Posted on 12/18/2008 7:12:53 AM PST by antisocial
Here's your change!
By Henry Lamb web posted December 15, 2008
For more than 20 years, the politically-correct liberal elitists have ridiculed the "black helicopter crowd" whenever the words "world government" were uttered. Global governance, however, is a perfectly acceptable term which the U.N. says is somehow different from world government.
According to the U.N., "Governance is not government – it is the framework of rules, institutions, and practices that set limits on the behavior of individuals, organizations and companies." (UNDP Human Development Report, 1999, page 34).
Any institution that has the power to issue rules and that limits the behavior of individuals, organizations and companies – is a government. When those rules apply worldwide, it is world government.
The difference between "global governance" and "world government," is much like the difference between date-rape and rape. One begins with seduction; both end in violence.
If there ever was any doubt about President-elect Obama's propensity toward global governance, it has been removed by his cabinet choices. Hillary Clinton praised Walter Cronkite's attainment of the World Federalist Association's "Global Governance" award. As Secretary of State, she will lead the U.S. into the global village under the U.N.'s governance.
U.N. Ambassador-designate, Susan Rice, who worked with Strobe Talbot at the Brookings Institution, will be the point-person to see that the U.S. supports the global governance agenda.
Paramount among the rules required to make global governance an enforceable reality is the power to control each nation's use of energy. The Kyoto Protocol, promoted by Bill Clinton and Al Gore, was supposed to be that rule. To his credit, President Bush refused to subject the United Sates to this U.N. treaty. Obama has promised to change the U.S. position to one of submission to a new U.N. Climate-Change Treaty, now under construction in Poland.
Obama's representative at the climate change negotiations in Poland is John Kerry, sent there to reassure the delegates from around the world that the new administration will fully support whatever energy limitations the U.N. decides to impose.
Make no mistake; the new climate change treaty will severely limit the supply of fossil fuel energy available in the United States, by limiting the quantity of carbon emissions that can be released. The enforcement tool will be cost. Representative James Sensenbrenner told an audience at the meeting in Poland, that the new treaty could drive the price of gasoline to $10 per gallon. In addition, a global cap-and-trade system will arbitrarily limit the quantity of carbon emissions allowed by virtually all energy users, and releases beyond the limit will require a fee. Both the limit and the fee will be determined by the U.N., thereby giving the U.N. control over energy use in every nation.
The Kyoto Protocol already established the principle of "common but differentiated" responsibilities, which means that developed nations must meet legally-binding limitations - while more than 150 nations have no binding limitations. Through this mechanism, the U.N. can effectively redistribute the world's wealth to ensure that all people share equally the benefits of the earth's resources. This goal is expressed in a host of U.N. treaties and policy documents.
There is a parade of other U.N. treaties and policy objectives lined up for approval by the new administration: the Convention on the Law of the Sea; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, are but a few. Obama has already embraced the U.N.'s Millennium Goals which include a three-fold increase in the U.S. contribution to the U.N.'s international aid programs. Obama is also expected to submit the United States to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which George Bush refused to do.
Global governance advocates made great strides during the Clinton years, but were temporarily sidetracked by George Bush and Republicans in Congress. With a new, expanded Democrat majority to support Obama's aggressive global governance aspirations, national sovereignty is on the brink of extinction. The global economic downturn creates the perfect environment for a global response. The G-20 meeting held in Washington last month launched the final round of negotiations to create a new global financial mechanism to control the flow of money around the world.
While global governance advocates ridiculed and laughed at "black helicopter" watchers, they steadily advanced their agenda. Nowhere in the U.N. Global-governance agenda is there any room for, or reference to, the fundamental principle that government is empowered by the consent of the people, expressed at the ballot box.
The global governance agenda says that land use must be controlled by government; that speech must be regulated by law; that trade must be regulated by government; that education and child-rearing is the responsibility of government; that only the U.N. has the authority to regulate the manufacture, use and distribution of all firearms.
This is global governance.
This is the "change" that Obama promised; this is the change he will deliver. ESR
Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), and chairman of Sovereignty International.
Good article by Henry Lamb-as usual.
—bflr-
Keep the change.
“For more than 20 years, the politically-correct liberal elitists have ridiculed the ‘black helicopter crowd’ whenever the words ‘world government’ were uttered”
I ridicule them too. You know their problem? It’s not that they’re wrong, persay (though they absolutely are about JFK). It’s that they cook up these unlikely scenarios in their heads about *secret* conspiracies, when all the really bad stuff is happening, right in front of us. Why need to cook up the Masons when ever-expanding modern states dominate the headlines? We know what’s going down. The guys in charge are telling us. The Fed and the Treasury are basically yelling, “Give me more power!” As to whether they created the mess in the first place, well, that’s tricky to disprove. But I find it highly unlikely.
The move to world government is real. How else do you explain the continuing authority of the U.N. (which absolutely proved itself useless in preventing the rise of bad, bad men)? The World Court? The E.U.? It’s not a conspiracy, or if it is, so is every other intellectual movement.
—bflr-?????
No thanks, I ain’t havin’ any of it.
fortunately the black helicopter crowd are not the only ones aware of the assault on our freedoms. How are we going to get back to a government of “we the people” without another
revolution?
That’s the thing. For all their yowling that “Bush has a secret plan to dissolve the United States into Canada and Mexico by 2010,” they make it too easy for people to dismiss real concerns as “conspiracy theories.”
And that's just the financial part. Don't even get me started on the other changes he has in mind.
Having said all that, regardless of the fact that BhO will likely oppose everything I hold dear and criminalize everything I value, I wish him well. Just don't expect my support or compliance when the change reaper comes to town.
Is it possible to opt-out? I would like to do so.
That's change you can believe in! You'd better believe it; it's happening.
No black helicopters were harmed in constructing this post.
Actually, we (the men behind the curtain) quit using black helicopters years ago.
The technology has advanced quite a bit, and we can see you, we can hear you, and you will never see us.
bookmark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.