Time to Take Action
Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.

Global governance here we come!
December 13, 2008, World Net Daily by Henry Lamb
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 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 were 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 costly. Rep. 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 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 and 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.

Home Contact


              Page Updated: Thursday May 07, 2009 09:15 AM  Pacific

             Copyright klamathbasincrisis.org, 2008, All Rights Reserved