Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Revealed: U.N.'s Plan for World Government
worldnetdaily.com ^ | May 20, 2003

Posted on 05/20/2003 5:42:05 AM PDT by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!

Revealed: U.N.'s plan
for world government

WND probe unearths plot for global taxation, gun control, standing army


Posted: May 20, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

The United Nations and the United States are engaged in a major battle over American sovereignty – the last major impediment to global governance – according to the May edition of WND's acclaimed monthly magazine, Whistleblower.

Titled "THE NEW WORLD RE-ORDER," this special edition lays bare the United Nation's plan for global governance.

The U.N.'s plan, dubbed "Our Global Neighborhood," is a 410-page final report of the Commission on Global Governance, and was first published in 1995 by Oxford University Press. That 28-member "independent commission," created by former German Chancellor Willy Brandt, developed the following strategy, as reported in the EcoSocialist Review: "To represent a shot-across-the-bow of George Bush's New World Order, and make clear that now is the time to press for the subordination of national sovereignty to democratic transnationalism."

Then-U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali endorsed the commission, and the U.N. provided significant funding. The plan calls for dramatically strengthening the United Nations, by implementing a laundry list of recommendations, including these:

None of the recommendations in the report is new; all have been proposed in a variety of documents for decades. This report, however, is the first time the comprehensive plan for global governance has been published with the approval and funding support of the United Nations, according to Whistleblower.

To justify the sweeping changes proposed by the commission, a new concept of "security" was offered. The U.N.'s mission under its present charter is to provide "security" to its member nations through "collective" action. The new concept expands the mission of the U.N. to be the security of the people – and the security of the planet.

Thus, in their speeches to the U.N.'s Millennium Assembly in 2000, both Secretary General Kofi Annan and President Bill Clinton made reference to this new concept, saying national sovereignty can no longer be used as an excuse to prevent the intervention by the U.N. to provide "security" for people inside national boundaries

To provide security for the planet, the plan calls for authorizing the U.N. Trusteeship Council to have "trusteeship" over the "global commons," which the plan defines to be: "... the atmosphere, outer space, the oceans beyond national jurisdiction, and the related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life."

Private land ownership under attack

Actually, the U.N. has been working to achieve this goal for more than two decades, reports Whistleblower, but the work has been pursued as a part of the environmental agenda. A first glimpse of the environmental agenda's magnitude came in 1992, when the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development presented for adoption a 300-page policy document called Agenda 21. This document made clear that the only way to protect the environment is to control the activities of the people who use it.

Each of the nations that endorsed Agenda 21 agreed to create a national council to implement its recommendations. Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12852 on June 29, 1993, which created the President's Council on Sustainable Development. This 28-member council included the heads of the government departments concerned with the environment and commerce, the heads of major environmental groups, and four representatives from business, one of whom was Ken Lay of Enron infamy.

This group worked through the end of 1999 to implement the recommendations of Agenda 21 throughout the United States, primarily by rewriting and refocusing the rules of implementation for existing legislation, and by encouraging state and local governments to implement the recommendations at the local level. With the coordinated assistance of the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy and the National Wildlife Federation – all of whose executives sat on the President's Council on Sustainable Development – the message of "sustainable development" and "sustainable communities" spread rapidly across the country.

Among the many goals of the President's Council was to change the way public policy is made in the United States. Its "Belief Statements" include this: "We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, more sensible use of human, natural, and financial resources in meeting our goals."

The new collaborative decision process is the same consensus process used by the United Nations. It is a process that uses trained "facilitators" to assure a predetermined outcome.

Every department of government has trained facilitators to transform public-input meetings into "consensus-building" sessions. With the support of various environmental groups, virtually every community in the country began to see "visioning councils" and "stakeholder councils" appear, to develop plans for a "sustainable community" for the 21st century.

These plans are remarkably similar, whether in Santa Cruz, Calif., where they call the process "Local Agenda 21," or in "Yourtown 2020," they all end up with the recommendations set forth in Agenda 21.

When examined from a national perspective, the local plans, arrived at by consensus, are elements of the broader plan to "provide security for the planet" by controlling the activities of the people.

To achieve this objective, private property has to be effectively eliminated. This U.N. policy was first adopted in 1976 at the U.N. Conference on Human Settlements in Vancouver, British Columbia. Its final report says:

"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 principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. … Public control of land use is therefore indispensable. …"

Three years later, the U.S. State Department entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization to launch a Man and the Biosphere Program, which designated vast stretches of land as wilderness. The Convention on Biological Diversity began its life in 1981 and evolved until 1992, when it was formally adopted by the U.N. in Rio de Janeiro.

This international law requires the creation of wilderness areas, all connected by corridors of wilderness and surrounded by buffer zones, in which human activity is regulated by the government, while the population is forced to move into "sustainable communities." There are more than 400 of these wilderness areas, called U.N. Biosphere Reserves, throughout the world; 47 are in the United States, with another proposed for the Chicago area and yet another proposed for the Bay of Fundy on the Maine/Canada border.

Remarkable progress has been made toward transforming the United States into this United Nations vision of a "secure planet." Because each plan element operates at the local level, it is difficult to see the ultimate outcome. A picture of the dream is suggested, however, in the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development report authored by Andrew Euston for the U.N. Conference on Human Development meeting in Istanbul in 1996.

The report describes in considerable detail how "sustainable" communities of the future will be bounded by growth limits, surrounded by open space, with housing provided by public/private partnerships that require both economic and ethnic integration, and feature live-over shops and services. Transportation in these communities will feature light rail and bicycle, since automobiles will be unnecessary; people are expected to work within walking distance of their employment. Each complex in the community is a "neighborhood" that provides schools and day care, governed by a "neighborhood council."

Agriculture and light "sustainable" industry will occur in the buffer zones between the communities and the Biosphere Reserves, under the direction of the government, in public/private partnerships with non-government organizations that oversee day-to-day operations.

Policy decisions are to be made by the council closest to the people governed by the policy, providing that the policy is consistent with each of the councils in the hierarchy. The ideal system of governance in this utopian vision would see the government selecting a non-government organization, or NGO, for a particular neighborhood project. The majority of the neighborhood council would consist of board members of the NGO, with a few additional representatives selected by the NGO. The neighborhood council would choose a representative to sit on the community council, which would choose a representative to sit on the watershed council, which would choose a representative to sit on the bioregional council, which would choose a representative to sit on the national council, which would choose a representative to the People's Assembly at the United Nations.

Sound familiar? This system parallels the old Soviet system in Russia, in both design and function. It has been under development in the United States since launched in 1993 by the President's Council on Sustainable Development. Progress so far has been mostly voluntary – "to comply with international obligations." But success will come for the U.N. only when it has the power to enforce its international law. That's the next step.

The May edition of Whistleblower, perhaps as never before, lays bare the knock-down, drag-out fight between backers of American sovereignty and global governance.

"For a long time we have planned a Whistleblower issue on globalism and the United Nations," said WND Editor Joseph Farah. "Now is the time. The next few months may indeed define what kind of country and world we live in for the rest of our lives. If you care about America, read this issue."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: clintonstrikesagain; forworldgovernment; globalisation; globalism; globalization; kofiannan; naziplan; newnwo; newworldorder; nwo; oneworldorder; revealed; sovereignty; tyranny; un; unitednations; unsecgenclinton; wnd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-153 last
To: TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
I agree with your condemation of the movie industry in general and your views on too much government. However, I don't agree with your unlimited praise of G. W. Bush. I believe he is a wolf in sheep clothing. I don't believe the apple falls far from the tree, and his father was the president of the Trilateral Commission, Rockefeller's contribution to the help the Concil on Foreign Relations socialize the world and support the United Nations in taking over the world. Remember Bush Sr.'s Sept. 1990 remark, "This action (Iraq war) is the way the founders of the UN envisioned it." The vision was a world controlled by the UN. The UN charter will subplant the Constitution of the United States, and for all the 'apparent good' Bush has done, if you look at the fact that the HOmeLand Security bill was already printed months before 9/11, and that it takes away more of our freedoms, under the guise of finding terrorists, than all of Clintons executive orders combined, I cannot agree with your unlimited praise.
QED
Alge
141 posted on 05/22/2003 8:26:13 AM PDT by Alge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Alge
if you look at the fact that the HomeLand Security bill was already printed months before 9/11

Where is this fact, documented? How is this statement justified?

I don't agree with your unlimited praise of G. W. Bush

You say this twice. I detest the democrats lies and Bush bashing... One fight, day by day.

Re: Bush being pro-globalization, I have seen him go against the U.N. yet have heard him in a speech to the U.N. Assembly, sound pro-globalization. So the jury is still out on this, regarding where he stands. The time seems ripe to usher in globalization so why is he not full speed ahead?(Gore would have had us worshipping Gaia and trees and the U.N. by now,)The U.N's credibility is at an all time low so they need an anti-christ leader to bring it all home?

142 posted on 05/22/2003 8:48:36 AM PDT by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
Of course I agree with you completely. It's like saying "who is the greatest jewel thief". You can admire their skills while knowing that the are depraved and wrong. This is the only way I meant "impressive".
143 posted on 05/22/2003 5:04:59 PM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
Revealed? I think this has been common knowledge for many years now hasn't it?
144 posted on 05/22/2003 5:06:38 PM PDT by ladyinred (Thankful for the men and women in uniform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Normal4me
LOL
145 posted on 05/22/2003 8:11:05 PM PDT by Rennes Templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar
Sorry for repeating. Screen said website wasn't responding, but it was!
146 posted on 05/22/2003 9:26:00 PM PDT by Rennes Templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: The Toll
red stains for blue helmets

If I recall the quote it is "one shot to the groin and two in the head"

147 posted on 05/22/2003 10:01:03 PM PDT by ChefKeith (NASCAR...everything else is just a game!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a325b3f5d31.htm

America's Military into a agency ofthe United Nations.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39b4276877e8.htm



Annan in historic meeting with Supreme Court &Congress/is believed to be unprecedented.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0c30a81760.htm

Bilderberg group wants vigorous Atlantic alliance / REUTERS IN A RARE INTERVIEW
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b11d27a10c5.htm

CONGRESS SNEAKS NEW DOMESTIC-TERRORISM BILL THUR
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a397fa1e06ab0.htm



Environmentalists Organizations Exposed {Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis}
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b870f13654c.htm

Lets Understand The U.N.{SPECIAL BULLETIN TO ALL MILITARY MEN AND VETERANS }MUST READ}
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b378b1d0e65.htm

Shadow Government of The United States and the Decline of America
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37f592f42625.htm

The Federal Reserve - What Is It? Who Is It?
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b13c8401f8f.htm

A CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2aa8747413.htm

148 posted on 05/24/2003 8:51:13 AM PDT by follow the money
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
----HomeLand Security bill was already printed months before 9/11
Where is this fact, documented? How is this statement justified?

I evidently erred a bit, or at least I cannot find the exact source of the fact. However, the best I could find is the below quote from William Jasper's article in Vol. 18,No.20 of "The New American", "The Action is in the Reaction".
There is further comment in there about Bush's Globalist stance. Note that many if not most of Bush's Cabinet are member of the CFR, whose agenda do you think they are following? America first? Or "a new world Order"?
My bet is on the 'new world order' unfortunately.


"President Bush’s speeches and policies on terrorism are self-contradictory, schizophrenic, and dangerous. They have made us partners with the world’s worst terrorists, ostensibly to fight terrorism. And in his rush to establish a Homeland Security Department, he would demolish our system of checks and balances, sweep away our constitutional separation of powers, and create an enormous police-state apparatus. What can Mr. Bush have in mind with this misbegotten and dangerous crusade? Former Senator Gary Hart offers a clue.

Commenting on the Black Tuesday attacks during a September 14, 2001 meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Hart stated: "There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this disaster to carry out what his father — a phrase his father used I think only once, and it hasn’t been used since — and that is a new world order." The global power elite attending the CFR program knew what the senator meant and, doubtless, heartily agreed with him. According to former CFR member Admiral Chester Ward, the CFR goal of a "new world order" entails "submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government" under the UN. Hundreds of internationalists from the CFR permeate President Bush’s cabinet and entire administration. And as another article in this special issue shows (see page 19), plans for a global war on terrorism and a massive Homeland Security Department were scripted in CFR position papers long before the hijacked planes of 9-11 slammed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania countryside. Yes, America must fight terrorism with resolute action and unyielding determination, but the Bush-CFR plan ultimately would extinguish the very liberty it purports to defend. That is something the terrorists themselves could never directly succeed in doing."
BTW how do you make some sentences bold?
149 posted on 05/24/2003 1:25:53 PM PDT by Alge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy

Once there is a World Government, I'll become a Rebel. I know how to fight and I know how to hide.
---

Thomas Jefferson
From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of
tyrants and patriots.

Thomas Jefferson
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and
armed militia is their best security.

Tench Coxe
The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.

Edward Abbey
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.


150 posted on 04/29/2005 5:12:03 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/foundingoftheunitedstates.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

What the heck are you prowling around in 2003 for? Feeling nostalgic?


151 posted on 04/29/2005 5:30:51 AM PDT by Conspiracy Guy (Caution. Contents under pressure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy

lol - I don't have any present day quotes like that cuz no one talks like that anymore. Too bad.


152 posted on 04/29/2005 6:55:38 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/foundingoftheunitedstates.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

Those are excellent quotes and very true today. We stand on the threshold of the New Revolution.


153 posted on 04/29/2005 7:11:01 AM PDT by Conspiracy Guy (Caution. Contents under pressure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-153 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson