Project Flood for Agenda 21: Army floods, Army buys flooded land

"The real enemy is a system that wages war when it's profitable, the CEOs who lay us off our jobs when it's profitable, the Insurance Companies who deny us Health care when it's profitable, the banks who take away our homes when it's profitable. Our enemies are not several hundred thousands away. They are right here in front of us." ~ Mike Prysner, Iraq Veteran Against War, 2009

Project Flood 2011 death, destruction, and your backyard.

ABC News reports that people are reacting to the Army Corps of Engineers decision to release even more water into the raging river Sunday. Some people in the flooded breadbasket farmlands are also reacting to the federal government mailing letters to them, notifying that the Army Corps of Engineers will buy their all but now ruined land, in what some rights defenders say has hallmarks of Agenda 21's Wildlands Project that abolishes private property.

Home owners are astonished that the Army Corps of Engineers opened the dams, even exploded some levees, that caused strong, heavy flooding, including at two nuclear power plants and now want to buy the land. A similar scenario happened in south Louisiana that eventuated in a long-term legal battle according to WDSU TV News. (Watch: "17th Street Canal Coalition.wmv" Youtube)

Farmers threatened with flooding had written to the Examiner weeks ago, before flooded out of their properties, saying "this is the big question nobody is asking, 'Why has the ACoE had not already started gradually opening the northern dams, in a slow fashion to prevent flooding us?" Now, some of these farmers say they have their answer.

Read the complete article at http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/project-flood-agenda-21-land-grab-soros-s-army-buys-evacuated-land

U.N. Agency Calls for Teaching Children 5-to-8 Years of Age about Masturbation | CNSnews.com

U.N. Agency Calls for Teaching Children 5-to-8 Years of Age about Masturbation | CNSnews.com

(CNSNews.com) – A June report from the United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) suggests children of all countries and cultures are entitled to sexual and reproductive education beginning at age five.

The report, called International Guidelines on Sexual Education, was released in June in conjunction with the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), an organization which works for universal access to “reproductive health care.”

In its rationale for creating the guidelines, the UNESCO report said it is “essential to recognize the need and entitlement of all young people to sexuality education.” An appendix backed that claim by pointing to a 2008 report from the International Planned Parenthood Federation that argued governments “are obligated to guarantee sexual rights,” and that “sexuality education is an integral component to human rights.”

The guidelines are designed, according to the report, to be “age-appropriate” and break down the suggested curriculum into four age groups: 5- to 8-year-olds, 9- to 12-year-olds, 12- to 15-year-olds and 15- to 18-year-olds.

For those aged 5 to 8, some key concepts to be discussed are:

-- “Touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called masturbation” and that “girls and boys have private body parts that can feel pleasurable when touched by oneself.”

-- That “people receive messages about sex, gender, and sexuality from their cultures and religions.”

-- That “all people regardless of their health status, religion, origin, race or sexual status can raise a child and give it the love it deserves.”

-- “Gender inequality,” “examples of gender stereotypes,” and “gender-based violence.”

-- Description of fertilization, conception, pregnancy, and delivery.

For those aged 9 to 12, key concepts include:

-- “specific steps involved in obtaining and using condoms and contraception, including emergency contraception” and the “signs and symptoms of pregnancy.”

-- That “legal abortion performed under sterile conditions by medically trained personnel is safe.”

-- Discussing the ideas of “homophobia, transphobia and abuse of power.”

-- Discussing that “every person has the right to decide whether to become a parent, including disable people and people living with HIV” as well as “ART (anti-retroviral therapy) and side-effects on puberty.”

-- That “both men and women can give and receive sexual pleasure” and the “definition and function of orgasm.”

-- Discussing “examples of harmful traditional practices,” listed examples of which include female genital cutting, honour killings, bride killings, and polygamy.”

For those aged 12 to 15, the report recommends discussing “access to safe abortion and post-abortion care” and the “use and misuse of emergency contraception.”

UNESCO also suggests those as young as 12 should be told, “the size and shape of the penis, vulva or breasts vary and do not affect reproduction or the ability to be a good sexual partner.”

By age 15, adolescents should be exposed “advocacy to promote the right to and access to safe abortion,” according to the guidelines.

Excellent website!! The Green Agenda

Excellent website!! 

Please, please, please take the time to read through it, and spread it around. Have your children read it, because this person is like me, a lover of the environment, but has done their research as I have and fully understands how this highly charged emotional platform is being used for a much deeper and sinister global agenda.

http://green-agenda.com/

We should all want to be wise and careful stewards of the beautiful planet we call home. But most of us realise that humans in general are not being good stewards. We are wasteful with our natural resources and have reduced biodiversity. Therefore, when we read about groups and organisations calling for a 'green revolution' and a new relationship between humanity and nature it is easy to agree with their ideas. 

However, certain aspects of the modern green movement that is permeating every segment of our society are not about protecting the environment. You don’t have to dig very deep to discover the true beliefs of the influential leaders who are using genuine concerns about the environment to promote an agenda of fear and control. Please carefully consider the implications of the opinions that they so openly and freely express:

(references and sources for the quotes below can be found here)

"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up 
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, 
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome, 
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

http://www.green-agenda.com/

PLUTOCRATS TO MEET IN GREECE

AFP on the trail of Bilderberg group: Site near Athens, Greece, is verified to be scene of 2009 globalist Bilderberg meeting.

By James P. Tucker, Jr.

Bilderberg will return to its 1993 crime scene when it attempts to meet secretly in Vouliagmeni, Greece, May 14-17. Bilderberg will return to the grounds of Nafsika Astir Palace hotels in Vouliagmeni, 20 miles outside Athens, and meet behind guards at the Westin Nafsika.

High on the Bilderberg agenda will be how to manipulate the global economic crisis for their selfish interests. They will pressure both European and North American nations to pull back from “protectionism” in the later meetings of heads of state. Since the international financiers and high officials of government see themselves as “citizens of the world” and scorn “nationalism,” their only loyalty is bankrolls, not their country. They love free trade, essential for world government.

Thus, they are determined that the United States and other nations refuse to impose tariffs that would equalize competition at the water’s edge. They want to continue shipping U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas where cheap labor may be exploited. They want to continue importing products made by slave labor in China and Africa, underselling domestic products.

Bilderberg, a secret elitist group that meets each spring at posh resorts protected by armed guards, uniformed police, sometimes the host nation’s military plus a brigade of private, plain-clothes guards, tries hard to keep its deliberations secret. But, with help from the European media and with inside sources, their mischief is always revealed to this newspaper.

Bilderberg has a dutiful son in President Barack Obama who will be told to press ahead with the North American Union, which is to be expanded throughout the Western Hemisphere into an “American Union” similar to the European Union. Ultimately, with creation of an “Asian-Pacific Union,” the world is to be divided into three great regions for the administrative convenience of a global government of the UN. Following orders, Obama has a platoon of Bilderberg luminaries in his administration.

But Bilderberg has had problems for years in trying to impose its will on the globe. When meeting in Greece 19 years ago, it was celebrating President Bill Clinton’s promise to sign the Rio Treaty on global warming, which would have surrendered U.S. wealth and sovereignty to international bureaucrats.

Clinton, who attended Bilderberg in 2001 and was elected president in 2002, did sign the Rio Treaty but a test vote in the Senate showed ratification would be overwhelmingly rejected. It is still pending and Bilderberg boys are depressed.

AFP editor James P. Tucker Jr. is a veteran journalist who spent many years as a member of the “elite” media in Washington. Since 1975 he has won widespread recognition, here and abroad, for his pursuit of on-the-scene stories reporting the intrigues of global power blocs such as the Bilderberg Group. Tucker is the author of Jim Tucker’s Bilderberg Diary: One Man’s 25-Year Battle to Shine the Light on the World Shadow Government. Bound in an attractive full-color softcover and containing 272 pages—loaded with photos, many never published before—the book recounts Tucker’s experiences over the last quarter century at Bilderberg meetings. $25 from AFP. No charge for S&H in U.S. (Issue # 14, April 6, 2009)

Please make a donation to American Free Press

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/meet_in_greece_173.html

IMPORTANT MUST READ! WILL AMERICAN KIDS TRADE BASEBALL CAPS FOR MANDATORY WHITE HELMETS?

By CJ Graham
March 28, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

Though I have a tendency to write long articles, thick with commentary, the urgency of the information I want to share with you compels me to keep this direct and to the point.

Along with the information you will be reading, I have included informative links. Please take the time to go to each of these links and verify the information I am sharing with you. It is important that you see the sites for yourself. There is much we all need to understand and share with other American citizens.

First though, I remind you of the ‘proper frog cooking’ theory which explains that a frog put into a pot of hot water will jump right out. Instead, you must put it into a pot of warm water and raise the temperature slowly, so the frog doesn’t recognize the danger, until it is too late.

With that in mind, I’ll get to the point.

Take 19 seconds to listen to the words of then Presidential candidate, Barack Obama here.

March 18th, 2009 the House of Representatives passed the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, HR 1388 followed by a quick passage in the Senate. There is much talk about a provision for the study of a mandatory service program, removed at least for now, with the possibility of being added again in conference.

WND wrote an excellent article about the ‘Give Act’.

I want to give you a little more information and context. Keep that frog in hot water in mind.

The United Nations has a volunteer program called the White Helmets.

(Excerpt from a UN document dated Dec 1997)

[Participation of volunteers, "White Helmets", in activities of the United Nations in the field of humanitarian relief, rehabilitation and technical cooperation for development.

Calls upon States to promote the facilitation of cooperative actions between the United Nations system and the civil society, through national volunteer corps, in order to strengthen the United Nations capacities for early and effective response to humanitarian emergencies; ]

To understand why the UN ‘White Helmets’ should be a concern to American Citizens and how it relates to HR 1388, you must understand how our government works with the OAS and the ‘Summits of the Americas’.

The Organization of American States (OAS) is an arm of the United Nations (UN) In brief; the OAS is a 34 member multinational hemispheric organization of which the United States is one member state. The Summits of the Americas is an instrument of the OAS, as is the Inter-American System.

I have written several articles about the OAS and the Summits, The Demise Of The American Identity and As Our Towers Fell have details about their inner workings and their agenda.

(Excerpt from the OAS Dept Of International Legal Affairs)

[That the Plan of Action adopted by the Summit of the Americas in December 1994, in which the heads of state and government stated that the White Helmets Initiative can facilitate the eradication of poverty and strengthen the humanitarian rapid response capability of the international community to meet emergency humanitarian, social, and development-related needs, and that the countries of the Americas could pioneer the Initiative through the creation of national corps of volunteers capable of responding to calls from other countries in the region;

…to urge member states of the Organization of American States (OAS) that have not yet done so to take action, as decided by the heads of state and government at the Summit of the Americas, to establish, organize, and finance in a manner they deem appropriate national corps of volunteers that can be available to other countries of the Hemisphere.]

(Excerpt from COORDINATION OF VOLUNTEERS IN THE HEMISPHERE IN RESPONSE TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND THE FIGHT AGAINST HUNGER AND POVERTY – WHITE HELMETS INITIATIVE)

[RECALLING that, in the Plan of Action of the First Summit of the Americas, held in Miami, in December 1994, the Heads of State and Government said that the White Helmets Initiative could facilitate the eradication of poverty and strengthen the international community’s capacity for rapid humanitarian response to emergency humanitarian, social, and developmental needs, and that the countries of the Americas could pioneer this initiative by forming national volunteer corps that could respond to calls from other countries in the region;

RECALLING ALSO that, in the Declaration of Mar del Plata of the Fourth Summit of the Americas (Argentina, 2005), the Heads of State and Government reaffirmed their commitment to fight poverty, inequality, hunger, and social exclusion; noted with concern the increased intensity of natural and man-made disasters and their devastating impact on human lives, infrastructure, and economies in the Hemisphere; and called for action at the national, regional, and international levels to strengthen disaster management programs;]

Note the term “man-made disasters.”

Dept. of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano made news recently for failing to use the term terrorism, instead using the term man-caused disasters.

In a recent interview, she said the following:

[“I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”]

Amazing isn’t it how subtly DC changes the meaning and purpose with just a gentle change of language. The language follows the tone set by the OAS, which follows the tone of the UN.

Civilian Volunteer Corps, to mandatory service, to Civilian National Security Force. Just that quickly, just a change in tone, a few word adjustments and our children go from freedom into mandatory service, from neighborhood good deeds and volunteerism, to ‘campuses’ and ‘uniforms’ with White Helmets. Can we, as a free people, afford to sit back and say nothing?

Please share this information with as many Americans as possible. This may not be a surprise to the readers of NewsWithViews, but to many Americans, it may come as quite a shock.

If possible, read, dissect and expose the OAS, the Inter-American System and the Summits of the Americas to others. Write, blog, call talk radio, make copies and hand them out to your co-workers or your neighbors, visit your representatives, do everything possible. It is going to take each of us doing all we can to unravel this spider web with which we have become entangled.

If you post this article to another site, and I hope that you will, please make sure that you put a link to NWV and ask your readers to access the informational links I have provided. They are the key to understanding the importance of this information and to absorbing the enormity of it all.

America is in great need of the watchful and informed attention of her citizens. Please do all that you can to help her. She is worth the time, and so is your family. Time is of the essence, the next ‘Summits of the Americas’ meets in Trinidad and Tobago April 17th, 2009.

Other essential links:

1 - American Declaration Of The Rights And Duties Of Man
2 - Inter American Democratic Charter
3 - Social Charter Of the Americas

© 2009 CJ Graham - All Rights Reserved

"CJ" Graham is a Veteran and the proud wife of a retired USAF Veteran. She is a dedicated mother, activist, conservative, independent, who's allegiance is to her country and not to a particular political party. She is a firm believer in the power of the Citizen of the United States of America to whom she writes with a empowering and encouraging spirit. She knows that the Citizen of the USA can make a difference through peaceful, focused, knowledge empowered, activism working within the system and with media and legislators to effect change. As an author, she writes from the heart but backs up her work with facts.

E-Mail: cjgraham2008@gmail.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Graham/cj117.htm

U.N. Environment Head Wants Global Warming Tax

“Green New Deal” proposed as latest elitist scam to exploit financial crisis, create building blocks for world government

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, March 19, 2009

You won’t find them calling it by that name, but the “New Green Deal” being proposed by the Obama administration, as well as U.N. environment agency head Achim Steiner, is nothing more than a global warming tax designed to further castrate U.S. sovereignty and geld Americans to accept increasingly centralized global regulations.

“Investments of $750 billion could create a “Green New Deal” to revive the world economy and protect the environment, perhaps aided by a tax on oil, the head of the U.N. environment agency said on Thursday,” reports Reuters.

Steiner’s warning that “the opportunity must not be lost,” to introduce such measures echoes the mantra of Obama, Hillary Clinton and others of the need to exploit the financial crisis to put in place the building blocks of world government.

Steiner said the U.N. would need funds to “fight global warming” and that one means of acquiring them would be by “taxing oil in rich nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.”

Accepting the premise that such a tax would inevitably be passed on to consumers, Steiner claimed, “It would be almost, if not totally, unnoticed by the consumer,” he said, especially since oil prices have fallen from more than $140 a barrel at mid-2008 peaks to about $40.”

And what about when oil is back up to $140 and beyond once the inevitable whirlwind of hyperinflation kicks in due to the Federal Reserve’s latest announcement to flood the financial system with a further $1 trillion dollars? Naturally, such a tax would be minimal at first, but once the U.N. has got its foot in the door and is directly taxing U.S. citizens at the gas pump, God only knows where we could end up.

Overarching this entire fraud is the fact that, as we have exhaustively documented for years, the notion of man-made global warming is a contrived scam promulgated by the very people who stand to benefit to the tune of trillions if a climate change tax was introduced. Since the earth’s climate has never stopped changing throughout eons of pre-human history, rest assured that a healthy supply of doomsday scenarios will always be on hand with which to fleece us, whether we’re baking in a cauldron or shivering under the onset of a new ice age.

Exactly how much do they eventually want to squeeze out of the already battered and bruised taxpayer?

The IPCC’s own figures state that it would cost about $100 trillion to avert 1 degree Celsius of global warming through reducing CO2 emissions, even if you believe that man-made climate change is a reality.

$100 trillion dollars - that’s around $333,000 thousand dollars for every living American. Even if you apply it to every living person on the planet, it’s still around $16,000 thousand dollars each. Doesn’t sound like that would be an “unnoticed” amount does it? I would certainly notice if $16,000 left my bank account as an indulgence tax payment for my “sin” of contributing to global warming.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/un-environment-head-wants-global-warming-tax.html

Research related articles:

1. Environment Minister calls global warming fears ‘hysterical psuedo-religion’…
2. Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law
3. Desperate Double Speak: Global Cooling Is Part Of Global Warming
4. Global warming the new religion
5. Princeton Physicist Calls Global Warming Science “Mistaken”
6. Environment minister Sammy Wilson: I still think man-made climate change is a con
7. UN says eat less meat to curb global warming
8. Disney’s New Hannah Montana Album Features ‘Global Warming Anthem’
9. UK Politician Urges Video Game Manufacturers to Include Global Warming Message
10. Astronomer devises giant sun shield to reverse global warming
11. Global Warming Advocates Cite Elite Cover Up Conspiracy
12. What Global Warming?

LOST: Law of the Sea Treaty

Written by William F. Jasper

Thursday, 19 February 2009 00:30

The United States Senate may vote very soon on one of the most far-reaching and dangerous treaties our government has ever considered for ratification: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (also known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST). The treaty, which has simmered on the back burners of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for decades, would give the United Nations control and jurisdiction over the world's oceans, nearly three-quarters of the surface of our planet.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), oceans cover 71 percent of the Earth's surface and contain 97 percent of the planet's water. The agency also notes, "one of every six jobs in the United States is marine-related and over one-third of the U.S. Gross National Product originates in coastal areas." Of course, the oceans are important not only for our commercial transportation, recreation, food production and energy production, but also for our national security; our navy's unhindered access to the ocean seas is crucial to our defense at home and the protection of our interests abroad.

The Law of the Sea Treaty would jeopardize all of this by subjecting America to the rules and jurisdiction of UN bodies and the incessant harassment of lawsuits by foreign nations and activist non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The LOST proponents snort in derision at these concerns, insisting that the treaty merely codifies customary international maritime law already in effect, and actually strengthens American sovereignty. "One of the most common criticisms of the treaty is that ratification will lead to the largest transfer of sovereignty and wealth in US history," says the United Nations Association of the USA (UNA-USA) in its "fact sheet" on LOST. "Instead," asserts the UNA-USA, "the treaty strengthens and extends U.S. sovereignty over vast amounts of ocean territory and resources."

However, when we look closely at what the authors of the Law of the Sea Treaty say in various international fora and publications, and when we examine the admissions and boasts of the UN's officials and legal experts, we find that they have baited a very big trap. Their public assurances notwithstanding, they have designed and birthed a monster that they intend will do far more than they openly concede when seeking state ratification. Here's what the UN's Division of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea (DOALOS) had to say at the official celebration of the "25th Anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" on October 17, 2007:

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ... is perhaps one of the most significant but less recognized 20th century accomplishments in the arena of international law.... Its scope is vast: it covers all ocean space, with all its uses, including navigation and overflight; all uses of all its resources, living and non-living, on the high seas, on the ocean floor and beneath, on the continental shelf and in the territorial seas; the protection of the marine environment; and basic law and order.... The Convention is widely recognised by the international community as the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and the seas must be carried out.

Please note that DOALOS, the UN agency in charge of administering LOST, claims the convention covers "all ocean space," including everything on, in, under, and above the oceans. Note also the heavy use of the adjective "all," as in "all uses," "all resources," "all activities." But wait; as we shall see, the claims go even far beyond this to include global regulations that will override domestic laws covering not only coastal waters and shorelines, but also human activities in rivers and inland waterways, and land-based activities that may be claimed — no matter how far-fetched — to be harming the marine environment.

Moreover, LOST may confer upon the UN, for the first time, the ability to tax Americans directly, without congressional approval.

Many Americans have experienced firsthand just how burdensome U.S. regulation of our own waterways, including wetlands regulations, can be. But how about international regulations of our waterways? What national interest can be served by subjecting ourselves to the regulatory ministrations and taxing authority of UN bureaucrats and judges and the litigational ploys of foreign dictators and anti-American NGOs? Obviously, none. Nonetheless, Senate ratification of LOST is a "top priority" for the new Obama administration.

At her January 13 hearings for confirmation as Secretary of State, then-Senator Hillary Clinton was asked by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), a LOST supporter: "If confirmed, do you intend to make ratification of the Convention your top treaty priority at State?" Sen. Clinton responded: "The President-Elect and I both supported ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention as senators.... If confirmed, its ratification will be one of my top treaty priorities at State, and the new administration will work with the Senate to secure approval."

The LOST Boys ... and Girls

The new administration will be well packed with LOST boys and girls. Vice President Joseph Biden, for instance, was a longtime Senate champion of the Law of the Sea. He will be presiding over the Senate in the 11th Congress. President Obama's recently confirmed ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, served as understudy in the Clinton administration, first to Anthony Lake, and then to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, both of whom were (and are) LOST enthusiasts. For the past several years, Rice has worked at the liberal-left Brookings Institution under the tutelage of Clinton's former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott. This is the same Strobe Talbott who approvingly predicted in his 1992 Time magazine essay, "The Birth of the Global Nation," that someday "nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority." LOST would be a very important part of the emerging global authority Talbott envisions. So it is not surprising that this same Strobe Talbott, a foreign-policy adviser to Barack Obama and Susan Rice's Brookings boss and mentor, is one of the "101 prominent Americans" who signed a letter to Senate leaders in 2007 urging approval of LOST.

Leon Panetta, President Obama's choice to head the CIA, is also a major LOST promoter. Until recently, Panetta served as co-chair of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, one of the main organizations pushing the convention.

The new Democrat-controlled Senate is the friendliest environment the LOST proponents have ever faced, but it is the Republicans who are causing the most worry. On January 9, just a week and a half before handing over the White House to Barack Obama, President Bush issued National Security Presidential Directive 66 (NSPD-66) on "Arctic Region Policy." The executive order (also labeled Homeland Security Presidential Directive 25, HSPD-25), which brims with environmental shibboleths, declares:

The Senate should act favorably on U.S. accession to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea promptly, to protect and advance U.S. interests, including with respect to the Arctic. Joining will serve the national security interests of the United States, including the maritime mobility of our Armed Forces worldwide. It will secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain. Accession will promote U.S. interests in the environmental health of the oceans. And it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted.

In addition to the citation above, NSPD-66/HSPD-25 specifically endorses LOST four more times. The Bush executive order may not have been prominently featured in the major media (indeed, it seems few Americans are even aware it was issued), but the message certainly reached Republicans in the Senate. For the umpteenth time, and now as one of its last acts in office, the Bush administration was signaling its strong support for LOST.

Many of President Bush's staunchest supporters, as well as many of his harshest Democratic opponents, were shocked when, on November 27, 2001, Ambassador Sichan Siv, U.S. Representative on the UN Economic and Social Council, made the following statement in the UN General Assembly: "The United States has long accepted the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as embodying international law concerning traditional uses of the oceans.... I am pleased to inform you that the Administration of President George W. Bush supports accession of the United States to the Convention."

On December 17, 2004, President Bush issued a report entitled the "U.S. Ocean Action Plan: The Bush Administration's Response to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy." This presidential response stated that "as a matter of national security, economic self-interest, and international leadership, the Bush Administration is strongly committed to U.S. accession to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Administration urges Congress to provide advice and consent to this treaty as early as possible in the 109th Congress."

President Bush's unstinting support for LOST, along with endorsements from his top State Department officials (Secretaries Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte) and military appointees (General Richard Myers, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Admiral Vern Clark, former chief of Naval Operations), has been used by treaty advocates to undercut Republican and conservative opposition to the globalist scheme for UN control of the oceans.

Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) is now the most senior Republican in the U.S. Senate and one of the most ardent supporters of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Although usually described by liberal media commentators as "moderate," Sen. Lugar is an avid internationalist and promoter of the United Nations. He has been instrumental in stacking the deck in favor of LOST at committee hearings, allowing pro-treaty witnesses to outnumber anti-treaty witnesses by three or four to one.

LOST: Spawn of the UN

The product of nearly a decade of negotiations at UNCLOS conferences, the treaty was finalized in 1982. However, the world's most politically and economically powerful state, namely, the United States of America, which also happens to be the greatest naval power, refused to ratify the treaty. President Ronald Reagan opposed it for a number of reasons, though the one feature of the document that has received almost exclusive attention as being unacceptable, then as now, is the International Seabed Authority (ISA). The ISA is the UN entity that claims authority over all seabed resources as "the common heritage of mankind." LOST declares that companies intending to mine the ocean floor must obtain permits from and pay royalties and fees to ISA, which then, supposedly, will distribute the proceeds equitably to all mankind. (And we know from vast experience that UN bureaucracies are famous for honesty, efficiency, and transparency, right?)

President Bill Clinton negotiated a few minor changes in the convention, declared that its defects had been remedied, and signed it. However, the Senate did not ratify it, as is required by the Constitution for a treaty to enter into force. Although hearings have been held several times over the years, the full Senate has yet to vote on it. The UN declared LOST to be in force in 1994, after it had been acceded to by 60 nations. There are now 157 nations on board, the United States being the main holdout.

Sovereignty Sellout

In his April 8, 2004 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, William J. Middendorf II, a former secretary of the Navy and former ambassador to the Netherlands and the Organization of American States, identified "loss of sovereignty" as the most important problem with the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Ambassador Middendorf warned:

Traditionally, treaties, with only narrow exceptions, have been defined as formal agreements between and among sovereign states that help define their relations to each other as sovereign states. They are inherently political agreements. The option to change such relations and the concomitant power to discontinue adhering to the terms of a treaty is solely the prerogative of the sovereign. First and foremost, the Convention represents a departure from that tradition. It establishes institutions with executive and judicial powers that in some instances are compulsory.

Part XV of the convention, notes Middendorf, "establishes dispute settlement procedures that are quasi-judicial and mandatory. Once drawn into this dispute settlement process, it will be very difficult for the U.S. to extricate itself from it."

Advocates for LOST contend that fears of loss of sovereignty are utterly ridiculous. Professor John Norton Moore, a negotiator on LOST and one of the main guns called upon repeatedly to testify in favor of the treaty, had this to say at a conference on LOST at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York on March 28, 2008:

What's the principal argument we heard initially out of the opponents? This was going to remove the sovereignty of the United States. They cannot point to an ounce of removal of sovereignty for the United States.... There is no loss of U.S. sovereignty whatsoever.

Prof. Moore knows better. In the area of pollution control alone, the treaty presents serious threats to national sovereignty, creating, in essence, a global Environmental Protection Agency. Some of the most extreme environmental activists have announced their intention to use LOST as a back door to force global regulations, such as the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, on the United States.

Consider LOST's Article 194, which says: "States shall take ... all measures consistent with this Convention that are necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution from any source ... and they shall endeavor to harmonize their policies in this connection."

Article 194 goes on to say that the measures taken shall be designed "to minimize to the fullest possible extent" pollution "from land-based sources" as well as "from or through the atmosphere."

Article 213 says: "States shall ... adopt laws and regulations and take other measures necessary to implement applicable international rules and standards established through competent international organizations or diplomatic conference to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources." (Emphasis added.)

As previously noted, legal activists are eagerly anticipating the havoc they would be able to inflict on the U.S. constitutional system and the potential for building world government through these and other provisions of the Law of the Sea Treaty.

William C.G. Burns, an environmental law professor and global-warming alarmist, contends LOST "may prove to be one of the primary battlegrounds for climate change issues in the future." He notes that "the potential impacts of rising sea surface temperatures, rising sea levels, and changes in ocean pH as a consequence of rising levels of carbon dioxide in sea water" could "give rise to actions under the Convention's marine pollution provisions."

This a golden opportunity for environmental activists. "While very few of the drafters [of LOST] may have contemplated that it would one day become a mechanism to confront climate change," Burns says, "it clearly may play this role in the future."

Extrapolating from current and recent past experience, it should not take too much imagination to visualize the horrors this would unleash. Lawyers from Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the World Wildlife Fund (to name but a few) would keep every court in the land (as well as every international tribunal) flooded with perpetual litigation aimed at every productive enterprise. Forget about drilling any new oil or gas wells, building any new refineries or power plants, or opening any new mines. Farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, processors, transporters — virtually everyone who does anything on land, air, or sea is a potential target.

One of LOST's most avid proponents is University of Miami Law Professor Bernard H. Oxman, who served on the convention's drafting committee and has sat as a judge ad hoc of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Writing in 1996 in the European Journal of International Law, Prof. Oxman acknowledged that the convention's text was definitely lacking in the crisp, clear meaning its adherents often ascribed to it. "Like many complex bodies of written law," he wrote, "it is amply endowed with indeterminate principles, mind-numbing cross-references, institutional redundancies, exasperating opacity and inelegant drafting, not to mention a potpourri of provisions."

The UN's Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea insists LOST is not "a static instrument, but rather a dynamic and evolving body of law." This mind-numbing, "dynamic and evolving" mélange of "indeterminate principles" and "exasperating opacity" is causing elation amongst those who would undermine our constitutional foundations and, at the same time, inspiring dread amongst those who contemplate the havoc that subversive lawyers and activist judges could inflict on our republic.

University of Virginia School of Law Professor John Norton Moore, a supporter of the treaty, calls it "one of the most important law-defining international conventions of the Twentieth Century."

"This is quite an assertion," Ambassador Middendorf says of Moore's statement. "In fact, it is the most troubling aspect of the Convention." Middendorf continues:

Unacknowledged in the language about fostering the rule of law in international relations is the reality that in this particular case it entails subordinating the powers of the participating states to the dictates of an international authority.... The Convention is a vehicle for transferring these essential powers from the participating states to the international authority established by the treaty itself. It represents the establishment of the rule of law over sovereign states more than it is establishing a rule of law made by them.

Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, warns that "LOST could be treated as self-enforcing, that is, found to create obligations enforceable by U.S. courts." In Medellin v. Texas, he notes, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to a criminal conviction for failure to fulfill the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The majority ruled that the consular treaty does not constitute "directly enforceable federal law."

Bandow, who was a special assistant to President Reagan and served as deputy representative to the third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, says:

Treaty advocates make the same claim for LOST. However, Annex III, Article 21(2) states that LOST tribunal decisions "shall be enforceable in the territory of each State Party." And in Medellin, Justice John Paul Stevens contrasted the Vienna Convention with LOST, which he opined did "incorporate international judgments into international law."

"The issue isn't going to be settled," says Bandow, "until a suit is filed under LOST, if the U.S. is foolish enough to ratify the Treaty."

Ratification would be foolish indeed. The treaty proponents have offered no pressing exigencies to justify the claim that U.S. ratification of LOST is "urgently" needed, or that any supposed benefits outweigh the evident dangers we would be inviting. Contrary to the claims of proponents, failure to adopt the treaty will not harm the operations of our navy or our commercial shipping.

On the other hand, ratification would almost certainly lead to actions that would be very harmful to our naval and commercial operations. Critics predicted chaos at our failure to ratify LOST in 1982. They were wrong; the United States has functioned quite well without it. No nation has had the will or the wherewithal to challenge our use of the seas. And if they had, the UN and LOST would not have helped.

Americans must let their senators know in no uncertain terms that LOST was unacceptable in 1982 and nothing has changed to make it acceptable now.

For more on how the internationalist Council on Foreign Relations is serving as the key player among the global-governance organizations promoting LOST, click here.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/801

THE FEDERAL LAND LORDING AGENDA

First the housing and then the banks, and the following is one reason why, aside from crashing national financial systems around the world in order to force people to accept a new GLOBAL central banking system...

THE FEDERAL LAND LORDING AGENDA

By Nancy Levant
February 14, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

“The cancer that infected our economy was housing.” — Sen. John Ensign, Republican from Nevada, the Senate Policy Committee Chairman

Senator Ensign’s statement is a truth worth screaming and clarifying. The cancer that infected our economy was and remains the intention of politicians and their financial and career string pullers to eliminate private property rights. If you choose to call that “housing”, so be it. But masking this truth by manipulating the American people with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG failures, etcetera, etcetera, ain’t gonna fly.

In 1992, the United Nations stated in its blueprint for the 21st century (Agenda 21) that there is to be no privately-held property — be it land or the homes that sit upon the land — for anyone. All property, according to Agenda 21, is to be “owned” by government. Agenda 21 also details the plan for “human relocation” stating that all member nations must implement “human relocation” plans. So today, we witness flood, fire, snow and ice, and power-grid relocations — annually — and with Homeland military assistance/insistence. We, as the people of this nation, are indeed “relocating.”

And to where are we relocating? That depends upon the decisions your local regional councils have made — the appointees whose names you do not know — regarding which locale will receive development dollars and which areas are to be closed down for nature’s sake. It’s funny how the nation’s rural areas are in annual “natural crisis” while specifically-identified urban areas are highly and solely developed. Small towns and burgs are dying and jobs, mostly $7 to $10 per hour jobs, are increasing in regionally-identified and funded urban areas.

And then, we have “stimulus” dollars in the billions going to national parks, and state and federal wilderness areas while no dollars go to small towns, rural, and dying America. So to our politicians I ask: How, exactly, does one live in a designated “human settlement”, as so stated in Agenda 21, on an $8 to $10 per hour job? How does one support a home or rent, utility bills, cable/internet bills, automobiles, transportation to and from work, insurance, and food with low-wage part time jobs?

The urban areas, as we know, are completely overtaken by corporate chain businesses which pay minimum wages to their part time employees. Equally, we know that good jobs always go to community movers, shakers, their friends, families, and social development associates. We also hear that higher education is being cut off from the minimum wage masses as universities are turning away college applicants and cutting off financial aid opportunities.

So as we get poorer, less and less educated, and transplanted to new areas, new lifestyles, and with no “social” contacts to ensure full time employment, the question is very simple. What percentage of the American population is required to fulfill the “equity” clauses of Agenda 21? How many people in America are designated to live like poverty-stricken third-worlders to achieve global equity and a “local” third-world labor force for political corporations?

And one more question: Since the “government” now owns the nations largest mortgage holders (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, etc.), do they own your homes and property as well? You know, the homes and property you can no longer pay for? I suggest you watch for the federal rental solution. Soon, America, you will be paying rent to the feds to live in “their” housing. One plus one equals two. Even the uneducated masses can figure that one out.

Join us on Govern America every Saturday morning from 8AM to 11AM Eastern Standard Time. This Saturday, February 14th our guest will be Michael Shaw from Freedom Advocates. To listen live, click here.

© 2009 Nancy Levant - All Rights Reserve

Nancy Levant is a renowned writer for Constitutional governance and American culture. She is the author of The Cultural Devastation of American Women: The Strange and Frightening Decline of the American Female (and her dreadful timing).

She is an opponent of deceptive governance and politicians, global governance by deception, political feminism, the public school system, political economics based upon manufactured wars and their corporate benefactors, and the Federal Reserve System. She is also a nationwide and lively radio personality. To book an engagement with Nancy Levant, send an email request to:

Not available

http://www.newswithviews.com/Levant/nancy119.htm

MORE ON THE NEW WORLD ORDER

By Chuck Baldwin
January 30, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

In my last column, I attempted to wake up my fellow Americans, who are either currently slumbering through the collapse of our constitutional republic or in a protracted state of denial regarding a very real--and very dangerous--burgeoning New World Order. The information that I need to disseminate on this matter is so plentiful that it is extremely difficult to condense into one column. Therefore, I must at least attempt to provide a little more information on this subject. I will use this column to do just that.

I already quoted former President George Herbert Walker Bush in my previous column. Here are more of his quotes. In 1991, Bush, Sr. said, "My vision of a New World Order foresees a United Nations with a revitalized peacekeeping function." In 1992, he said, "It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance."

Wow! I thought U.S. Presidents, as well as all civil magistrates and military personnel, swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Not in Bush's mind, obviously.

On January 25, 1993, Warren Christopher, the new Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, told CNN: "We must get the New World Order on track and bring the U.N. into its correct role in regards to the United States."

In 1958, Cleon Skousen, a former FBI agent (a man I was fortunate enough to get to know before his death), wrote a book entitled "The Naked Communist." In it, he outlined the long-term communist agenda. Since then, the movers and shakers of the New World Order have successfully achieved many of these goals within the U.S. Here are some samples of those goals:

* Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
* Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
* Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind.
* Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
* Get control of the schools.
* Infiltrate the press.
* Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
* Break down cultural standards of morality.
* Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with social religion.
* Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

Is there anyone who cannot see that the purveyors of the New World Order have largely achieved most of their goals? All they need to do now is tie it all together under one governmental umbrella.

One of the organizations that is at the forefront of promoting the New World Order is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In my last column, I showed how the CFR dominates the Presidencies of both Republican and Democratic administrations (including the current one), as well as the Federal Reserve. I would even go so far as to say that the CFR is a very "clear and present danger" to the sovereignty and independence of the United States.

For example, CFR member and UN spokesman, Walt Rostow, said, "It is, therefore, an American interest to see an end to nationhood."

The American people need to wake up to the fact that the international banking interests that dominate our political and financial entities are working tirelessly to "see an end to nationhood." I am talking about the Rothschilds and Warburgs of Europe, and the houses of J.P. Morgan, Kuhn, Loeb, Schiff, Lehman, and Rockefeller.

Rear Admiral Chester Ward, who was the Judge Advocate General of the Navy from 1956-1960 and a former member of the CFR who pulled out after realizing what they were all about, warned the American people about the dangers of this and similar organizations (such as the Trilateral Commission). He said, "The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common--they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR . . . comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government."

Admiral Ward also said, "The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government."

Remember, the CFR was incorporated in 1921 and is currently comprised of only about 4,000 members. The CFR was co-founded by Edward Mandell House and John D. Rockefeller. Colonel (an honorary title--he was not a military colonel) House had been the chief advisor of President Woodrow Wilson. Historians often call House "Wilson's alter ego" due to the powerful influence he held over the President. House was a rabid Marxist, whose goal was to socialize the United States. In his book, "Philip Dru: Administrator," House said he was working for "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx."

House's stated goals were to incorporate a gradual income tax upon the backs of the American people for the purpose of establishing a state-controlled central bank. Both of these goals were accomplished in 1913, the very first year of the House-dominated Wilson administration.

House's blueprint became the foundation for the CFR. What was not accomplished by the proposed League of Nations at the end of World War I was realized with the formation of the United Nations at the end of World War II. Not by accident, much of the original funding for the CFR came from Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan. President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave CFR members much authority in his administration, and they have pretty much dominated the foreign and financial policies of the United States ever since.

In the April, 1974 edition of the CFR publication, "Foreign Affairs," Columbia University Professor and CFR member Richard Gardner wrote a column entitled, "The Hard Road to World Order." In it, he called for "an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece." He named the following organizations that would help fulfill that objective: the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the Law of the Sea Conference, the World Food Conference, the World Population Conference, and of course, the United Nations. I would also include NAFTA, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), CAFTA, etc.

The CFR has a sister organization called the Trilateral Commission (TC). This group was co-founded by the Marxist, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and David Rockefeller. Like Gardner, Brzezinski calls for a piecemeal "movement toward a larger community of the developed nations . . . through a variety of indirect ties and already developing limitations on national sovereignty." (Source: Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, p. 296)

Brzezinski is also a major proponent (along with CFR member Robert Pastor) of the North American Community (or Union), whose construction began during the second term of President George W. Bush and continues today under President Barack Obama.

Here is a sample list of the notable dignitaries in and out of government who hold (or held) membership in the CFR or TC (and sometimes both):

George Herbert Walker Bush. Bill Clinton. Sandra Day O'Connor. Dick Cheney. Les Aspin. Colin Powell. Robert Gates. Brent Scowcroft. Jesse Jackson, Sr. Mario Cuomo. Dan Rather. Tom Brokaw. David Brinkley. John Chancellor. Marvin Kalb. Diane Sawyer. Barbara Walters. Cyrus Vance. Paul Volcker. Henry Kissinger. George Schultz. Alan Greenspan. Madeleine Albright. Roger Altman. Bruce Babbitt. Howard Baker. Samuel Berger. Elaine Chao. Dianne Feinstein. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Chuck Hagel. Gary Hart. John McCain. George Mitchell. Bill Moyers. Jay Rockefeller. Donna Shalala. Strobe Talbott. Fred Thompson. Robert Zoellick. Richard Nixon. Hubert H. Humphrey. George McGovern. Gerald Ford. Jimmy Carter. John Anderson. Walter Mondale. Michael Dukakis. Al Gore. John Kerry.

It is absolutely essential that we stop looking at potential leaders as either Democrats or Republicans, or as conservatives or liberals. Those monikers mean very little today. We must start identifying people as either Americans or globalists. Either they believe in an independent, sovereign, self-governing United States of America, or they believe in supranational government and internationalism. Either they believe in devotion to the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence, or they believe in the goals and objectives of the United Nations. We must rid ourselves of the propensity to support those who classify themselves as "conservatives," and we must stop blindly supporting the GOP "because it is a 'conservative' party." If they do not understand AND OPPOSE the New World Order, they do not deserve our support or our vote!

George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush laid the foundation for everything that Barack Obama is doing to facilite the New World Order. That two of these Presidents are Democrats and two are Republicans only proves my point: both the Democratic and Republican parties have succumbed to New World Order ideology.

There is more that we can do, of course, but I will save the bulk of that discussion for another day. In the meantime, we need to realize that the New World Order exists, to understand that both major parties are collaborating to facilitate its creation, to start looking at leaders as either Americans or globalists, and to refuse to support the latter in any shape, manner, or form.

Pastors need to start warning their people about the New World Order (and the Biblical principles relating to it) from their pulpits--loud and often! People need to start warning their family members and friends. We need to start searching out like-minded patriots--who understand what's going on--for information and encouragement. And remember this: WE CAN DEFEAT THE NEW WORLD ORDER. Yes, we can!

The fatalistic view that we are helpless is a bunch of baloney! Our forefathers defeated the New World Order in their day. The globalists have been stymied many times through the years. The fact that they have not yet totally achieved their globalistic objectives shows us that it is possible to stop them, or at the very least, set their agenda backward.

I also urge my Christian brothers and sisters to rid themselves of the propensity to say, "This is God's will; there is nothing we can do about it." That, too, is hooey!

Christians are to be the "salt of the earth." Salt is a preservative, a retardant against decay. We are instructed to be faithful "unto death." In Romans chapter 3, the Apostle Paul made it clear that we must never support evil that good may come. I would remind my brethren that refusing to resist evil is the same as supporting it. Sitting back complacently and saying, "This must happen so Jesus can come," borders on blasphemy. It runs counter to everything the Bible teaches. We Christians have a duty, an obligation to do right with no regard to outcome or consequences.

When asked when He would establish His Kingdom on the earth, the first thing out of Jesus' mouth was, "It is not for you to know." Yet, many Christians presume to know the times and seasons of Christ's return. But let's be honest with ourselves and admit that we do NOT know. To sit back and say that we have full understanding of Bible prophecy and can say for certain what God does or does not want to accomplish in and through our country is the height of arrogance and pride. Only God knows those things. It's time we let God be God and start doing what is ours to do.

What we do know is any attempt at establishing global government is as wicked now as it was at the Tower of Babel. As Christians, we are instructed to resist the wicked one. We must oppose him and his work. We are told to "occupy" until Christ returns, whenever that is. To "occupy" means to "take care of business." God expects us to follow His teaching and do what is ours to do. To use Christ's coming as an excuse to not "take care of business" is itself inexcusable!

As John Quincy Adams said, "Duty is ours; results are God's." If we would truly do our duty, who knows what God would do to help us defeat (for the sake of our children and grandchildren) this devilish New World Order?

As for me and my house, we will fight for a free, independent and sovereign United States--so that we might walk, work, and worship in freedom--as long as we have breath in our being. How about you?

P.S. Several readers informed me that Michael Savage began acknowledging the New World Order on his radio show last year. Some said he has even spoken against it. This is good news. If only the rest of the so-called "conservative" talking heads would do the same thing--but in a more aggressive fashion: you know, like America's freedom depended on it, because it does.

P.P.S. Dennis Cuddy wrote a good chronological history of the New World Order, which covers its progression through the twentieth century. It can be viewed here.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

© 2009 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence. 

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, "Chuck Baldwin Live" This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.  

To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. When responding, please include your name, city and state.

E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin488.htm

A VERY REAL NEW WORLD ORDER

By Chuck Baldwin
January 27, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

It is hard to believe, but a majority of Americans (including Christians and conservatives) seem oblivious to the fact that there is a very real, very legitimate New World Order (NWO) unfolding. In the face of overwhelming evidence, most Americans not only seem totally unaware of this reality, they seem unwilling to even remotely entertain the notion.

On one hand, it is understandable that so many Americans would be ignorant of the emerging New World Order. After all, the mainstream media refuses to report, or even acknowledge, the NWO. Even "conservative" commentators and talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Joe Scarborough refuse to discuss it. And when listeners call these respective programs, these "conservative" hosts usually resort to insulting the caller as being some kind of "conspiracy kook." One host even railed that if anyone questions the government line on 9/11, we should "lock them up and throw away the key." So much for freedom of speech!

This is an area--perhaps the central area--where liberals and conservatives agree: they both show no patience or tolerance for anyone who believes that global government (in any form) is evolving. One has to wonder how otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people can be so brain dead when it comes to this issue. It makes one wonder who is really pulling their strings, doesn't it?

The list of notable personalities who have openly referenced or called for some kind of global government or New World Order is extremely lengthy. Are all these people "kooks" or "conspiracy nuts"? Why would world leaders--including presidents, secretaries of state, and high government officials; including the media, financial, and political elite--constantly refer to something that doesn't exist? Why would they write about, talk about, or openly promote a New World Order, if there is no such thing?

Many of us recall President George Herbert Walker Bush talking much about an emerging New World Order. For example, in 1989, Bush told the students of Texas A&M University, "Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations."

Later, Bush, Sr. said, "We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order . . .. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders."

Bush, Sr. also said, "What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea--a new world order."

Bush, Sr. further said, "The world can therefore seize the opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order . . ."

What was President G.H.W. Bush talking about, if there is no such thing as an emerging New World Order? Was he talking out of his mind? Was he hallucinating?

England's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said, "We are all internationalists now, whether we like it or not." He continued saying, "On the eve of a new Millennium we are now in a new world. We need new rules for international co-operation and new ways of organizing our international institutions." He also said, "Today the impulse towards interdependence is immeasurably greater. We are witnessing the beginnings of a new doctrine of international community."

In 1999, Tony Blair said, "Globalization has transformed our economies and our working practices. But globalism is not just economic. It is also a political and security phenomenon."

What is Tony Blair talking about, if there is no emerging New World Order? What does he mean by "a new doctrine of international community"? What does he mean by "new world"? How can one have globalism, which includes "a political and security phenomenon," without creating a New World Order? Is Tony Blair hallucinating?

Likewise, former President George W. Bush penned his signature to the Declaration of Quebec back on April 22, 2001, in which he gave a "commitment to hemispheric integration and national and collective responsibility for improving the economic well-being and security of our people."

By "our people," Bush meant the people of the Western Hemisphere, not the people of the United States. Phyllis Schlafly rightly reminded us that G.W. Bush "pledged that the United States will 'build a hemispheric family on the basis of a more just and democratic international order.'"

Remember, too, that it was G.W. Bush who, back in 2005, committed the United States to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which is nothing more than a precursor to the North American Community or Union, as outlined in CFR member Robert Pastor's manual, "Toward a North American Community."

If there is no such thing as an emerging New World Order, what was G.W. Bush talking about when he referred to "a hemispheric family" and an "international order"?

The public statements of notable world leaders regarding an emerging New World Order are copious. Consider the statements of former CBS newsman, Walter Cronkite.

In his book, "A Reporter's Life," Walter Cronkite said, "A system of world order--preferably a system of world government--is mandatory. The proud nations someday will see the light and, for the common good and their own survival, yield up their precious sovereignty . . ." Cronkite told BBC newsman Tim Sebastian, "I think we are realizing that we are going to have to have an international rule of law." He added, "We need not only an executive to make international law, but we need the military forces to enforce that law." Cronkite also said, "American people are going to begin to realize that perhaps they are going to have to yield some sovereignty to an international body to enforce world law."

If there is no emerging New World Order, what is Walter Cronkite talking about? Can there be any doubt that Cronkite is talking about global government? Absolutely not!

Now, when Bush, Sr. talks about fulfilling "the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders," he was talking about the same thing former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali was talking about when he said, "The time for absolute and exclusive sovereignty . . . has passed."

The United Nations has been on the forefront of promoting the New World Order agenda since its very inception. In 1995, the UN released a manual entitled, "Our Global Neighborhood." It states, "Population, consumption, technology, development, and the environment are linked in complex relationships that bear closely on human welfare in the global neighborhood. Their effective and equitable management calls for a systematic, long-term, global approach guided by the principle of sustainable development, which has been the central lesson from the mounting ecological dangers of recent times. Its universal application is a priority among the tasks of global governance."

If there is no emerging New World Order, what is "global governance" all about?

"Who are the movers and shakers promoting global government?" you ask. Obviously, it is the international bankers who are the heavyweights behind the push for global government. Remember, one cannot create a "global economy" without a global government to manage, oversee, and control it.

In a letter written to Colonel E. Mandell House, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."

"Old Hickory" did his best to rid the United States from the death grip that the international bankers were beginning to exert on this country. He may have been the last President to actually oppose the bankers. In discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, Jackson said, "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out."

Unfortunately, the international bankers proved themselves to be too formidable for President Jackson. And in 1913, with the collaboration of President Woodrow Wilson, the bankers were given charge over America's financial system by the creation of the Federal Reserve.

Ever since the CFR and Trilateral Commission were created, they have filled the key leadership positions of government, big media, and of course, the Federal Reserve.

In his book, "With No Apologies," former Republican Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater wrote, "The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power-- political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future." Was Goldwater a prophet or what?

And again, the goals of the global elite have been publicly stated. Back in 1991, the founder of the CFR, David Rockefeller praised the major media for their complicity in helping to facilitate the globalist agenda by saying, "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

How could Rockefeller be any plainer? He acknowledged the willful assistance of the major media in helping to keep the elitists' agenda of global government from the American people. To this day, the major media has not deviated from that collaboration. And this includes the aforementioned "conservative" talking heads. They know if they want to keep their jobs, they dare not reveal the New World Order. The NWO, more than anything else, is the "Third Rail" to the national media.

Is it any wonder that President Barack Obama has stacked his government with numerous members of the CFR? Among these are Robert Gates, Janet Napolitano, Eric Shinseki, Timothy Geithner, and Tom Daschle. Other CFR members include CFR President Richard Haass, CFR Director Richard Holbrooke, and founding member of the Trilateral Commision and CFR member Paul Volcker. Obama even asked a CFR member, Rick Warren, to deliver the inaugural prayer.

Still not convinced? Just a few days ago, when asked by a reporter what he thought the most important thing was that Barack Obama could accomplish, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said, "I think his task will be develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a New World Order can be created. It's a great opportunity; it isn't just a crisis."

This is the same Henry Kissinger, you will recall, who said back in 1991, "Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were [sic] an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."

Even Gideon Rachman, the chief foreign affairs commentator for the Financial Times, wrote an editorial expressing his support for world government. In his column he said, "I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. . . . But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

"A 'world government' would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

"So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might."

Rachman then goes on to explain the reasons why he believes world government is plausible.

Do you now see why it does not matter to a tinker's dam whether it is a Republican or Democrat who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? For the most part, both major parties in Washington, D.C., have been under the dominating influence of the international bankers who control the Federal Reserve, the CFR, and the Trilateral Commission. And this is also why it does not matter whether one calls himself conservative or liberal. For the most part, both conservatives and liberals in Washington, D.C., are facilitating the emerging New World Order. It is time we wake up to this reality.

Presidents Bush, Sr., Bill Clinton, and Bush, Jr. have thoroughly set the table for the implementation of the NWO, as surely as the sun rises in the east. All Obama has to do is put the food on the table--and you can count on this: Barack Obama will serve up a New World Order feast like you cannot believe!

That a New World Order is emerging is not in question. The only question is, What will freedom-loving Americans do about it? Of course, the first thing they have to do is admit that an emerging New World Order exists! Until conservatives, Christians, pastors, constitutionalists, and others who care about a sovereign, independent United States acknowledge the reality of an emerging New World Order, they will be incapable of opposing it. And right now, that is exactly what they are not doing.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

© 2009 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence. 

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, "Chuck Baldwin Live" This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.

To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. When responding, please include your name, city and state.

E-mail:chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin487.htm