Friday, November 20, 2009

"New World Order/One World Government" is for Real! It's on Our Doorstep!

*******

*******

*******
Obama Promises a New World Order at Military Academy Graduation
By NWV News writer Jim Kouri
May 25, 2010
© 2010 NewsWithViews.com
On Saturday, President Barack Obama took center stage during graduation ceremonies for the U.S. Military Academy's Class of 2010 and preached his message for the creation of a new "international order" to about 1,000 new officers.
President Obama pledged to shape a new, international order based on global cooperation and partnerships that address not just military, but also economic and environmental challenges.
While making his comments to men and women very likely to serve and command in Iraq, Afghanistan or other theaters of the Global War on Terrorism, Obama stressed the differences between his warfighting strategy and that of his predecessor, President George W. Bush.
Right out of the gate, President Obama made certain to distinguish Bush's foreign policy as a "go-it-alone" approach. Obama told the graduating cadets, "The U.S. must shape a world order as reliant on the force of diplomacy as on the might of its military to lead."
Obama told the cadets, family members and guests that "all hands are required to solve the world's newest threats: terrorism, the spread of nuclear weapons, climate change and feeding and caring for a growing population."
"The burdens of this century cannot fall on our soldiers alone. It also cannot fall on American shoulders alone," the Commander in Chief said during his speech. Diplomacy and muscle must work together, he said in calling for "renewed engagement" from diplomats, along with development experts, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and first responders.
As usual, while seeking an end to vitriol and the harshness of politic rhetoric today, Obama could not resist taking a swipe at former President George W. Bush.
The president claimed his predecessor used a "my way or the highway" approach, and claimed Bush alienated some allies and damaged U.S. standing around the world -- something Obama is working to correct.
Obama said Saturday that he aimed to do that by forging new alliances, maintaining old ones and helping to shape stronger international standards and institutions.
At the same time, Obama said the U.S. will fight to protect "those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding" and will lead by example by staying true to the rule of law and the Constitution, "even when it's hard, even when we're being attacked, even when we're in the midst of war."
"This was vintage Obama-speak," said former military intelligence officer and police detective Sidney Franes. "Like many of his Democrat Party colleagues, he talks a great fight, but he's a pushover for any tin-pot dictator or political thug."
"Politically, Obama loves to talk about the Constitution, but will bypass its provisions if he believes it hinders his agenda," warns political strategist Mike Baker. "He uses flowery language and colorful flourishes that hide his predisposition to socialism and neo-Marxism."
The president's critics continue to point to Obama's lack of enthusiasm for protecting the United States. For example, when officials from the Government Accountability Office testified before members of the U,S. Congress on three separate occasions in order to describe security vulnerabilities that terrorists could exploit to enter the country, President Barack Obama actually cut the number of Border Patrol agents and abandoned the "virtual fence" project that appeared ill-conceived from the start.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to bring change to America. But few people understood what Obama's change will look like.
"The massive dumbed down and happy American population hasn’t got a clue and seem to be blindly following him into the New World Order like sheep going to the slaughter as he fills his cabinet with extremists who are members of organizations that are openly hostile to America remaining a free market society and a sovereign country," said Baker.
According to a report obtained by the Terrorism Committee of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, the GAO's first two testimonies focused on covert testing at ports of entry -- the air, sea, and land locations where international travelers can legally enter the United States. In its third testimony, the GAO focused on limited security assessments of unmanned and unmonitored border areas between land ports of entry.
GAO officials were asked to summarize the results of covert testing and their assessment for these three testimonies. Their report discussed the results of testing at land, sea, and air ports of entry; however, the majority of GAO's work was focused on land ports of entry. The unmanned and unmonitored border areas GAO assessed were defined as locations where the government does not maintain a manned presence 24 hours per day or where there was no apparent monitoring equipment in place.
GAO investigators identified numerous border security vulnerabilities, both at ports of entry and at unmanned and unmonitored land border locations between the ports of entry. In testing ports of entry, undercover investigators carried counterfeit drivers' licenses, birth certificates, employee identification cards, and other documents, presented themselves at ports of entry and sought admittance to the United States dozens of times. The investigators' success rate was frightening, according to security experts.
Blurring the lines between law enforcement and the military appears to be the goal sought by Obama and the progressives. More federal control of local law enforcement while at the same time cross-training soldiers to perform the police function within the U.S appears to be Obama’s plan., according to a former intelligence officer and NYPD detective.
The decorated detective, Michael Snopes, believes Iraq and Afghanistan may be training for U.S. forces to bring their skills back to the United States.
#“Obama won election partly because he promised to bring the American troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Now he’s sending more troops to Afghanistan and Iraq appears to go unnoticed by the news media,” said Snopes. In a recent report released to the US Congress, analysts assessed what they termed “preparedness tests” between the U.S. military and government agencies at the federal, state and local levels.
*******
*******
New World Order: First President of Europe Elected
By NWV News writer Jim Kouri
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
December 1, 2009
© 2009 NewsWithViews.com
While the governments of the United States, Canada and Mexico pursue their goal of unification and the creation of a North American Union, Europe's nations have begun their unification process with the election of the first President of Europe.
Just before the Thanksgiving holiday -- and almost totally unnoticed by Americans -- European Union leaders named Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy as the first "president of Europe" after a tough campaign waged against his opponent former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
While the office of President of Europe is still a work in progress, the idea of a unified Europe may instill more fervor on the part of American politicians who have a "global vision," according to Mike Baker, a political strategist..
"I did not seek this high position, and I didn't take any steps to achieve it," President Van Rompuy is quoted as saying. "But tonight, I take on this task with conviction and with enthusiasm."
Van Rompuy's appointment as the first European Union President -- while being ignored in the US -- is being heralded by the Internationalists such as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Many believe that Van Rompuy's achievement is partly a result of the EU being based in his home country of Belgium.
"I think the European Union also expressed its gratitude for the work of Belgium and the constant support that this country at the heart of Europe has given to our common project," he told the European press.
During his acceptance speech, President Van Rompuy pledged to lead the EU through a process of "dialogue, unity and action."
"A negotiation that ends with a defeated party is never a good negotiation," he said. "As president of the council, I will listen carefully to everyone, and I will make sure that all deliberations turn into results for everyone."
The idea of an EU President was the result of the European Union's Lisbon Treaty, which took effect this month following endless debate and negotiations over several years. According to a European Union spokesperson, Van Rompuy is expected to serve as president for 30 months, replacing the six-month EU leadership rotation among the heads of its 27 member states.
But while the EU prides itself on being a club of democracies, the process of choosing its new leader was far from transparent or open.
"The people of Europe are getting no say, not even through their parliamentarians. Van Rompuy's new job was announced after a closed-door dinner for the EU's heads of state and government," Baker points out.
But Van Rompuy defended the legitimacy of his newly acquired office by telling reporters the selection was made by leaders "who were all democratically chosen."
"I was chosen on the basis of a treaty," he said. "The treaty stipulates the procedure. The treaty was democratically approved by 27 member states."
While Europeans are relatively open about there New World Order ambitions, President Barack Obama -- much like his predecessor -- is attempting to create a North American Union or Federation of North America.
When Obama flew to Guadalajara, Mexico’s second-largest city for a two-day summit with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper,many observers believed from the beginning that there was little chance of any agreement on how to stop illegal aliens pouring into the US or the flow of drugs from Mexico.
“Much like his predecessor — President George W. Bush — Obama failed to address the very real problem of rampant illegal entry into the United States. While bellyaching about guns coming into Mexico with phony statistics, the President never once mentioned criminals entering the US and creating havov in our cities,” said political strategist Mike Baker.
In a personal meeting with Calderon, Obama applauded Mexico’s anti-drug strategy, but Calderon told the President that he was concerned over delays in US financial aid as part of the $1.4 billion promised. The financial assistance was held back due to allegations of civil rights violations by the Mexican government.
“Mexican police and soldiers use brutal methods to stop illegal aliens who attempt to enter their country across their southern border. Unlike the US, at times Mexican authorities use deadly force against these illegal aliens, but at the same time they decry any actions taken to stop Mexican illegal aliens from entering the US. They are hypocrites,” said fromer NYPD detective Michael Snolinsky.
During his Calderon meeting, Obama said he’d like to legalize millions of Mexican aliens but he told Calderon that there is little chance of Congress acting this year, since priorities like health care and climate policy are moving slowly amid heated partisan debate.
In a political move that received little if any attention by the American news media, the United States and Canada entered into a military agreement on February 14, 2008, allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis, according to a police commander involved in homeland security planning and implementation.
It is an initiative of the Bi-National Planning Group whose final report, issued in June 2006, called for the creation of a "Comprehensive Defense and Security Agreement," or a "continental approach" to Canada-US defense and security.
The law enforcement executive told NewsWithViews.com that the agreement -- defined as a Civil Assistance Plan -- was not submitted to Congress for debate and approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorist attacks.
"This is a military plan that's designed to bypass the Posse Comitatus Act that traditionally prohibited the US military from operating within the borders of the United States. Not only will American soldiers be deployed at the discretion of whomever is sitting in the Oval Office, but foreign soldiers will also be deployed in American cities," warns Lt. Steven Rodgers, commander of the Nutley, NJ Police Department's detective bureau.
In Canada the agreement paving the way for the militaries of the US and Canada to cross each other's borders to fight domestic emergencies was not announced either by Prime Minister Harper's administration or the Canadian military. The agreement met with protests and demonstrations by Canadians opposed to such treaties with the US.
"It's kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-US relations and contentious issues like military integration," claims Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians.
"We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites," he said in a press statement.
The military Civil Assistance Plan is seen by critics as a further incremental step toward creating a North American armed forces available to be deployed in domestic North American emergency situations. According to the NORTHCOM press release, the plan "allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency."
*******
Senator Christopher Dodd: U.N. Facilitator

Sustainable Development, Livable Communities Act
By Henry Lamb Sunday, November 29, 2009
When the term “Sustainable Development” first entered the world, it was defined to be:
“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
The term and the definition are the creation of the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development, chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, then Vice-chair of the International Socialist Party.
To give meaning to this grandiose definition, the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development adopted Agenda 21, signed by 179 nations, including the United States. This document is a 40-chapter laundry list of recommendations to create “Sustainable Communities.”
Senator Christopher Dodd is facilitating these U.N. recommendations through his “Livable Communities Act” (S-1619), which further defines the term this way:
“The term `sustainable development’ means a pattern of resource use designed to create livable communities by:
providing a variety of safe and reliable transportation choices;
providing affordable, energy-efficient, and location-efficient housing choices for people of all income levels, ages, races, and ethnicities;
supporting, revitalizing, and encouraging the growth of communities and maximizing the cost effectiveness of existing infrastructure;
promoting economic development and economic competitiveness;
preserving the environment and natural resources;
protecting agricultural land, rural land, and green spaces; and
supporting public health and improving the quality of life for residents of and workers in a community.”
Senator Dodd: which of the enumerated powers set forth in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to legislate “sustainable development?”
Dodd’s bill will authorize the appropriation of billions of dollars to bribe states and local communities to transform the nation into soviet-styled communities where freedom is sacrificed for the utopian vision of sustainable development.
Dodd’s bill will create two new grant programs, and two new bureaucracies. One-hundred million is authorized for “Comprehensive Planning Grants.” These grants are available only to multi-jurisdictional organizations that are defined in the bill, which will assure comprehensive planning on a regional basis. “Sustainability Challenge Grants” are offered on the same multi-jurisdictional basis. Nearly $4 billion is authorized over three years for grants to implement the projects set forth in the comprehensive plans.
The Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities” is created within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This new agency is charged with issuing and overseeing the grants program and providing guidance and technical assistance in the transformation to “sustainable,” or as Dodd describes them, “livable” communities. The other new bureaucracy is the “Interagency Council on Sustainable Communities.” This is a new council consisting of Cabinet Secretaries – or their designees. The Council is authorized to hire a staff to “ensure interagency coordination of federal policy on sustainable development.”
The United Nations has a similar agency. It’s called the DOEM: Designated Officials on Environmental Matters.
As a basis for his legislation, Dodd lists 20 “findings” which may or may not be true, but certainly do not provide an accurate picture. For example, he says that between 1980 and 2000, population growth in 99 urban centers “consumed” 16-million acres of rural land. What he did not say is that all urban land in all the cities occupies only 60-million acres, or 2.6 percent of the 2.3 billion acres in this country. Land designated as “wilderness,” however, occupies more than 107-million acres. Wilderness is land on which no human activity – other than walking carefully – is allowed.
Dodd’s bill, like all sustainable development propaganda, paints a warm and fuzzy picture of what “livable” or “sustainable” communities should be. The propaganda fails to point out that in order to achieve this Marxist utopia, government has to enforce the vision. This means that people must live where government says they must live; in homes that meet the government’s design criteria; and travel to work in vehicles approved by the government.
The end result of the comprehensive land use plan is to draw urban boundary lines on a map. Those individuals whose land is outside the urban boundary zones, are deprived of private property rights and the value of their land falls to whatever amount the government decides to pay for it. The value of land inside urban boundary zones skyrockets, as does the cost of living for all who reside there.
There is a free, detailed, 3-part video presentation available here, that explains sustainable development quite thoroughly.
Dodd’s bill goes a long way to transforming America into what looks a lot like regional soviets where unelected agency appointees draft a plan by which all must live, and then enforce the plan with the power of law.
Such a place cannot be described as the “…land of the free.” Nor can it be called “…the home of the brave,” if voters allow this transformation to continue.
*******
The Intelligent Student's Guide to the New World Order
Erica Carle
October 28, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/Erica/Carle161.htm
What is the New World Order? How does it affect you?
The essence of the New World Order or WORld Management System (WORMS) is that it is management by social engineers, rather than government based on a written constitution. How you are affected by this management system, depends on what the social engineers decide the system should do for you and require of you. The social engineers and system managers think of themselves as scientists applying the scientific method to the control of group behavior. Your behavior and relationships are regarded as subjects of investigation and control by those who call themselves ‘social scientists.’ You are among their test animals, and you have no say in, and often no knowledge of experiments that involve you.
There is nothing new about the idea of managing others, or even of controlling the whole world. That has been the goal of social philosophers for thousands of years. However, we need not go back over ancient history. We are concerned primarily with what has been going on in our own generations. This we can understand quite well if we confine ourselves to the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries.
Goals of the New World Order
To begin to understand the New World Order (NWO) or the WORMS you need to forget what you have learned about differences between Republicans and Democrats; left and right; Socialists and Libertarians: business and labor, liberal and conservative, black and white, etc. The planners of the New World Order know they must use, influence, and cater to all of these groups to accomplish the goals they are seeking, which are:
(1) Claim everything.
(2) Classify everything.
(3) Commercialize everything.
(4) Consolidate everything.
(5) Control everything.
We might call these goals the five C’s of the World Management System. If it is fully empowered, individualism, personality, personal decisions, personal goals, private property, private business, morality, Constitutional government, religious freedom, and national sovereignty can no longer be tolerated. Everyone must be subject to the management system. To quote Auguste Comte, one of the most significant early planners of the world management system,
"The only real life is the collective life of the race; individual life has no existence except as an abstraction."[1]
He also wrote,
"When the system is fully regulated, the effect of this will be to secure greater unity, by diminishing the influence of personal character."[2]
This means that to the WORld Management System planners you, as an individual, are considered to be without character or personality. Your personal life and personal goals are unimportant to them, unless those goals are consistent with the sociological and economic goals of the New World Order.
Public schools and The New World Order
To demonstrate how NWO sociological and economic goals are being brought about we can look first at the public schools. Most students and parents think the purpose of public schools is to teach essential and interesting information, vocational and recreational skills, and considerate and responsible behavior. After your formal education is over, your parents expect that you should be able to take responsibility for your own moral, material, and social well-being, and also the moral, material, and social well-being of any children you might have until they, too, are ready to claim such freedom for themselves.
At one time the goal of those who planned the school curriculum in the local communities seemed to follow the wishes of parents and the needs of the children. Now, however, those sociologists who have the power to affect policy in the public schools do not concern themselves with what you need, or what your parents want for you. Their primary goals are to CLAIM jurisdiction, CLASSIFY individuals, COMMERCIALIZE instruction, CONSOLIDATE policies, establish CONTROL, and train you to fit obediently into their world management system without hesitation or protest. In 1928 sociologist Ross L. Finney wrote:
"A new world is emerging in which the social structures will be of a different shape, the social resources of a different scope and calibre, than any thing that history records. It is a new deal--in fact a different game with different cards; and we who are now alive are privileged to witness its beginning, however blind most of us may be to its implications for ourselves and our posterity. And for a new age, a new school!"[3]
National Council for the Social Studies
An organization called the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) which is an offshoot of the National Education Association and a promoter of the New World Order, has CLAIMED power to determine what you should learn and what you should not learn in history, geography, government, economics, religion, psychology, etc. These subjects were CONSOLIDATED decades ago so they could be treated together under one agenda called, social studies. The leaders of NCSS CLAIM the right to decide what you should be taught, how you should be taught, and how your achievement will be evaluated.
In addition to the National Council for the Social Studies the various states have state councils for the social studies. What is passed down from the National Council can then be programmed into the states. Through the efforts of state members, bills are presented to legislators to make NCSS curriculum standards legal requirements in states. From then on your local school board and your parents have had little to say about what you should be expected to learn. NCSS CONTROLS what you should know, when you should know it. If you, your school or community have different standards and do not try to live up to NCSS standards for the New World Order, your schools can be closed or your community punished by depriving it of federal, foundation, and state money.
Grouping people to control them
It is interesting to investigate how this takeover was accomplished. Like everything connected to the New World Order management system and the five C’s, CONTROL is accomplished by forming and influencing groups, and most particularly by indoctrinating group leaders. This is because people who are emotionally involved with groups respond to leadership. They also tend to feel CLASS loyalty. For example, when your elected officials CONSOLIDATE into groups with elected officials from other areas, they frequently get carried away by the oratory and comradeship. Although the ideas they legislate are seldom their own, they tend to see themselves as the ruling CLASS and forget the loyalty they owe to you and the citizens of the states, cities, and counties they are supposed to serve.
CONTROL of groups of legislators, congressmen and government officials is also part of the NWO plan. When groups of elected officials, such as governors, state legislators, city councilmen, or county board members, are CONSOLIDATED into national or international blanket organizations, one person or a small group of people can make decisions and set goals for hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people. They can set goals for you if you do not object. Always remember, whoever sets your goals or presents you with what they call a vision or a mission CONTROLS your behavior.
Goal setting, political management
Setting goals and designing visions and missions for groups of people is one of the favorite devices of the New World Order managers. In education, goal setting and visioning serve to CONSOLIDATE policies so the NWO/NCSS curriculum can be established in schools throughout the country. When you hear someone use the phrase, ‘We must . . .’ or variations of it such as, ‘We need to . . .’, ‘It is essential that we . . .’, etc., there is a pretty fair chance that person is trying to convince you to give up the idea of independent research and thinking.
It is unfortunate that few of our congressmen, state, county, and city legislators have been alert enough to detect the behavior management and CONTROL that have been directed toward them. Many of them have been deceived, flattered, coerced, and bribed into surrendering their legitimate authority to New World Order decision makers. This, too, was planned. In 1906 sociologist Lester Ward explained how NWO legislation could be achieved:
"It must not be supposed that such legislation can be conducted to any considerable extent in the open sessions of legislative bodies. These will doubtless need to be maintained, and every new law should be finally adopted by a vote of such bodies, but more and more this will become a merely formal way of putting the final sanction of society on decisions that have been carefully worked out in what may be called the sociological laboratory."[4]
Goals 2000 -- Control is the object
Most of the governors of the United States are members of the National Governor’s Association. They have national meetings to CONSOLIDATE their policy decisions. In 1990 a policy was declared to promote the adoption of national educational goals. The Republican Bush Administration had endorsed the idea in 1989. The U. S. Chamber of Commerce and multinational corporations supported it. Then in 1992 Congress (Democrats and Republicans) passed and funded the Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
Originally social studies were not included, but the NCSS saw to it that social studies were annexed to the national agenda. Then they appointed a task force to develop CONSOLIDATED curriculum standards. These were later adopted in most states as part of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Eight goals were chosen and publicized.
The eight educational goals of the Goals 2000 were not the important part of this operation. Any goals that sounded good, along with the money promised, could have enticed governors and state legislators to pass enabling legislation in their states. The real object was to CONSOLIDATE leadership in education, CLAIM jurisdiction over curriculum, and to further CONTROL what you and other students learn.
It is no surprise to find now that the eight goals have not been reached--and were not reached by the Year 2000. Does this mean that CONSOLIDATED goal setting and visioning will be discontinued? On the contrary! To the goal-setters it meant merely that the Goals 2000: Educate America should be renamed, ‘America’s Education Goals’, and should be extended beyond 2000 without a specific deadline. Even when failure is obvious and promises are not fulfilled, CONTROL, once gained, is never willingly relinquished by the WORMS promoters.
*******
Say Good-Bye to the Historic Atlantic Fishery
Parliament of Canada was set to debate the proposed adoption of radical changes to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
By Myles Higgins Tuesday, November 24, 2009
It may sound like a doomsday mentality but sometimes the truth IS what it IS.
The End is Near for the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada. She’s gone bye’s; she’s gone!
This week the Parliament of Canada was set to debate the proposed adoption of radical changes to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) regulations that would see Canada sign onto a plan allowing member nations of NAFO far more control of fisheries management in the Atlantic off our shores than ever before.
The changes have been attacked by fisheries experts throughout Atlantic Canada, including several former high ranking personnel at Canada’s own Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), who have said the proposed changes will erode Canada’s ability to manage stocks inside its own waters and impinge on Canada’s sovereignty in North Atlantic waters.
Instead of listening to the pleading of experts in the area, or even proceeding with the planned 3 hour debate in the House that would have allowed some of those concerns to be expressed and captured on the public record, the Harper government introduced a motion to halt the debate just 40 minutes in and now have plans to dispense with the Parliamentary vote altogether and simply adopt the changes.
It seems the deal is done, or soon will be, and with that decision the final nail in the coffin if the Atlantic fishing industry will be hammered home.
While DFO has itself been a master mis-manager of fish stocks over the years at least it’s answerable, to some degree, to Canadian citizens. NAFO on the other hand is not answerable to anyone in Canada and is known for intentionally allowing overfishing and turning a blind eye to illegal fishing activities off our coast.
One doesn’t have to look far to see where NAFO stands on fish stock protection. They have proven time and time again that they are either incapable of or unwilling to protect fish stocks wherever they wield their power. This was proven once again a couple of weeks ago when NAFO made the decision to allow a continuation of a shrimp fishery on the Flemish Cap just outside Canada’s 200-mile economic zone, contrary to the best scientific advice.
In a special meeting in London, the organization decided against closing the Flemish Cap shrimp fishery in NAFO area 3M in spite of the fact that the NAFO Scientific Council had advised them that the stock has collapsed and that the fishery should be closed.
During a NAFO vote on the closure six member states supported a European Union proposal to simply reduce the allocated fishing days, a move that will accomplish nothing since the number of fishing days allocated in recent years have not been anywhere close to fully utilized. The net result will see no real reduction in the amount of shrimp that will be taken from an already collapsed stock.
With the collusion of the federal government, the new NAFO regulations will soon be adopted by Canada, giving the organization even more control over fisheries in the area and permitting them with an opportunity to someday dictate regulations inside Canadian waters as well. It seems that the time to wave a sad good-bye to the Atlantic Fishery and the serene outport way of life in many parts of the region is upon us.
It’s indeed a black day for all of us.
NAFO is an intergovernmental fisheries science and management body. NAFO was founded in 1979 as a successor to ICNAF (International Commission of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries) (1949-1978). NAFO's overall objective is to contribute through consultation and cooperation to the optimum utilization, rational management and conservation of the fishery resources of the Convention Area.
The NAFO Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries applies to most fishery resources of the Northwest Atlantic except salmon, tunas/marlins, whales, and sedentary species (e.g. shellfish). In 2009, NAFO has 12 Members from North America, Europe, Asia and the Caribbean. Among them are four coastal members bordering the Convention Area: USA, Canada, France (in respect of St. Pierre et Miquelon), and Denmark (in respect of Faroe Islands and Greenland).
*******
Barak Obama's Suicide Mission to Copenhagen
by Tom DeWeese
November 19, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom151.htm
For more than fifteen years I have been studying and reporting on international United Nation conferences, treaties, and policies, warning that they are a road map to global governance and eventual UN global government.
In addition, I have warned that the international environmental movement is not really concerned about protecting the environment at all – rather it is using mother earth as an excuse for an age-old drive for power and wealth.
For those same fifteen years my warnings have fallen on deaf ears in Congress, in state houses and in city councils across the nation. Instead, I and others like me, have been labeled radical fringe and conspiracy nuts. As a consequence, I have been ignored by much of the media, dropped from major nation radio and television news shows that once invited me as a guest on a regular basis. Letters, petitions and meeting requests on Capitol Hill are ignored.
Vindication comes in surprising ways sometimes. Case in point, on October 27, 2009, The Washington Times, DC’s “conservative” newspaper ran an editorial entitled: “Green World Government, the UN uses environmentalism to seize control.” Readers of The DeWeese Report, would not have found the Times revelation to be news.
What is important is that after my warnings have been one of the lone voices in the wilderness, some in the media are beginning to see the threat – just as it is about to be jammed down their throats. The fact is, the warnings I’ve been sounding are now transformed into urgent alarm bells.
The Times editorial was about the coming UN Copenhagen Climate Treaty and it contains just about every threat to our nation’s economy and sovereignty to vindicate my fifteen years of forced isolation. All the players and issues are here to enforce global control over our nation and our personal lives. The UN; World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace; global warming; Sustainable Development; and attempts by the UN to enforce global taxes. I have issued articles on every one of those.
And there is the new player in the game – Barack Obama. He of course, is the reason why this new Treaty is causing such a stir and why even some main-stream media is beginning to pick up on the danger. Obama is just nuts enough to actually sign a document that would make our nation subservient to UN schemes of global control. In fact, that is exactly what he intends to do.
And here are some of the details of what Obama would be signing – essentially committing the United States to comply.
First, The Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty will enforce dire restrictions on all humankind. One provision called the “Facility” will be used to “reorder society” to change the structure of civilization, making the environment the ruling principle. The Facility is designed to bring together a massive number of “fragmented” environmental organizations and existing regulating structures, so they can all work together. In other words, any action taken by mankind will be regulated – because anything we do has some impact on the environment.
Energy, of course, will be the prime target. The policy won’t be to find more – it will be to cut back on its use. Homes will not be warmed or cooled. Cars will not be driven. And manufacturing will be sharply curtailed – at least in the “developed” countries. The price of everything manufactured by using energy (EVERYTHING) from toothpaste to food will skyrocket. Shortages will abound.
Most of all, however, the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty is a vicious global indictment of developed industrial nations. Its pretense is that Third World nations are suffering economically because of their carbon emissions, which have changed the environment, thereby causing them economic and social loss.
To compensate these poor victims of unbridled capitalism, the Treaty calls for compensation from the big, bad developed nations (the United States), in the form of at least 0.7% of annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from each nation. That adds up to about $800 billion over five years, with additional funding requirements assessed on an “as needed” basis. However, the Treaty language is not yet complete and there is talk of making that figure as much as 2% of the GDP, which is roughly half of our nation’s total defense budget.
To collect these taxes, the treaty will establish a new governing body called the Conference of the Parties (COP), which will be given ultimate authority over the administration and enforcement of the treaty provisions. For additional resources, COP will have the ability to tax aviation and shipping. But, in the small print, things get worse. It says COP’s taxing authority “is not limited to” the above. That means they can tax anything that moves.
Again, what’s this money supposed to be used for? Oh yes, compensating those poor Third World nations. The UN calls it a “carbon debt” that the developed nations owe to the rest of the world. This is to be a punishment on the developed nations because they refused to abide by previous UN efforts, such as the Kyoto Climate Change Accord which called for reducing energy use by as much as 30%, and thus would destroy the economies of entire nations. Shame on us for not playing along.
The actual language of the treaty says: “The adverse effects of climate change and response measures, due to the historical cumulative GHG emissions of developed countries, constitute an additional burden on all developing country Parties (particularly low-lying coastal, arid and semi-arid areas or areas liable to floods, drought and desertification, and developing countries with fragile mountainous ecosystems) in reducing poverty, developing strategies to address social vulnerabilities and attaining sustainable development and a threat to achieving the United Nations Millennium Goals.”
There it is. We are to be punished for refusing to destroy ourselves. And why were we supposed to do that? Because of global warming. It doesn’t matter that scientists from around the world, including leading UN climate scientists now report that there is absolutely no evidence of man-made global warming. In fact, more and more scientists are reporting an actual cooling taking place. There is no nation drowning under rising oceans. There are no floods or hurricanes consuming nations.
Droughts and desertification in most cases is natural. The only man-made desertification taking place in the world is being caused by bad government policy. The worse example of desertification is taking place in the middle of California in one of the previously most productive agriculture areas in the world. Today, because of environmental protection policy, farmers have had their water cut off to save a one inch long fish. Will treaty money be sent to those farmers to pay them back for such policies? Of course not.
It doesn’t matter that science shows that CO2 is not a pollutant but a valuable natural substance necessary for the existence of life on earth.
Above all it doesn’t matter that the largest emitters of CO2 are China, India, and Brazil, and they are all exempt from the treaty’s massive restrictions on emissions and energy use. How, then, does such a treaty pretend to have anything to do with helping the environment? In truth it doesn’t, and every party involved, from the environmental groups to Barack Obama, knows that this treaty is designed to do one thing- redistribute wealth away from the developed nations to nations that want to suck the life blood out of the United States.
Nations like those in Africa are poor, not because of pollution, or lack of resources or even lack of education. They are poor for one reason -- bad government. Those that refuse to allow their people to own property and build their own wealth and dreams. Oppressive governments that confiscate the results of the labor of their people. Governments like Robert Mugabe’s in Zimbabwe, who took the breadbasket of Africa and turned it into a desert. And those same governments intend to be first in line to gather their share of the booty from the treaty. Will their people be better off? No. Will the environment be better off? No. Will the United States be better off after Obama signs this monster? No.
So who benefits? The United Nations finally gets its global government. The environmental groups finally get their power inside the elite. The totalitarian dictators of the poor, undeveloped nations get their Swiss bank accounts enlarged and all the trappings of wealth that go with it.
Will Barack Obama sign the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty? Insider reports indicate that there are two things that could keep him from making the trip. First, if the language isn’t finished by the December meeting deadline he says he won’t go. Second, if the U.S. Congress has not yet passed the Cap and Trade fiasco (the domestic version of the treaty) he says he won’t go. One thing is very clear. If Barack Obama signs the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty he will be committing national suicide.
Americans must not ignore this threat. They must not sleep while Obama and his radicals drive us to destruction. Elected officials and the news media can no longer dismiss these threats as silly conspiracy theories. The time is now to let every elected representative in the Congress know that we will not tolerate Cap and Trade or the Climate Change Treaty. Allow either to become law of the land and stand back and watch the lights go out on the shining city on the hill.
*******
And now for a world government
Gideon Rachman
December 9, 2008
Left: Gideon Rachman
I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. 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.
First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.
Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.
But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.
Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.
A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.
The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.
These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.
But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.
So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.
But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for “global governance” in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.
There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who – while they might like to talk about “a planet in peril” – are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.
But this “problem” also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU – the heartland of law-based international government – the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for “ever closer union” have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.
The world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.
*******