show the strength of a world army. In early 1990, the American Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, "had assured Saddam Hussein directly that the United States would take no action if he decided to invade Kuwait."
It was agreed that another war similar in scale to the Iraqi war would be caused to occur within five years, in order to keep the armed forces in focus and to remind the countries of the world of the power of the coalition forces [Minutes of Bilderberger meeting, Baden-Baden Germany, August 1991, reported by James P. Tucker Jr.].
As preparation for war was being made, Congress signed a treaty with the United Nations making George Bush the commander and chief of the coalition forces. Because the Supreme Court has ruled that a treaty takes precedence over the Constitution, this treaty gave the President the power to declare war without meeting the Constitutional requirement of approval by Congress. This allows the President to unilaterally commit U.S. Armed Forces to United Nations' wars all over the world.
Judicial: The purpose is to place the world under a single judicial review to administer "justice" to the world. The World Court has no juries and is not bound by the individual rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. It will judge for "atrocities" against the world.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court has (erroneously) ruled in Missouri v. Holland that treaties supersede the Constitution, every treaty that the U.S. signs with the United Nations places interpretation and judgment in the jurisdiction of the World Court. The Covenant on Political and Civil Rights, numerous environmental treaties, trade agreements, and other treaties have expanded jurisdiction to include economic, political and environmental "crimes." Proposed treaties such as the "UN Covenant on the Rights of the Child" would expand the scope of that control to the very core of our society, the family ["Global Tyranny...Step by Step," William Jasper].
Religion: The plan is to establish a single humanistic religion for all the world. "Christianity will be outlawed and believers will face discrimination, persecution, and possibly elimination or imprisonment; there will be a new religion, first the worship of man, humanism, and then Satanism; and everyone will either accept the new religion or depart from that society" ["The New World Order," Ralph A. Epperson, 1990].
"Cults" have been so discredited by the actions of some that few people question when a "cult" is verbally or even physically attacked by government. It is notable that those who are seeking to take control have redefined it to suit their purposes. Their definition is "anyone or any group [which] believes in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and that Christ came back alive from the grave" ["A New Look at the New World Order," Kimber, audio tape].
This definition will justify the ostracism of Christians while encouraging the growth of humanistic, occult, Satanistic religions.
The core of the leaders of the secret society belong to an occult religion called the Illuminati. All organized witchcraft and all occult brotherhoods belong to it. The occult is the religion of the organization, not the organization itself. It is Luciferian in nature ["The Illuminati," Myron C. Fagan]. The Illuminati uses a variety of tools. A few are discussed below:
Sorcery: In the New Testament, John uses the word sorcery in describing modern-day Babylon and the tools of the Beast. "The Greek word he uses is Pharmakeia, from which the word pharmacy is derived. Pharmakeia indicates the use of drugs, elixirs and contraceptive potions associated with the occult. When freely accepted, these narcotics addict, desensitize and deceive the nations, resulting in blindness and the inability to change. The use of drugs, simple and potent, is the same means by which the Mother of Abominations is able to deceive the nations" ["Opening the Seven Seals," Richard D. Draper. p.109].
Immorality: Whether it be intimate relationships outside of the bonds of marriage, or pornography, abortion, prostitution, homosexuality or any other form, immorality breaks down the character and fiber of an individual and destroys the foundation upon which freedom is based.
Idolatry: The New World Order is seeking to establish a unified religion with generic beliefs, devoid of morals. This leads to idolatry, or the worship of something other than God.
Physical: The objective, as stated by one of their main spokesmen, Henry Kissinger, is to take control of food and oil. By controlling oil, they control the militaries of the nations of the world. By controlling food, they can control individuals ["Christ vs. Satan," Oliver Demille, p.12].
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has promoted monopoly of medicines by certain very wealthy men. The recent proposals to require vitamins to be sold only with a prescription would extend that reach.
Current popular proposals to restrict access to health care without government control would go to achieve this goal. Stiff penalties, including jail terms, for anyone who seeks or provides health care outside the government system are an integral part of the plan.
The Global 2000 Report written by former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance declares that the world needs to be depopulated "...by means of limited wars in the advanced countries and by means of starvation and disease in the Third World Countries, the death of three billion people (described as 'useless eaters') by the year 2000."
This report was accepted and approved for action by President Carter for and on behalf of the United States Government, and accepted by Edwin Muskie, then Secretary of State. Under the terms of the Global 2000 Report, the population of the United States is to be reduced by 100 million by the year 2050 ["Conspirator's Hierarchy," Dr. J. Coleman, p.22].
These matters are serious. We can only prepare for them if we know about them. And once we know about them, we are obligated to act. "A man must not only stand for the right principles, he must also fight for them. Those who fight for principles can be proud of the friends they've gained and the enemies they've earned. We face days ahead that will test the moral and physical sinews of all of us. Those who hesitate to get into this fight because it is controversial fail to realize that life's decisions should be based on principles, not on polls" [Kzra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture, Eisenhower Administration].
We all need to learn the truth; it is truth that makes us free. May God grant us the wisdom and desire to search deeper and learn more, and the foresight to prepare without fear.
This article is distributed by permission from the original distributor. Re-distributed by: TvF OUTREACH, P.O. Box 42002, Las Vegas, Nevada 89116 Email: TvFoutreach@webtv.net
U.S. Disarmament(Intro Below) The official storyline is that conversion of defense industries to peaceful, civilian use occurred as a result of the end of the Cold War and declining defense budgets. But that is only half the story. If one digs back through history, one finds that U.S. defense policy has been on a single track since the founding of the United Nations. That single track seems to be to disarm the United States, bankrupt it, and turn power over to unelected, internationalcominterns.
The ostensible purpose seems to be world peace and global harmony. This is quite a joke when one considers that the world is a far more dangerous place now than in any time in world history - and it is because of the democratization of the weapons of war and the consolidation of wealth into the hands of a few.
Even a fiction writer would not dare to write something as absurd as the doings at Davos, where the world's richest and most beautiful people come together to drink champagne, eat caviar, and cluck their tongues about the poor starving and diseased people of Africa, while the world's mightiest military (we are told) searches for weapons of mass destruction in caves in some of the most primitive regions of the world. And, as if that were not enough, we now have a small group of has-been world leaders who have declared themselves, "The Elders" - tribal chiefs for the global village.
Marxism and American Society(Excerpt Below) "[Communism] is, in fact, man's second oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in the first days of the Creation under the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: 'Ye shall be as gods.' It is the great alternative faith of mankind. Like all great faiths, its force derives from a simple vision. Other ages have had great visions. They have always been different versions of the same vision: the vision of God and man's relationship to God. The Communists vision is the vision of man without God. It is the vision of man's mind displacing God as the creative intelligence of the world." [Whittaker Chambers, "Witness," p.9.]
"Nevertheless, in the most advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable:
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes;
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax;
Abolition of all right of inheritance;
Confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels;
Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly;
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State;
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan;
Equal liability of all to labor; establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture;
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of population over the country and;
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production..."
The New World Order Plan is spiritually based: it is a conflict between God and His forces, on the one hand, and Satan and his demonic forces on the other side. Anyone who does not know Biblical doctrine about God and Satan, and who does not know Scriptural prophecy, cannot comprehend the nature of the struggle facing the world today. - David Bay, Cutting Edge Ministries
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. - Ephesians 6:12
Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. - Mark 13:12,13
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence... Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. - President John F. Kennedy, April 27, 1961
The book in which they are embodied was first published in the year 1897 by Philip Stepanov for private circulation among his intimate friends. The first time Nilus published them was in 1901 in a book called The Great Within the Small and reprinted in 1905. A copy of this is in the British Museum bearing the date of its reception, August 10, 1906. All copies that were known to exist in Russia were destroyed in the Kerensky regime, and under his successors the possession of a copy by anyone in Soviet land was a crime sufficient to ensure the owner's of being shot on sight. The fact is in itself sufficient proof of the genuineness of the Protocols. The Jewish journals, of course, say that they are a forgery, leaving it to be understood that Professor Nilus, who embodied them in a work of his own, had concocted them for his own purposes.
Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
