Kerry's VVAW collected US Military intel and met with Soviet KGB agents! FBI Files reveal! (2004)

Kerry is a miserable human being!

:-(

Yes, within the last 3-6 weeks!

sKerry gets dissed by our troops.

I love to hear the story! Is there more?

If you click on my screen name my about me page has about 50 posts I made from teh FBI files.

There may be pics of the event, but it would not be prudent for our troops to circulate them. Remember, Carry wanted the troops in Iraq disciplined for that banner.

I got the info from an eyewitness, but not a participant and was given permission to tell the story. Others had told me bits and pieces, so it has been confirmed by several. ;*)

Probably.....but the troops are pretty tight lipped about this type of stuff. They are "non-political" doncha know? ;*)

Hiya Cal! Merry Christmas!!!

Nobody wants to hear about the SWP. Too much info makes people nervous. ;*)

I've had your home page saved for some time. Great info...thank you for compiling it.

The question has always been, "How could Kerry have made the 2004 election so close?" I blame it on Karl Rove who had his bacon saved by the SBVFT.

Excellent point. I've been saying a long time the the man is an idiot. The 2004 election should have been a slaughter, not the squeaker that it was. There was so much material to use against the buffoon Kerry, he should have only carried Massachusetts.

But Rove and Bush chose to go easy on him, just like they've been doing with the Dem's for 6 years now.

And now, we're gonna pay for it.

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE (Part 1 of 9)
By Henry Lamb

INTRODUCTION

This report attempts to consolidate four years of research, hundreds of
documents, and thousands of pages of material into a brief, concise word
picture of how the international community has been able to move society to
the brink of global governance. We hope our efforts to achieve brevity have
not sacrificed clarity. At the very best, this report is no more than an
introduction to a process that has been underway for many years. We have
provided extensive endnotes to encourage readers to expand their studies
and form their own opinions. We are convinced that the form of government
created by the U.S. Constitution is in serious danger of being overwhelmed
by the new spirit of globalism that is, in fact, a well conceived, well
executed agenda to achieve global governance. Global governance, as it is
conceived, and as it is being implemented, cannot tolerate individual
freedom or private property rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The conflicting philosophies of governance are on a collision course. On
the one side is a small handful of people who have recognized the erosion
of Constitutional principles in recent years. On the other side is a tidal
wave of UN organizations and agencies, reinforced by a multitude of
non-government organizations, sweeping across the planet, flooding
societies with the notion that problems can be solved only through remedies
offered by and imposed through the massive UN system.

We hope this report will be a starting point that will serve as a catalyst
for a variety of responses that result in a reaffirmation of the values
enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Ultimately, it is the values, beliefs,
and attitudes that celebrate, protect, and promote individual freedom that
can empower societies to overcome whatever problems that arise. These are
the values that offer solutions to the world's problems. These are the
values that America can share with the world. These are the values that are
being eroded by the rise of global governance.

We wish to acknowledge with deep appreciation the efforts of those who
reviewed this report: Dr. Margaret Maxey; Dr. Michael Coffman; Floy Lilley,
JD; Tom McDonnell, and Willy Peterson. Their work helped to improve both
the accuracy and readability of this information. The content, however,
along with any errors that may remain, are the sole responsibility of the
author.

We hope this publication will be useful to all who cherish freedom.

THE RISE OF GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

The desire to rule the world has been a part of the human experience
throughout recorded history. Alexander the Great led Greece to dominance of
the known world, only to become the victim of Rome's quest for world
dominance. The Roman Empire, built on bloody battlefields across the land,
was swallowed up by the Holy Roman Empire, built on the fear and hopes of
helpless people. History is a record of the competition for global
dominance. In every age, there has always been a force somewhere, conniving
to conquer the world with ideas clothed in promises imposed by military
might. The 20th century is no different from any other: Marx, Lenin, and
Hitler reflect some of the ideas which competed for world dominance in the
1900s. The competition is still underway. The key players change from time
to time, as do the words that describe the various battlefields, but the
competing ideas remain the same.

One of the competitors is the idea that people are born free, "totally free
and sovereign," and choose to surrender specified freedoms to a limited
government to achieve mutual benefits. The other competitor is the idea
that government must be sovereign in order to distribute benefits equitably
and to manage the activities of people to protect them from one another.
The first idea, the idea of free people, is the idea that compelled the
pilgrims to migrate to America. The U.S. Constitution represents humanity's
best effort to organize and codify the idea of free people sovereign over
limited government. It is a relatively new idea in the historic competition
for world dominance.

The other idea, the idea of sovereign government, is not new. Historically,
the conqueror was the government. The Emperor, the King, the conqueror by
whatever name, established his government by appointment and established
laws by decree. Variations of this idea emerged over time to give the
perception that the people had some say in the development of law. The
Soviet Union, for example, held elections to choose its leaders; but the
system assured the outcome of the elections as well as the ultimate
sovereignty of the government. During the 1700s, the first idea was
ascendant as evidenced by the creation of America. During the 1900s, the
second idea has again become ascendant as evidenced by the emergence of
global governance. This report identifies and traces some of the major
forces, events, and personalities that are responsible for the rise of
global governance in the 20th century.

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE (Part 2 of 9)
By Henry Lamb

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS (1900-1924)

Competition for world dominance was fierce in the first quarter of the 20th
century. New, dynamic ideas emerged to fill the vacuum created by the
crumbling British Empire and the end of the colonial era. At the turn of
the century, America, though hardly a world leader, was expanding rapidly.
Economic and technological advances attracted worldwide interest. Halfway
around the world, another idea was taking hold. The oppression of Nicholas
II in Russia, combined with the influence of Karl Marx, gave rise to the
Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Bolsheviks) which became the
Socialist Revolutionary Party. Under the leadership of Vladimir Ilyich
Lenin, the party platform called for the "establishment of nurseries for
infants and children in all shops, factories, and other enterprises that
employ women"1 and for the "nationalization and re- distribution of land."2
What began as a rebellion against the oppression of government sovereignty
as imposed by Czar Nicholas was hijacked by Lenin who, with his colleagues
Stalin and Trotsky, promptly replaced the Czar's oppression with their own.
Within weeks after Nicholas' assassination, Lenin nationalized all private,
ecclesiastical and czarist land without compensation. He introduced press
censorship, nationalized big industry, outlawed strikes, nationalized the
banks, built up a police force and ordered the requisition of grain from
the peasants to feed the Red Army.3 By the time Lenin died in 1924, Stalin
had consolidated his power and organized his government to become the
world's most dominant example of the idea of government sovereignty.

Americans were far too busy earning a living to pay much attention to the
tumult in Russia. While Lenin's party was forging the Principles of
Communism in 1903, Orville Wright made his historic flight. The first
automobile trip across the United States was completed, and the U.S.
government ratified the Panama Canal Treaty. Congress created the Federal
Reserve System in 1913, and Ford Motor Company shocked the industrialized
world by raising wages from $2.40 for a nine-hour day to $5 for an
eight-hour day in 1914. Americans were divided about entering the First
World War, but did in 1917, and had a million troops in Europe when the war
ended in 1918 when the warring parties accepted Woodrow Wilson's "Fourteen
Points" which became the basis for the League of Nations.

Edward Mandell House was Wilson's chief advisor. He persuaded Wilson to
sign the Federal Reserve Act and he was the real architect of the League of
Nations.4 House was no ordinary advisor. He was Wilson's "alter ego," and
he was an "unabashed and unapologetic" socialist.5 House published a novel
in 1912 entitled Philip Dru: Administrator. The story is a recitation of
socialist thinking enacted by Dru, whose purpose was "to pursue Socialism
as dreamed of by Karl Marx," and who, in the story, replaced Constitutional
government with "omnicompetent" government in which "the property and lives
of all were now in the keeping of one man."6 In the story, Dru created a
"League of Nations" much like the League of Nations he fashioned for
Woodrow Wilson.

More importantly, House came to his position with Woodrow Wilson from an
elite circle of friends known as the "Inquiry": Paul Warburg, J. P. Morgan,
John D. Rockefeller, John W. Davis, among others, all of whom had direct
interest in the Federal Reserve System and great interest in the League of
Nations. House was well on his way to transforming Woodrow Wilson into his
fictional Philip Dru -- until the Senate refused to ratify the League of
Nations in 1920. Embarrassed and defeated, Wilson died four years later,
ironically, the same year Lenin died.

The dream of world domination, however, did not die. House and his friends
realized that public opinion in America had to be changed before any form
of world government could succeed. While shuttling to Europe on post-war
peace negotiations, House arranged an assembly of dignitaries from which
was created the Institute of International Affairs which had two branches.
In London, it was called the Royal Institute of International Affairs
(RIIA); in New York, it was called the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR),
formed officially July 29, 1921.

The founding President of the CFR was John W. Davis, personal attorney to
J. P. Morgan. Paul Cravath and Russell Leffingwell, both Morgan associates,
were also among the founding officers.7 Money for the new organizations was
provided by J. P. Morgan, Bernard Baruch, Otto Kahn, Jacob Schiff, Paul
Warburg, and John D. Rockefeller, the same people involved in the forming
of the Federal Reserve. 8 The purpose of the CFR was to create a stream of
scholarly literature to promote the benefits of world government, and
attract a membership of rich intellectuals who could influence the
direction of foreign policy in America. The CFR, supported by the world's
wealthiest foundations and individuals, has been extremely successful. Its
flagship publication, Foreign Affairs, is the port-of-entry for many ideas
that become public policy. The U.S. delegation to the founding conference
of the United Nations included 47 members of the CFR. The Secretary-General
of the conference, Alger Hiss, was a member of the CFR. Hiss was later
convicted of perjury for lying about having provided government documents
to a Communist espionage ring.9

The first quarter of the 20th century forced America into a world war where
the strength of its economy and effectiveness of its technology were
displayed to the world. On the other side of the Atlantic, Russia gave
birth to Stalin's version of Communism. At the time, both nations were
primarily concerned about domestic issues with little thought of dominating
the world. The Soviet Union exemplified the idea of government sovereignty;
America exemplified the idea of free people sovereign over its government.
Sooner or later, the two ideas had to collide. Other competitors were also
at work. The CFR began to rebuild its plans for a world government, and a
new competitor arose on Russia's eastern border.

THE UNITED NATIONS (1925-1950)

While Stalin reigned over "The Great Terror," in which an estimated 20
million Russians were executed, and instituted the first of a series of
"five-year plans,"10 America struggled through some of its hardest years.
Prohibition brought organized crime, Federal Reserve policies brought a
stock market crash, drought brought a dust bowl to the bread basket, and a
nation-wide depression brought crushing poverty to most Americans.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to the White House in 1932. The CFR was
to Roosevelt what Edward House was to Woodrow Wilson. "The organization
[CFR] essentially ran FDR's State Department."11 Henry Wallace, a committed
Marxist, was FDR's Secretary of Agriculture.12 The "New Deal" delivered by
Roosevelt resembled the performance of Philip Dru in Edward House's novel.

By 1941, Hitler had invaded Russia and Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor. For
the next five years the world tried to commit suicide. Those not caught up
in the war, the CFR, realized that the war provided an excellent reason for
the nations of the world to try once again to create a global institution
that could prevent war. Two weeks after Pearl Harbor, Secretary of State,
Cordell Hull, recommended the creation of a Presidential Advisory Committee
on Post War Foreign Policy. The committee was the planning commission for
the United Nations. Ten of the committee's 14 members were members of the
CFR.13
The process of creating the United Nations lasted throughout the war. The
first public step was the Atlantic Charter (August 14, 1941), signed by
Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, which committed the two nations to a
"permanent system of general security." Because Stalin was under attack by
Germany, Russia was forced to join the allies in the Moscow Declaration
(October 30, 1943) which declared the necessity of establishing an
international organization to maintain peace and security. The Dumbarton
Oaks Conversations (August, 1944) which produced the World Bank, also
settled political and legal issues that were drafted into the UN Charter.
The Yalta Summit (February, 1945) produced a compromise which gave the
Soviets three votes (USSR, Byelorussia, and the Ukraine) in exchange for
voting procedures demanded by the U.S.14 Edward Stettinius made another
extremely significant concession. He agreed that the UN official in charge
of military affairs would be designated by the Russians. Fourteen
individuals have held the position since the UN was created; all were
Russians. 15 The committee designed and FDR sold the United Nations to the
50 nations that came to the San Francisco conference in 1945. Among the 47
CFR members in the official U.S. delegation were: Edward Stettinius, the
new Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, Adlai Stevenson, Nelson
Rockefeller, and Alger Hiss. To ensure that the new organization would be
located in America, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., donated the land for the UN
headquarters.16

In his 1962 book, Why Not Victory, former Senator Barry Goldwater recalls
that the UN was approved by the Senate largely because of the
representations of the State Department which assured the Senate that:

" . . . it [UN] in no sense constituted a form of World Government and that
neither the Senate nor the American people need be concerned that the
United Nations or any of its agencies would interfere with the sovereignty
of the United States or with the domestic affairs of the American People."17

Five years later, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, CFR member James Warburg said: "We shall have world government
whether or not you like it --by conquest or consent."18
The ink on the UN Charter had not yet dried when the Charter for UNESCO
(United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) was
presented in London, November, 1945. UNESCO swallowed and expanded the
Paris-based International Institute for Intellectual Cooperation which was
a holdover from the League of Nations. Julian Huxley was the prime mover of
UNESCO and served as its first Director-General. Huxley had served on
Britain's Population Investigation Commission before World War II and was
vice president of the Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944. In a 1947
document entitled UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy, Huxley wrote:

"Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be
for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be
important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the
greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake
so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable."19

UNESCO's primary function is set forth in its Charter: "Since wars begin in
the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must
be constructed." UNESCO was created to construct a world-wide education
program to prepare the world for global governance. UNESCO advisor,
Bertrand Russell, writing for the UNESCO Journal, The Impact of Science on
Society, said: "Every government that has been in control of education for
a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need
of armies or policemen . . . ."20 The National Education Association was a
major advocate for UNESCO. In a 1942 article in the NEA Journal, written by
Joy Elmer Morgan, the NEA called for " . . . certain world agencies of
administration such as: a police force; a board of education . . . ."

A year later in London, the Conference of Allied Ministers of Education
called for a United Nations Bureau of Education. UNESCO became the Board of
Education for the world.

Huxley believed the world needed a single, global government. He saw UNESCO
as an instrument to "help in the speedy and satisfactory realization of the
process." He described UNESCO's philosophy as global, scientific humanism.
He said: "Political unification in some sort of world government will be
required for the definitive attainment" of the next stage of social
development.21 From the beginning, UNESCO has designed programs to capture
children at the earliest possible age to begin the educational process.

William Benton, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State, told a UNESCO meeting in
1946:

"As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education
in world-mindedness can produce only precarious results. As we have pointed
out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme
nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to
combat family attitudes that favor jingoism . . . . We shall presently
recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of
world-mindedness. We are at the beginning of a long process of breaking
down the walls of national sovereignty. UNESCO must be the pioneer."22

The UN and UNESCO were created in the wake of the worst war carnage the
world had ever witnessed. Conditioned by a constant stream of propaganda
produced by the CFR in America, and by the Royal Institute of International
Affairs in Europe, the move toward global governance was accepted and
allowed to go forward. Julian Huxley realized, however, that to be
successful over the long haul, a world-wide constituency would have to be
developed. In 1948, Huxley and his long-time friend and colleague, Max
Nicholson, both of whom were involved with the Royal Institute of
International Affairs, created the International Union for the Conservation
of Nature (IUCN).

The IUCN drew heavily from the 50-year-old British Fauna and Flora
Preservation Society (FFPS) for its leadership, funding and its members.
Sir Peter Scott, FFPS Chairman, drafted the IUCN Charter and headed one of
its important Commissions. This important non-governmental organization
(NGO) was instrumental in the formation of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in
1961 and the World Resources Institute (WRI) in 1982. These three NGOs are
to the United Nations System what the CFR was to Franklin Roosevelt, or
what Edward House was to Woodrow Wilson. These three NGOs have become the
driving force behind the rise of global governance.

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE (Part 3 of 9)
By Henry Lamb

THE COLD WAR (1950-1970)

The dream of world dominance is not, nor has it ever been, the pursuit by
an exclusive cadre of conspirators. The dream has been held by many
different factions -- often simultaneously -- always in competition with
one another. By 1950, at least three major forces -- all competing for
world dominance -- were clearly identified. Each of the three major forces
worked overtly and covertly to achieve their objectives.

The Soviet Union had clearly defined its Marx/Lenin/Stalin version of
Communism. Its systematic program of expansionism -- including an active
organization in the United States -- fully intended to bring all the world
under its control. So confident were the Soviets of their eventual success
that, on his 1959 tour of the U.S., Nikita Kruschchev pounded his shoe on a
podium before the television cameras and declared to America: "We will bury
you!"

America would have no part of a world under Communist rule. Senator Joseph
McCarthy led a crusade against Communists in America. His campaign
tarnished many non-communists but was successful in rooting out Alger Hiss,
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and Morton Sobell, all convicted of
espionage-related crimes. (Because of the statute of limitations, Hiss
could not be tried for espionage but was convicted of perjury for lying
about his espionage activities.) 23

More importantly, the televised McCarthy hearings awakened America to the
"Communist threat," and when U.S. troops entered Korea to fight the
communists, support for the Communist Party USA diminished steadily from a
high of more than 100,000 members to its current low of about 1000
members.24 American leaders did not pound their shoes, nor proclaim a
program of world dominance. American foreign and economic policy, however,
left no doubt that at the very least, America intended to prevent the
Soviets from achieving world dominance.

The third force competing for world dominance was not the United Nations,
but the people whose dreams of a world government were frustrated by what
the United Nations turned out to be. The annihilation of the League of
Nations by the U.S. Senate left the advocates of world government with a
large dose of reality. They realized that the UN could exist only by the
grace of the U.S. and the Soviets, and that the UN itself could have no
authority or power over the major powers. But it was a real start toward
global governance which provided an official, if impotent, mechanism for
the incremental implementation of their global aspirations.

During the 1950s and 1960s, the UN was little more than a debating society
that occasionally attempted to referee disputes among the major world
powers. Public attention was riveted on domestic issues and the deepening
cold war. Russia's Sputnik launch was a catalyst for the launch of the U.S.
space program. Fidel Castro's embrace of Communism in Cuba stiffened
America's policy of "containment" -- first articulated in the CFR Journal,
Foreign Affairs.25

The 1954 Supreme Court desegregation decision pushed McCarthy, Communism,
and the UN completely off the domestic radar screen. Rosa Park's refusal to
give up her seat on a Birmingham bus to a white man was the fuse that
ignited an explosion of racial riots. Federal troops confronted Alabama
National Guardsmen over Governor Orville Faubus' refusal to let nine black
children enter Little Rock Central High School. Dr. Martin Luther King
delivered his "I have a dream" speech to a quarter-million people on the
Mall in Washington, and tanks rolled on the streets of Chicago and Detroit.

Domestic events also obscured American awareness of the creation of the
World Wildlife Fund. The same Julian Huxley who founded UNESCO and the
IUCN, along with his friend, Max Nicholson, formed the organization
primarily as a way to fund the work of the IUCN. Prince Philip, Duke of
Edinburgh, served as President. An auxiliary organization called the "1001
Club" charged an initiation fee of $10,000 which went into a trust fund to
provide ongoing revenues to WWF. The WWF and the IUCN share an office
building in Gland, Switzerland. (In 1987, the name was changed to the World
Wide Fund for Nature, but the acronym remained the same).26

Behind the scenes, America developed and launched the Nautilus, the first
of a new generation of atomic powered submarines. Both Russia and America
tested nuclear devices with ever increasing payloads. Bomb shelters were
the mainstay of civil defense, and school children were taught to
"duck-and-cover." The official defense policy was MAD -- Mutually Assured
Destruction.

Much, much further behind the scenes, plans were being developed to defuse
the MAD policy. The UN had no authority or power in its own right to do
anything about the spiraling arms race between the world's two
super-powers. It became the stage, however, on which the advocates of
global governance performed their strategic play, using the U.S. and the
Soviet Union in the starring roles. In 1961, newly elected President John
F. Kennedy presented a disarmament plan: Freedom From War: The United
States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World,
also known as the Department of State Publication 7277. The plan called for
three phases which would ultimately result in the gradual transfer of U.S.
military power to the United Nations. The plan called for all nations to
follow the U.S. lead and disarm themselves to "a point where no state would
have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN
Peace Force."27 A new and improved version of the same idea was presented
in May, 1962, called: Blueprint for the Peace Race: Outline of Basic
Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful
World released by the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (Publication
4, General Series 3, May 3, 1962) headed by John McCloy.

It is neither fair, nor accurate, to say that these documents were the
product of the CFR. It is accurate, and instructive, to realize that these
documents were developed by men who were members of the CFR. John McCloy
and Robert Lovett were described as "distinguished individuals" in an
article by John F. Kennedy which appeared in Foreign Affairs in 1957.
Lovett was offered his choice of cabinet positions in the Kennedy
administration but declined, choosing instead to make recommendations all
of which were accepted by Kennedy. Lovett recommended Dean Rusk as
Secretary of State. Rusk had been a member of the CFR since 1952 and had
published an article in Foreign Affairs in 1960 on how the new President
should conduct foreign policy. The New York Times reported that of the
first 82 names submitted to Kennedy for State Department positions, 63 were
members of the CFR.28 Like FDR and every President since, JFK filled his
State Department and surrounded himself with individuals who were, perhaps
coincidentally, members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Lovett, John
McCloy, Dean Rusk, McGeorge Bundy, and Adlai Stevenson (JFK's Ambassador to
the UN), all members of the CFR, guided Kennedy through the disastrous "Bay
of Pigs" operation and the Cuban missile crisis.

That members of the CFR have exercised extraordinary influence on foreign
policy cannot be denied. Whether that influence is the result of
organizational strategies, or the result of individuals who simply happen
to be members of the same organization, is an endlessly debated question.
Richard Harwood, of the Washington Post, observes that members of the
Council on Foreign Relations ". . . are the closest thing we have to a
ruling Establishment in the United States. The President is a member. So is
his Secretary of State, the Deputy Secretary of State, all five of the
Undersecretaries, several of the Assistant Secretaries and the department's
legal adviser. The President's National Security Adviser and his Deputy are
members. The Director of Central Intelligence (like all previous directors)
and the Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board are members.
The Secretary of Defense, three Undersecretaries and at least four
Assistant Secretaries are members. The Secretaries of the Departments of
Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Health and Human Services and the
Chief White House Public Relations man . . . along with the Speaker of the
House [are members] . . . . This is not a retinue of people who 'look like
America,' as the President once put it, but they very definitely look like
the people who, for more than half a century, have managed our
international affairs and our military-industrial complex."29

Article 11 of the UN Charter gives the General Assembly authority to
"consider" and "recommend" principles governing disarmament and the
regulation of armaments, but virtually no authority to enforce disarmament.
Kennedy's proposal was a bold first step toward giving the UN the power
which early, necessary compromises had stripped from the original vision of
a world government.

The Kennedy plan has never been revoked. Though modified and delayed by
political necessity, the essential principle of relinquishing arms, as well
as control of the production and distribution of arms, to the UN has guided
the disarmament policy of every American President since JFK. Prior to the
Kennedy Disarmament Plan, the UN sponsored a Truce Supervision Operation in
1948, and a Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan in 1949. Since
the Kennedy Disarmament Plan, the number of UN Peace-keeping operations has
steadily increased.30

Still further behind the scenes, the fledgling United Nations was beginning
to take shape. UNICEF (United Nations International Emergency Children's
Fund) was created in 1946 to provide emergency relief to the child victims
of WWII. It was reauthorized in 1950 to shift its emphasis to programs of
long-term benefit to children in underdeveloped countries. It became a
permanent UN entity in 1953. UNESCO's purpose was to "educate" the world.
UNICEF was created to provide the mechanism through which that education
could be delivered to children.

UN Article 55 provides for the UN to "promote higher standards of living,
full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and
development." To fulfill this charge, the UN Expanded Program of Technical
Assistance (UNEPTA) was created in 1949, and expanded with a Special Fund
in 1957. By 1959, the program had been transformed into the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP) (now headed by James Gustave Speth, former
President of the World Resources Institute) which spends more than $1
trillion annually, mostly in developing countries.

The UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East
(UNRWA) was created in 1949. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
was created in 1951. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) brought
together existing international food programs in 1946 and began its World
Food Program in 1963. The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
was created in 1953. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
was created in 1947. The International Labor Organization (ILO) created in
1919 as an instrument of the failed League of Nations was reconstituted and
folded into the United Nations in 1948. The International Maritime
Organization (IMO) was authorized in 1947. Founded in 1863, the Universal
Postal Union (UPU) became an entity of the UN in 1948. The World Health
Organization (WHO) was created in 1948. The International Telecommunication
Union (ITU) which had existed since 1865 was folded into the UN system in
1949. The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) was
created in 1966. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) was
established in 1967. These are only a few of the 130 UN agencies and
organizations that proliferated during and since the Cold War.

While the UN organization was expanding exponentially, out of the media
spotlight which was focused on race riots and the arms race, UNESCO plodded
forward with its mission to educate the world. Robert Muller, long-time
Secretary-General of the UN's Economic and Social Council under which the
UNESCO operates, delivered a speech at the University of Denver in 1995.
His musings and recollections provide valuable insights into the kind of
education UNESCO was preparing for the world. From Muller's comments:

"I had written an essay which was circulated by UNESCO, and which earned me
the title of 'Father of Global Education.' I was educated badly in France.
I've come to the conclusion that the only correct education that I have
received in my life was from the United Nations. We should replace the word
politics by planetics. We need planetary management, planetary caretakers.
We need global sciences. We need a science of a global psychology, a global
sociology, a global anthropology. Then I made my proposal for a World Core
Curriculum."31

The first goal of Muller's World Core Curriculum, is:

"Assisting the child in becoming an integrated individual who can deal with
personal experience while seeing himself as a part of 'the greater whole.'
In other words, promote growth of the group idea, so that group good, group
understanding, group interrelations and group goodwill replace all limited,
self-centered objectives, leading to group consciousness."32

The World Core Curriculum Manual says:

"The underlying philosophy upon which the Robert Muller School is based
will be found in the teachings set forth in the books of Alice A. Bailey,
by the Tibetan teacher, Djwhal Khul (published by Lucis Publishing Company,
113 University Place, 11th floor, New York, NY 10083) and the teachings of
M. Morya as given in the Agni Yoga Series books (published by Agni Yoga
Society, Inc., 319 West 107th Street, New York, NY 10025)."33

Alice Bailey established the Lucifer Publishing Company, which was renamed
Lucis Press in 1924, expressly to publish and distribute her own writings
and those of Djwhal Khul, which consisted of some 20 books written by
Bailey as the "channeling" agent for the disembodied Tibetan she called
Djwhal Khu1.34 Until recently, the Lucis Trust, parent organization of the
Lucis Press, was headquartered at the United Nations Plaza in New York.35
Bailey assumed the leadership of the Theosophical Society upon the death of
Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. The Society's 6,000 members include Robert
McNamara, Donald Regan, Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Paul Volker,
George Shultz, and the names that also appear on the membership roster of
the CFR.36

Hindsight reveals that -- while the United States was performing on the UN
stage, sparring with the Soviet Union, keeping score with nuclear warheads
-- the forces which heavily influenced the official policies of both the
United States and the United Nations were actually outside both
governments: non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Three distinct NGO
influences were clear by the end of the 1960s: the CFR and its assortment
of affiliated spin-off organizations; the mystic, occult, or "new-age"
spiritual movement; and the growing number of organizations affiliated with
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). In 1968, the
IUCN led a lobbying effort with the United Nations Economic and Social
Council (headed by Robert Muller) to adopt Resolution 1296 which grants
"consultative" status to certain NGOs. This resolution paved the highway
for global governance. The Lucis Trust was one of the first NGOs to be
granted "consultative" status with the UN.

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE (Part 4 of 9)
By Henry Lamb

THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT (1970s)

Not a single vote was cast against the Wilderness Act of 1964 when it
finally reached the Senate. Congress thought it was setting aside nine
million acres of wilderness so posterity could see a sample of what their
forefathers had to conquer in order to create America. The new law was the
crowning achievement of the Wilderness Society, to which its Director,
Howard Zahniser had devoted five years of constant lobbying. Though
unnoticed at the time, the new law signaled an end to the traditional
"conservation" movement and the beginning of a new environmental
"preservation" movement. The conservation movement might be characterized
by the idea that private land owners should voluntarily conserve natural
resources; the environmental preservation movement is characterized by the
notion that the government should enforce conservation measures through
extensive regulations. By this distinction, the Wilderness Society brought
the environmental movement to Congress. Robert Marshall, Benton MacKaye,
and Aldo Leopold -- all avowed socialists -- organized the Society in the
early 1930s and proclaimed their socialist ideas loudly. Marshall's 1933
book, The People's Forests, says:

"Public ownership is the only basis on which we can hope to protect the
incalculable values of the forests for wood resources, for soil and water
conservation, and for recreation . . . . Regardless of whether it might be
desirable, it is impossible under our existing form of government to
confiscate the private forests into public ownership. We cannot afford to
delay their nationalization until the form of government changes."37

This significant event failed to register a blip on the radar screen of
public awareness. Instead, public attention focused on the racial strife,
the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, and the Viet Nam War which tore
apart the convention, the party, and the nation. The First "Earth Day" in
1970, which perhaps coincidentally was celebrated on Lenin's birthday,
April 22, was viewed as little more than a festival for flower children.
The anti-war fervor, again, brought a quarter-million protesters to the
Mall, and Watergate brought down the Nixon Presidency. The Clean Water Act
of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 served as beacons to attract
the energies and idealism of a generation of young people who had
successfully forced the world's most powerful government to abandon a war
they saw to be unjust. The 1970s witnessed an unprecedented explosion in
the number of environmental organizations and in the number of people who
joined and supported these organizations.

Among the more important but lesser known organizations formed during this
period are the Club of Rome (COR -- 1968) and the Trilateral Commission (TC
-- 1973). The COR is a small group of international industrialists
educators, economists, national and international civil servants. Among
them were various Rockefellers and approximately 25 CFR members. Maurice
Strong was one of the "international" civil servants.38 Their first book,
The Limits to Growth, published in 1972 unabashedly describes the world as
they believe it should be:

"We believe in fact that the need will quickly become evident for social
innovation to match technical change, for radical reform of the
institutions and political processes at all levels, including the highest,
that of world polity. And since intellectual enlightenment is without
effect if it is not also political, The Club of Rome also will encourage
the creation of a world forum where statesmen, policy-makers, and
scientists can discuss the dangers and hopes for the future global system
without the constraints of formal intergovernmental negotiation."39

That "world forum" was authorized in 1972 by UN Resolution 2997 (XXVII) as
the UN Conference on the Human Environment. Maurice Strong was designated
Secretary-General of the Conference which, among other things, recommended
the creation of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), which came
into being January 1, 1973, with Maurice Strong as its first Executive
Director.40 The Conference held in Stockholm produced 26 principles and 109
specific recommendations which parroted much of the language in the COR
publications. The difference is, of course, that the Conference Report
carries the weight of the United Nations and has profound policy
implications for the entire world.41

Another COR publication, Mankind at the Turning Point, provides further
insight into the thinking that underlies global governance:

"The solution of these crises can be developed only in a global context
with full and explicit recognition of the emerging world system and on a
long-term basis. This would necessitate, among other changes, a new world
economic order and a global resources allocation system . . . . A 'world
consciousness' must be developed through which every individual realizes
his role as a member of the world community . . . . It must become part of
the consciousness of every individual that the basic unit of human
cooperation and hence survival is moving from the national to the global
level."42

A companion work by the same authors, Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel,
entitled Regionalized and Adaptive Model of the Global World System,
introduced and described a system of regionalization which divided the
globe into 10 regions, each with its own hierarchical system of sub-regions.43

The Trilateral Commission published a book entitled Beyond Interdependence:
The Meshing of the World's Economy and the Earth's Ecology, by Jim MacNeil.
David Rockefeller wrote the foreword; Maurice Strong wrote the
introduction. Strong said:

"This interlocking . . . is the new reality of the century, with profound
implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and
international. By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated
into our economic and political life."44

In retrospect, it is clear that the early work of the United Nations was an
effort to achieve global consensus on the philosophy upon which its
programmatic work would be built. It is also clear that, despite the
disproportionate share of the cost borne by capitalist nations, the
prevailing philosophy at the UN is essentially socialist. The fundamental
idea upon which America was founded -- that men are born totally free and
choose to give up specified freedoms to a limited government -- is not the
prevailing philosophy at the UN, nor at the CFR, the COR, the TC, or the
IUCN. Instead, the prevailing philosophy held by these organizations and
institutions is that government is sovereign and may dispense or withhold
freedoms and privileges, or impose restrictions and penalties, in order to
manage its citizens to achieve peace and prosperity for all. In his book,
Freedom at the Altar, William Grigg says it this way:

"Under the American concept of rights, the individual possesses God-given
rights which the state must protect. However, the UN embraces a
collectivist worldview in which 'rights' are highly conditional concessions
made by an all-powerful government."45

Another description of the difference between the two ideas is offered by
Philip Bom, in The Coming Century of Commonism:

"In the western Constitutional concept, limited government is established
to protect the fundamental natural human rights of the free individuals in
a free society. In a radical socialist concept of the state, the citizen
has a duty to the state to help the state promote the socialization or
communization of the man."46

These fundamentally different, conflicting ideas have been described
differently by different people at different times. In 1842, Karl Marx and
Friedrich Engels preached their gospel through an organization known as the
"Federation of the Just." In 1845 it was the International Democratic
Association of Brussels that promoted their ideas. By 1903 the organization
that championed Marxism was the Russian Social Democratic Workers' Party
before Lenin transformed it into the Communist Party. The names used to
describe the prevailing philosophy at the UN are confusing to Americans.
Regardless of the name attached, the underlying philosophy has several
common characteristics that readily identify it as different from the
philosophy upon which America was founded. Chief among those
characteristics is the abhorrence of private property. As Philip Bom points
out:

"In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels identified
communism with democracy. 'The communist revolution is the most radical
rupture with traditional property relations . . . to win the battle of
democracy'. They also pointed out that, 'The abolition of existing property
relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism . . . . The
distinctive feature of communism is . . . abolition of private property.' "47

Another tell-tale characteristic of socialist/communist philosophy is the
assumption of omnipotent government. Philip Bom addresses the semantics
problems as well as the omnipotent government issue this way:

"The war of words and world views of democracy continues but with greater
confusion of priorities. President Reagan professed that 'freedom and
democracy are the best guarantors for peace.' President Gorbachev confessed
that peace and maximum democracy are the guarantors of freedom. 'Our aim is
to grant maximum freedom to people, to the individual, to society.'"48

In the Gorbachev statement, it is assumed that 'freedom' is the
government's to give. The U.S. Constitution clearly views 'freedom' to be
the natural condition of man and assigns the protection of freedom as
government's first responsibility. International equality, equity, social
justice, security of the people, democratic society all are terms used in
UN documents that have a completely different meaning in a socialist
context from the meaning understood in America.

These differences become exceedingly important in the context of official
UN documents. Consider the language in the UN's Covenant on Human Rights, a
document that bears approximately the same relationship to the UN Charter
that the Bill of Rights bears to the U.S. Constitution.
Article 13 says:

"Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such
limitations as are prescribed by law . . . ."

By contrast, the Bill of Rights says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."

Article 14 of the Covenant says:

"The right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas carries with
it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to
certain penalties, liabilities, and restrictions, but these shall be only
such, as are provided by law."

The Bill of Rights says:

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press . . . . " Period.
The philosophy of omnipotent government permeates virtually all of the
documents that have flowed from the UN since its inception. Consider the
preamble to the report of the first World Conference on Human Settlements
(Habitat I) held in 1976 under the auspices of Maurice Strong's newly
formed United Nations Environmental Programme: "Private land ownership is a
principal instrument of accumulating wealth and therefore contributes to
social injustice. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable."
Their recommendation: "Public ownership of land is justified in favor of
the common good, rather than to protect the interest of the already
privileged."49 Morris Udall and others tried unsuccessfully to implement
the Federal Land Use Planning Act in the early 1970s influenced by those
seeking to impose global governance.

In the early 1970s the UN created a Commission to Study the Organization of
Peace. As if singing in the same choir, the U.S. created a Commission to
Study the Organization of Peace. On May Day, 1974, a proposal was submitted
to the UN General Assembly calling for a New International Economic Order
(NIEO); it was adopted as a Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States
on December 12, 1974. It called for the redistribution of wealth and
political power, and the promotion of international justice based on the
'duties' of developed countries and the 'rights' of developing countries.

Throughout the 1970s, college students and others joined environmental
organizations in droves. They protested, carried placards, picked up
litter, preached recycling and organic gardening, mostly unaware that their
leaders were attending conferences and promoting agendas based on the same
philosophy that America had opposed in Viet Nam, Cuba, and the Soviet
Union. Carefully crafted documents, magnified by a cooperative media,
elevated the environment to a most noble cause. The object of near-worship
for an army of energetic activists, "the environment" as an international
issue was ripe for the picking by the advocates of global governance.

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE (Part 5 of 9)
By Henry Lamb

THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT (1980s)

"Bait-and-switch" is a time-tested technique used by unscrupulous merchants
to offer one thing and then provide another. The environmental movement of
the 1970s was the unwitting victim of its leadership which offered a
cleaner environment but, in the 1980s, delivered instead a massive program
to achieve global governance. The United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) had already launched a Regional Seas Program (1973); conducted a UN
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD 1974); developed a Global
Frame-work for Environmental Education (1975); established the
International Environmental Education Program (IEEP); set up a Global
Environmental Monitoring System (GEMS); set up a World Conservation
Monitoring Center at Cambridge, England (1975 as a joint project with the
IUCN and the WWF); implemented the Human Exposure Assessment Location
Program (HEAL -- 1976); conducted a UN Conference on Desertification
(1977); organized the Designated Officials for Environmental Matters
(DOEM); and in 1980, published World Conservation Strategy jointly with the
IUCN and the WWF. The DOEM is an organizational structure that requires
every UN agency and organization to designate an official to UNEP in order
to coordinate all UN activity with the UNEP agenda. UNEP was well
positioned to interject the environment into the argument for global
governance.50 Recognizing that communications was the key to global
education, UNESCO adopted in 1978 a "Declaration on Fundamental Principles
Concerning the Contribution of the Mass Media to Strengthen Peace and
International Understanding, to the Promotion of Human Rights and to
Countering Racialism, Apartheid and Incitement of War." To figure out what
the declaration meant, UNESCO Director General, Dr. A. M. McBow, appointed
Sean MacBride to chair the International Commission for the Study of
Communication Problems. Their report was released in 1980 entitled Many
Voices, One World: Towards a new more just and more efficient world
information and communication order. The head of TASS, the official news
agency of the Soviet Union, was one of fifteen chosen to serve on the
Commission.

Not surprisingly, the report said that the "media should contribute to
promoting the just cause of peoples struggling for freedom and independence
and their right to live in peace and equality without foreign
interference." It expressed concern about independent news monopolies, such
as the Associated Press and Reuters, but was not at all concerned about
state controlled news monopolies such as TASS. It recommended a
transnational political communication superstructure "within the framework
of UNESCO," an International Centre for the Study and Planning of
Information and Communication.51 The Commission believed that a "new World
Information Order" was prerequisite to a new world economic order. The
report reflected the same "sovereign government" philosophy demonstrated in
Article 14 of the Covenant on Human Rights: government, UNESCO in
particular, should have the authority to regulate the flow of information
to "promote" its agenda, and minimize public awareness of conflicting
ideas. A proposal to require international journalists to be licensed
brought swift and dramatic negative re-action which pushed this proposal to
the back burner. The idea of controlling the media continues to simmer,
even though an alternative plan was developed through NGOs.

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) allocated funding to
establish computer network services for NGOs and academics in Latin
America. The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) linked
together networks in Brazil, Russia, Canada, Australia, Sweden, England,
Nicaragua, Ecuador, South Africa, Ukraine, Mexico, Siovenj, and then
entered into a partnership with the Institute for Global Communications
(IGC). Known simply as igc.apc.org, this gigantic computer network now
boasts 17,000 users in 94 countries. It has exclusive contracts with
several UN agencies to coordinate, facilitate, and disseminate information
about and from UN conferences. This NGO has arrangements with at least the
following UN agencies: UN Association International Service (UNAIS); UN
Centre for Human Rights; UNICEF; UNDP; UN Division for the Advancement of
Women (DAW); UNESCO; UNEP; UN Information Centre (UNIC); UN International
Conference on Population and Development (ICPD); UN International Emergency
Network (UNIENET); UN Non-Government Liaison Service (NGLS); UN Population
Fund (UNFPA); UN Secretariat for the Fourth World Conference on Women
(UNWCW); UN University (UNU); and UN Volunteers (UNV).52

West German Chancellor, Willy Brandt, was tapped to chair another
International Commission in 1980: the Independent Commission on
International Development. The Commission report, entitled North-South: A
Program for Survival, stated:

"World development is not merely an economic process, [it] involves a
profound transformation of the entire economic and social structure . . .
not only the idea of economic betterment, but also of greater human
dignity, security, justice and equity . . . . The Commission realizes that
mankind has to develop a concept of a 'single community' to develop a
global order."

The report says that the choice is either development or destruction;
either "a just and humane society" or a move towards [the world's] own
destruction."53

For 50 years, Sweden was a socialist country. In 1976, the socialists were
dumped and conservatives took over -- until 1982. Olof Palme restored
socialism to Sweden and was promptly rewarded with the chairmanship of the
Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security (ICDST). In their
report, entitled A Common Security: Blueprint For Survival, the Commission
built on Kennedy's 1962 Blueprint for the Peace Race, and on the 1974
Charter for a New International Economic Order, which linked disarmament
with development.

The Charter's Article 13 says:

"All States have the duty to promote the achievement of general and
complete disarmament under effective international control and to utilize
the resources released by effective disarmament measures for the economic
and social development of countries, allocating a substantial portion of
such resources as additional means for the development needs of developing
countries."

The Brandt Commission report had concluded that security meant not only the
military defense of a nation, but also required solving the non-military
problems -- such as poverty -- to improve the basic conditions necessary
for peaceful relations among nations. Their conclusion was bolstered by the
report of a UN advisor, Inga Thorsson, a Swedish Under-Secretary of State,
who wrote:

"It is important that we do not content ourselves only with the actual
disarmament efforts. World disarmament is needed for world development --
but equally, world development is a prerequisite for world disarmament. Not
until we have arrived at a situation of reasonable equity and economic
balance in the world, will it be possible to develop conditions for a
lasting disarmament."54

The United States and the Soviet Union had hammered out a policy generally
known as "peaceful coexistence," to avoid MAD -- Mutually Assured
Destruction. The Palme Commission proposed a strategic shift from
collective security, insured by the superpowers for the constellation of
affiliated nations, to the concept of common security through the United
Nations. The concept also linked the transfer of money saved by the
disarming superpowers to the development of underdeveloped nations,
transferred through and redistributed by the United Nations.55

A work that began in 1973 was completed in 1981 -- the UN Convention on the
Law of the Sea. The U.S. and the USSR wanted the Convention limited to
navigational questions. But a group of 77 developing nations, known as
G-77, hijacked the conference and the subsequent negotiations and wrote
into the treaty the principles of the New International Economic Order
(NIEO) -- a UN taxing authority. The treaty created the International
Seabed Authority (ISA) which would have jurisdiction over all
non-territorial waters and the seabed. No seabed activity, mining,
salvaging, and so forth, can occur without a permit from the ISA.

Application fees begin at $250,000 and a schedule of royalties is set forth
in the Convention. The Convention is the first to give direct taxing
authority to the UN. It is a legal mechanism for the redistribution of
wealth from developed nations to developing nations. The U.S. had avoided
the Convention until 1994 when President Clinton signed the Treaty.
Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, has announced that ratification of
the treaty will be a priority for the Clinton Administration in 1997.56

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) had grown dramatically by 1982, with
organizations in several countries, including the United States. Russell
Train, the President of WWF-usA, secured more than $25 million in grants
from MacArthur Foundation, Andrew K. Mellon Foundation, and from "US and
Foreign governments, international agencies, and individual gifts," to
launch a new NGO -- the World Resources Institute (WRI) headquartered in
Washington, D.C. James Gustave Speth was chosen as President. Speth, a
Rhodes Scholar, turned to the environment after the Viet Nam war and
co-founded the Natural Resources Defense Council. He became a Rockefeller
prot?g? and is described as "one of the most effective environmentalists
alive today." He served as President of WRI for 11 years, then as a member
of President Clinton's transition team, then moved to the UNDP as its
head.57 The WRI joined the WWF and the IUCN to become the three-cornered
NGO foundation for the global environmental agenda.
A World Charter for Nature was the chief product of a 1982 World Conference
on Environment and Development, at which Maurice Strong said:

"I believe we are seeing the convergence of the physical and social worlds
with the moral and spiritual. The concepts of loving, caring and sharing .
. . for a saner, more cooperative world . . . are the indispensable
foundations on which the future security system for a small planet must now
be based."58

In 1984, there was a World Conference on environmental management. But a
Conference in Vienna, Austria, in 1985 established UNEP as a major player
in world affairs when it produced the Vienna Convention on Ozone Depleting
Substances. The ascendancy of Mikhail Gorbachev to the Soviet throne
received far more media attention than did the Ozone Treaty. Most Americans
did not hear about the Treaty until the Montreal Protocol in 1987 which
banned certain refrigerants and fire-fighting materials.

Another World Conference on Environment and Development was held in 1987.
Gro Harlem Brundtland, Vice President of the World Socialist Party, was
named as Chair. The Brundtland Commission Report, entitled Our Common
Future, embraced most of the ideas contained in the UNEP/IUCN/WWF
publication World Conservation Strategy, including the concept of
"sustainable development." It is the Brundtland Commission that links the
environment to development and development to poverty. The Report says:

"Poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It
is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without
a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty
and international inequality."59

Brundtland was a member of the Brandt Commission. Maurice Strong (who
chaired the first world Conference on Environment and Development in 1972)
was a member of the Brundtland Commission. Shirdath Ramphal was a member of
the Brandt, Palme, and Brundtland Commissions, and later co-chaired the
UN-funded Commission of Global Governance. Ramphal is a past President of
the IUCN. The Brundtland Commission succeeded in two break-through
accomplishments: (1) it linked poverty, equity, and security to
environmental issues and (2) it recognized that the environment was a
popular issue around which individuals, NGOs, and governments could rally.
The environment was firmly established as the battle-cry to mobilize the
world to create the New Economic World Order.

While UNEP was convening the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change in 1988, the UNDP was funding a Global Forum of Spiritual and
Parliamentary Leaders for Human Survival, sponsored jointly by the UNDP's
Global Committee of Parliamentarians on Population and Development (created
in 1982) and the Temple of Understanding. The Temple of Understanding is an
NGO accredited to the UN, and one of several projects of the Cathedral of
St. John the Divine in New York City. The featured speaker at the Forum was
James Lovelock, author of The Ages of Gaia. Lovelock said: On Earth, she
[gaia] is the source of life, everlasting and is alive now, she gave birth
to humankind and we are a part of her."60 The Gaia Institute is also housed
at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, as is the Lindisfarne Association
which published G-A-I-A, A Way of Knowing: Political Implications of the
New Biology. Maurice Strong is a member of Lindisfarne and often speaks at
the Cathedral, as do Robert Muller and Vice President Al Gore.61

The Forum produced what was called the "Joint Appeal" which grew into the
National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE). The project is
endorsed by eleven major environmental organizations, has received grants
of more than $5 million, and is currently engaged in mailing "education and
action kits" to 53,000 congregations. Amy Fox, Associate Director of the
NRPE, says:

"We are required by our religious principles to look for the links between
equity and ecology. The fundamental emphasis is on issues of environmental
justice, including air pollution and global warming; water, food and
agriculture; population and consumption; hunger, trade and industrial
policy; community economic development; toxic pollution and hazardous
waste; and corporate responsibility."62

The decade had begun with an eruption of Mt. St. Helens, and perhaps a more
spectacular political eruption: arch-conservative Ronald Reagan captured
the White House from arch-liberal, Jimmy Carter. Reagan's Strategic Defense
Initiative (SDI), more popularly known as "star wars," is cited as a major
factor in the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. The USSR, which Reagan
dubbed "the evil empire," did assume a new attitude about arms reduction
and disarmament. Gorbachev announced "glasnost," a new policy of openness,
and "perestroika" a restructuring program which featured measured "free
market" opportunities. Gorbachev, who was infinitely closer to the
socialist dominated inner-circle of the UN-global-governance cabal than was
the Reagan Administration, may well have been preparing to shift the seat
of socialist leadership from the Soviet Union to the United Nations. The
newly formulated strategy of common security, rather than collective
security could not accommodate the notion of a single state, even the
Soviet Union, as the seat of global authority. And it is now clear that,
even though it appeared to the west that Gorbachev was moving his country
toward capitalism, he never had any such intention.

Gorbachev told his Politburo in November, 1987:

"Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost
and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for
outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the
Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm
the Americans and let them fall asleep."

He later wrote:

"Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be
greatly disappointed. Every part of our program of perestroika -- and the
program as a whole, for that matter -- is fully based on the principle of
more socialism and more democracy . . . . We will proceed toward better
socialism rather than away from it. We are saying this honestly, without
trying to fool our own people or the world. Any hopes that we will begin to
build a different, non-socialist society and go over to the other camp are
unrealistic and futile. We, the Soviet people, are for socialism. We want
more socialism and therefore more democracy."63

By November 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall collapsed, it became clear to the
world that events had out-run Gorbachev's intentions. The Soviet Union,
along with 70 years of utopian-communist dreams, collapsed as thoroughly as
did the wall. The vacuum thus created in the global political balance was
seen as an invitation to usher in a new, permanent balancing force --
global governance.

The role and capacity of NGOs was greatly enhanced in the mid 1980s when
Donald Ross of the Rockefeller Family Fund -- the same Rockefeller money
pot that launched the Council on Foreign Relations -- invited the leaders
of five other Foundations to meet informally in Washington. >From that
meeting grew the Environmental Grantmakers Association, a nearly invisible
group of more than 100 major Foundations and corporations. They meet
annually to discuss projects and grant proposals and decide which NGOs will
be funded.64

Having gained a measure of national prominence in his failed bid for the
White House in 1988, then Senator Al Gore, as chair of the Senate Science
and Technology Committee, assumed the responsibility of advancing the
global environmental agenda in America. It was Gore, and then-Senator
Timothy Wirth, who arranged special "prayer breakfasts" with selected
congressmen for James Parks Morton, Dean of the Cathedral of St. John the
Divine, to promote the National Religious Partnership for the
Environment.65 It was Gore who led the Senate to approve the Montreal
Protocol which banned refrigerants. It was Gore who brought James E.
Hansen, head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard
Institute for Space Studies, to the Senate chambers to testify that he was
"99% certain that greenhouse warming had begun."66

The decade of the 1980s was a pivotal period for the advocates of global
governance. The MacBride Commission had established the principle of
information management as a legitimate responsibility of the United
Nations, though only partially implemented through participating NGOs:
IGC/APC. The Brandt Commission had linked development with peace, and the
Palme Commission had linked development with peace and disarmament as a way
to shift military power to the UN and money to the third world. The
Brundtland Commission linked development to the environment and introduced
the concept of "sustainability." The NGOs, coordinated by the IUCN/WWF/WRI
triumvirate, and funded by the Rockefeller-coordinated Environmental
Grantmakers Association, launched a world-wide campaign to convince the
world that the planet stood at the brink of environmental disaster. It
could be averted only by a massive transformation of human societies which
would require all people to accept their spiritual and moral responsibility
to embrace their common global heritage and conform to a system of
international law that integrates environmental, economic, and equity
issues under the watchful, regulatory authority of a new system of global
governance.

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: THE FINAL MARCH (1990s)

A decade of world conferences and international commissions in the 1980s
proved to be only practice sessions for the world conferences and UN
commissions of the 1990s, beginning with the World Summit for Children in
New York City in 1990. The Convention on the Rights of Child was adopted by
the UN General Assembly on November 20, 1989, and the Summit was designed
to promote the Convention for acceptance by the world. The Convention's
preamble says: "Recalling that in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to
special care and assistance," and the Convention designates the UN to
guarantee that "special care" and deter-mine what "assistance" is needed.
The Convention grants to children the right to express their own views
freely in all matters (Article 12.1); the right to seek, receive, and
impart information and ideas of all kinds (Article 13.1); the right to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 14.1); the right to
freedom of association and peaceful assembly (Article 15.1); and the right
to privacy in the family, home, or correspondence (Article 16.1).67

Many Americans believe that children have no such rights until they have
been earned through the painful process of growing up, and then it is the
parent's rightful privilege to grant those rights to the child.
Ratification of the Convention would be tantamount to the U.S. government
giving the UN the authority to grant those rights to children, and the
authority to guarantee and enforce those rights, even when parents
disagree. In fact, the Convention would establish the authority, if not the
mechanism, for the UN to establish the criteria for childrearing, including
education, sex education, religion, and even leisure-time activities. There
is nothing in the Convention to preclude the UN from requiring all children
to attend state-run schools from nursery school to high school, and taking
children completely away from the influence of the family.

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE (Part 6 of 9)
By Henry Lamb

FROM NEW YORK TO RIO (1992)

A heat wave and an extended period of drought the last few years of the
decade gave credence to a coordinated media campaign of global
environmental disaster. The Union of Concerned Scientists published a
"Warning to Humanity" which said: "A great change in our stewardship of the
earth and the life on it is required if vast human misery is to be avoided
and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.'68
The annual "State of the Planet" report, issued by the WorldWatch
Institute, predicted progressively worsening environmental disasters. And
the mainstream media joined the campaign to convince the world that the
planet was on the brink of collapse:

* Charles Alexander, Time magazine: "As the science editor at Time, I
would freely admit that on this issue [the environment] we have crossed the
boundary from news reporting to advocacy;"

* Barbara Pyle, CNN environmental director: "l do have an ax to grind . .
. . l want to be the little subversive person in television;"

* Dianne Dumanoski, Boston Globe environmental reporter: "There is no such
thing as objective reporting . . . I've become even more crafty about
finding the voices to say the things I think are true. That is my
subversive mission;"

* Bernard Goldberg, CBS 48 Hours: "We in the press like to say we're
honest brokers of information, and it's just not true. The press does have
an agenda.69
To this mix of extravagant propaganda, then-Senator Al Gore added his
best-selling book, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. Like
Rachel Carson's Silent Spring thirty years earlier, what Gore's book lacked
in scientific accuracy was more than compensated for by an abundance of
emotion. He called for a tax on fossil fuels. He called for a "global
program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the
internal combustion engine over say, a twenty-five year period."70 And he
called for the reorganization of society:

"I have come to believe that we must take bold and unequivocal action: we
must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle
for civilization . . . . Adopting a central organizing principle -- one
agreed to voluntarily -- means embarking on an all out effort to use every
policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance,
every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action -- to use. In
short every means to halt the destruction of the environment and to
preserve and nurture our ecological system."71

Despite significant, legitimate objections from the scientific community,
which were ignored by the media and ridiculed by environmental
organizations, the public perception of impending environmental disaster
was successfully blamed on exploding human population; human-caused global
warming; and human-caused loss of biological diversity. The stage was set
for the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) scheduled to
be held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. No previous UN conference had ever
received such planning and promotion. Maurice Strong was named to head the
conference, which was dubbed "Earth Summit II." He had chaired the first
"Earth Summit" in 1972 and had participated in every environmental
commission and conference since. (Strong became Chairman of the Board of
WRI in 1994). To guide the agenda for the conference, UNEP and its NGO
partners published two major documents: Caring for the Earth, (1991 via
UNEP/IUCN/WWF), and Global Biodiversity Strategy, (1992 via
UNEP/IUCN/WWF/WRI). These documents contained the material from which the
revolutionary UNCED documents would be produced.

The NGO community, coordinated through the IUCN and the WRI publication
Networking, used the igc.apc.org computer networks extensively to funnel
information to and from the UNCED agenda planners, and to plan the NGO
Forum. UNCED provided an opportunity for the NGOs to perfect the lobbying
process. With the blessings of and assistance from the UNEP, the NGOs
scheduled a "Forum" the week immediately preceding the official conference.
Nearly 8,000 NGOs were officially certified to participate in the UNCED
Forum, and another 4,000 NGOs were observers, swelling the total attendance
at UNCED to more than 40,000 people -- the largest environmental gathering
the world has ever known. UNCED may be recorded in history as the most
significant event the world has ever known; it was the watershed event that
began the final march to global governance.

Agenda 21, the underlying conference document, was a distillation of the
UNEP/IUCN/WWF/WRI documents. It consisted of 294 pages and 115 specific
program recommendations. Agenda 21 was further distilled into another
document called The Rio Declaration which was a succinct statement of 27
principles on which the recommendations were based, and which would guide
the global environmental agenda. Two major international treaties had also
been prepared for presentation at UNCED: the Framework Convention on
Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

In the summer of 1992, President George Bush faced a difficult reelection
campaign. He expressed little interest in the Rio conference and was
savagely ridiculed by then-Senator Al Gore and his own EPA Administrator,
William Reilly, who publicly urged Bush to attend. Bush relented and was
one of more than 100 heads of state that adopted the UNCED documents. Bush,
however, did not sign the Convention on Biological Diversity due to
ambiguities relating to the transfer of technology. He told the conference
audience:

"Our efforts to protect biodiversity itself will exceed the requirements of
the treaty. But that proposed agreement threatens to retard biotechnology
and undermine the protection of ideas, . . . it is never easy to stand
alone on principle, but sometimes leadership requires that you do. And now
is such a time."72

Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration are not binding documents. They are "soft
law" documents which are the foundation for future binding documents such
as the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on
Biological Diversity. These two treaties contained important new features
that are not present in the hundreds of other international treaties that
the U.S. has ratified. These treaties do not allow any reservations or
exceptions. Other treaties provide for parties to specify particular
reservations or exceptions to which they are not bound. The UNCED treaties
require all-or-nothing participation. The UNCED treaties created a
"Conference of the Parties" (COP) which is a permanent body of delegates
which has the authority to adopt "protocols," or regulations, through which
to implement and administer the treaty. The UNCED treaties were
non-specific. The treaties were actually a list of goals and objectives;
the COP was created to develop the protocols necessary to achieve the
objectives -- after the treaties had been ratified.

The Framework Convention on Climate Change, for example, binds
participating nations to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions to 1990
levels by the year 2000; the COP develops the protocols necessary to
achieve that goal, and the member nations are legally obligated to comply.
The Convention on Biological Diversity requires the creation of "a system
of protected areas." The COP will adopt protocols to define what is an
acceptable system of protected areas long after the treaty has been
ratified. The binding treaties are written in language that appears to
pursue environmental objectives: however, the principles upon which the
treaties are based (The Rio Declaration) are in fact a refined re-statement
of the principles for social change developed by the various
socialist-dominated commission of the 1980s.

For example,

Principle 1:

"Human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development . .
. ;"

Principle 2:

"National sovereignty is subject to international law . . . ;"

Principle 3:

"The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet
developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations;"
social change is clearly the first objective of the Declaration.73 Dr. Dixy
Lee Ray, who attended the conference, reported:

"The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring
about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is
to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of
environmental crises -- whether real or not -- is expected to lead to
compliance."74

To assure that the COPs of the respective treaties were properly guided in
their discussions of the protocols necessary for implementation, the
UNEP/IUCN/WWF/WRI partnership launched a Global Biodiversity Assessment
(GBA). Robert T. Watson, NASA chemist and co-chair of UNEP's Ozone Panel,
was chosen to chair the project. IUCN's Jeffrey McNeely was selected to
produce the important section on "Human Influences on Biodiversity," and
WRI's Kenton Miller coordinated the critical section on "Measures for the
Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable use of Its Components." The
work was begun before the treaty had been ratified by a single nation, and
involved more than 2000 scientists and activists from around the world.75
UNCED adjourned and the thousands of NGO representatives went home to begin
the campaign to ratify the treaties and implement Agenda 21 and the
principles of the Rio Declaration.

A Chicago Tribune article by Jon Margolis, September 30, 1994, said that
the Global Biodiversity Assessment was a process that had just begun, that
no document existed. A participant in the GBA process had secretly
photocopied several hundred pages of the peer-review draft of the document.
Summaries of the draft documents were prepared and provided to every member
of the U.S. Senate. The shocking details of the bizarre plan to transform
societies was sufficient to block a ratification vote in the closing days
of the 103rd Congress, despite the fact that the treaty had been approved
by the Foreign Relations Committee by a vote of 16 to 3.

Agenda 21 called for each nation to create a plan for sustainable
development consistent with the principles of the Rio Declaration. The UN
created a new Commission on Sustainable Development, and Maurice Strong
created a new NGO called Earth Council, based in Costa Rica, to coordinate
NGO activity to implement the Rio Declaration principles through national
Sustainable Development Programs. Earth Council has produced a directory
listing more than 100 nations that have formal sustainable development
plans under development. The UN created another program to "empower
children" to help implement the sustainable development program: "Rescue
Mission: Planet Earth." In a Rescue Mission newsletter Action Update, their
work is described as getting governments together "who try to make the
others feel guilty for not having done what they promised on Agenda 21."76

To implement Agenda 21 and the principles of the Rio Declaration in
America, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order No. 12852, June 29,
1993, which created the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development
(PCSD). Jonathan Lash, President of the World Resources Institute (WRI) was
named as co-chair. Jay D. Hair, President of the IUCN, and former President
of the National Wildlife Federation was one of eight NGO leaders appointed
to the Council. Eleven government officials, along with the eight NGO
leaders, easily dominated the discussions and produced a predictable report
from the 28-member Council. Not surprisingly, the final report, Sustainable
America: A New Consensus, presents 154 action items to achieve 38 specific
recommendations that are precisely the recommendations called for in Agenda 21.

The most casual reading of the PCSD's 16 "We Believe" statements, compared
with the 27 principles of the Rio Declaration, reveals that the PCSD has
simply Americanized the Rio language to form the foundation for
implementing the UN agenda in America. PCSD Belief No. 10, for example:
"Economic growth,, environmental protection, and social equity are linked.
We need to develop integrated policies to achieve these national goals"
sounds very much like Rio Principle No. 3 "The right to development must be
fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of
present and future generations."77 The PCSD is Agenda 21 at work in America.

The PCSD also provides a glimpse of the global governance process to come.
Public policy is initiated by non-elected officials, massaged into specific
proposals by an NGO-dominated "stake-holders council," written into
regulations administratively by willing bureaucrats (who themselves, are
frequently former NGO officials), or presented to Congress for approval --
along with the threat of retaliation at the ballot box from the millions of
NGO members represented by the stakeholders council.

The UNCED and Agenda 21 covered an extremely wide range of issues that
affect virtually every person on the planet. The purpose for the array of
policy recommendations put forth for public consumption is, ostensibly, to
protect the planet from inevitable destruction at the hands of greedy,
uncaring, or unaware humans. At the core, however, the policies recommended
are socialist policies, built on the assumption that government is
sovereign and must manage the affairs of its citizens. Nothing in Agenda
21, the Rio Declaration, or the PCSD recommendations even acknowledges the
idea that humans are born free, and are sovereign over the governments they
create. Nothing acknowledges the idea that government's first
responsibility is to protect the inherent freedom of its citizens,
particularly, the freedom to own and use property. To the contrary,
everything about the UNCED documents aims to limit human freedom and to
restrict the use of private property until it can be placed in the public
domain. As sweeping as the UNCED documents are, they are but the first step
in the final march to global governance.

The IUCN held its triennial session in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1993.
Dr. Jay D. Hair assumed Presidency of the organization, as Shirdath Ramphal
stepped down to devote more time to his position as co-chair of the
UN-funded Commission on Global Governance. His parting message is illuminating:

"Rio, for all its disappointments, set the seal on a new agenda for the
world: the agenda of sustainable development. It was not, of course, new
for IUCN, which had blazed a trail for sustainable development since 1980
with the World Conservation Strategy. In the final analysis, it is a matter
of equity. There are also other aspects to the claims of equity. If there
are limits to the use of some resources, they must be fairly shared. Early
users, who have prospered, must not pre-empt them but must begin to use
less so that others may also progress. The rich must moderate their demands
on resources so that the poor may raise theirs to levels that allow them a
decent standard of living. Equity calls for no less. We need . . . to
persuade others that, for the Earth's sake consumption, must be better
balanced between rich and poor."78

Equity, or wealth redistribution, is clearly the underlying purpose for
"sustainable development," in the IUCN agenda. Its influence over UNEP
activities and upon the global agenda cannot be overstated. Its membership
includes 68 sovereign nations, 103 government agencies, and more than 640
NGOs. Among the government agencies listed as contributors in the 1993
Annual report are: the U.S. Department of State; U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID); and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The U.S. State Department contributes more than $1 million per year to the
IUCN.79

The IUCN evaluates every proposed World Heritage site and recommends to
UNESCO whether or not it should be listed, or listed "in danger."80 George
Frampton, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, asked UNESCO
specifically to send a representative from IUCN to evaluate Yellowstone
Park as a site "in danger" in 1995.81 On January 18, 1996, President
Clinton issued Executive Order 12986, which says:

"I hereby extend to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources the privileges and immunities that provide or pertain
to immunity from suit."82

The IUCN is the driving force behind UNEP and the global environmental
agenda. The Convention on Biological Diversity was developed and proposed
by the IUCN in 1981 to the World Commission on Environment and
Development.83 The IUCN is the architect and engineer designing the road to
global governance.

FROM RIO TO VIENNA (1993)

The UN Conference on Human Rights was held in Vienna, June 1993. The
primary objective of this conference was to promote the pending Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
FewAmericans have ever heard of such a treaty and would probably not object
on the basis of the title alone. However, as is always the case, the devil
is in the details. The treaty would "guarantee" the right to housing for
women, the right to "choice," or abortion (Article 16e). Cecilia Acevedo
Royals, President of the National Institute of Womanhood, in testimony
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

"This Convention is deeply flawed. It will, in fact, harm women, men and
children by establishing an international policy instrument that can be
used as a weapon against the family, the institution of marriage, and
cultural and religious values, and that can be turned into a tool for the
societal control of women."84

While the Convention aims at guaranteeing certain "rights" to women, it
would, in fact, give to the UN the power to enforce those rights. Instead
of empowering women, it would, in fact, empower the state, the global
state, the United Nations. The Convention has been ratified by 130 nations,
though not by the United States. The Clinton Administration prodded State
Department officials to urge Senate ratfication.85

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE (Part 7 of 9)
By Henry Lamb

FROM VIENNA TO URUGUAY (1994)

On April 15, The New York Times carried a full-page ad that hailed the
World Trade Organization as "the third pillar of the new world order."86
The World Trade Organization (WTO) sailed through the Senate in the closing
days of the 103rd Congress, handing over to the UN system the authority and
the mechanism to impose and enforce its agenda on America. The WTO Charter
requires "the optimal use of the world resources'' in accordance with the
objective of sustainable development (Preamble). It requires the WTO to
"make appropriate arrangement for effective cooperation" with NGOs and
intergovernmental organizations (Article V). It requires member nations to
change their laws to conform to the WTO: each member shall ensure the
conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with its
obligations as provided in the annexed Agreements (Article XVI). Although
the U.S. must pay a disproportionate share of the WTO cost, it has only one
vote and no veto (Article IX).

The WTO may impose trade sanctions on a nation that it determines is not in
compliance with any international treaty. It may impose sanctions, fines,
and penalties on a nation, or on an industry. Members are bound by the
dispute resolutions dictated by the WTO (Section 2, Annex 2). Bilateral
trade deals must meet the approval of the WTO. Bilateral or multilateral
trade agreements can be changed by a vote of the members of the WTO
(Article X (4)). Article XVI says: "No reservations may be made in respect
to any provision of the Agreement."87

The WTO could not have survived without the U.S. The UN could not have
controlled world trade without the WTO. But now the facility is in place
and the bureaucracy is gearing up to become the first-line enforcement
mechanism of global governance.

URUGUAY TO CAIRO (1994)

Population control has long been a high priority for the United Nations,
though promoted for different reasons, by different names, at different
times. Currently, the population explosion is cited as the underlying cause
of the human impact on biodiversity and on climate change. Population
control entered the UN agenda as a eugenics issue by virtue of Julian
Huxley's involvement with British Population Investigation Commission and
the Eugenics Society. In 1954, the Rome conference promoted the concept of
fertility as an economic factor. By 1974, the Bucharest conference
integrated population and development issues with the developed nations
insisting that population reduction was essential to economic development.
When the issue emerged at the Mexico City Conference, it appeared as a
matter of "women's rights" and freedom of choice. In Cairo at the September
International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), population
control was seen by some to be a matter of "women's empowerment by the
state"88 while others saw population control as an essential requirement of
sustainable development initiatives.89 The Cairo "Programme of Action" said:

" . . . unsustainable consumption and production patterns are contributing
to the unsustainable use of natural resources and environmental degradation
as well as to...social inequities and poverty" (Chapter 3.1); and
"Governments should establish the requisite internal institutional
mechanisms . . . to ensure that population factors are appropriately
addressed within the decision-making and administrative processes" (Chapter
3.7).90

The conference agenda focused on gender equality; the eradication of
poverty; family in its various forms; children's rights; education; as well
as population policies, human rights, and sustainable development.
Population control is critical to the overall global environmental agenda.
The Global Biodiversity Assessment concludes that:

"A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present
North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more
frugal European standard of living, 1 to 3 billion would be possible. An
'agricultural world,' in which most human beings are peasants, should be
able to support 5 to 7 billion people . . . ."91

The cost of the various UN population programs discussed at the conference
was estimated to be between $17 and $75 billion. The World Resources
Institute (WRI) reported in the NGO Networker that Zero Population Growth
was the NGO coordinating lobbying activities for the Cairo conference.92

FROM CAIRO TO COPENHAGEN (1995)

In Copenhagen, the UN's World Summit on Social Development was the occasion
for advancing the road to global governance. The central theme of the
conference was the "eradication of poverty." The agenda also included
population policies, the reduction of consumption, and elevating NGO
participation. More than anything else, the conference was about money,
getting it to the UN, and increasing the power of the UN to collect it and
spend it.

The conference proposed an international "20/20 Compact" which would
require developing countries and aid donors to allocate 20 percent Official
Development Assistance (OAD) to "human development priorities." Commitment
8 in the Draft Conference Document calls on nations to target .07 percent
of Gross Domestic Product to Official Development Assistance.93

The conference was used by the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance to
float a trial balloon: global taxation. Buried in the UNDP's 1994 Human
Development Report was an idea advanced by James Tobin calling for a
"uniform international tax on international currency transactions." When
the UNDP report was presented to the conference, it was heralded as the way
to provide "substantial reliable funds for sustainable human development."
Conference documents describe the proceeds from the tax as "immense, over
$1.5 trillion per year (150 times the current total UN budget) to be
devoted to international and humanitarian purposes and to be placed at the
disposal of international institutions."94

Other global taxes were also proposed: international travel;
telecommunications; and taxes on resource use -- especially energy resources.

Paragraph 75 of the conference document calls for the "strengthening
of...non-government organizations . . . enabling them to participate
actively in policy-making . . . involving these organizations in the
design, implementation and evaluation of social development strategies and
specific programmes." It was clear to Rita Joseph, who attended the
conference for Population Research Institute, that

"The thrust currently behind the latest declarations is to set up not only
monitoring bodies, but enforcement agencies, to which individual and group
petitions concerning perceived grievances may be mounted. There is a push
on to expand international government so that it reaches right down to
communities and homes, there to dabble in values reorientation."95

NGO lobbying activities for this conference were coordinated by the
Overseas Development Council in Washington, DC., according to WRl's NGO
Networker. (The editor of the NGO Networker, Sarah Burns, went to work for
the UNDP in Washington as NGO Liaison in 1994).

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE (Part 8 of 9)
By Henry Lamb

NEW YORK TO BEIJING (1995)

All the pomp that was missing in New York was present in Beijing for the
fourth World Women's Congress in September 1995, preceded by a week-long
NGO Forum. The event was expected to produce a Platform for Action to guide
national and international policy on women's issues into the 21st century.
The event was the culmination of a "180-Day Local-to-Global-to-Local
Women's Empowerment Campaign" organized by the NGO WEDO (Women for
Environment and Development Organization).

WEDO's parent organization, Women U.S.A. Fund, Inc, is headed by Bella
Abzug, Congresswomen Patsy Mink and Maxine Waters, and Gloria Steinem.
Funding for the NGO comes from the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur
Foundation, the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation and the Turner Foundation.
The campaign featured the coordinated release of press kits to the media,
boycotts, "take over the legislature for a day" rallies, forums, lunchtime
workshops with fellow workers, and a "myriad of actions" all over the
world. The purpose of the campaign was to focus public attention on the
Beijing Conference, and more particularly, on WEDO's conference agenda.

WEDO called for the tracking of all national and international economic and
development programs by social and gender impact studies; restrictions on
economic growth in industrialized countries; the transfer of common
property (water, forests, grazing lands and fishing waters) to
international control; prohibiting ownership of such common property to
national or international corporations; national and international
strategies to alleviate women's poverty; remuneration for women's unpaid
work (housekeeping, child rearing, etc.); taxes shifted from income to
consumption; universal guaranteed income and payment for childcare and
other socially productive activities; and a universal 50/50 program that
would require all business and government entities to have a 50/50
men/women work force.96

The conference produced more hype, hoopla, and hyperbole than anything
else. First there was a flap about having a World Conference on Women's
issues in a nation which so severely oppressed women. Then there was a flap
about the facilities. Then there was a flap about the extreme security
measures. Then there was Hillary Clinton, who put in a personal appearance.
Of significance is the reappearance of the "Tobin Tax" as a recommended way
to fund the extravagant programs demanded by the delegates. There
reappeared new calls to elevate the status and authority of NGO's in
decision-making and in program administration. And there was a new idea
advanced -- the FDR (not Franklin D. Roosevelt).
The FDR means "Family Dependency Ratio." The idea calls for extensive
monitoring of the activities, consumption, and production of every member
of every family to determine whether a family is a net "consumer" or
"producer." This idea grew out of WEDO's demand to "value and remunerate"
women for their unpaid work.97

Throughout the Conference, debate on the serious issues as well as the
frivolous issues proceeded with virtually no challenge to the
appropriateness of UN jurisdiction over a range of issues that should be at
least national, if not extremely personal. Taxation, employment policies,
and land use policies were all offered up to the UN. Delegates and the NGO
lobbyists passed the stage of questioning the appropriateness of global
governance; it is now a question of how much and how soon. There is no
longer any discussion of freedom, property rights, or national sovereignty.
The discussion centers around how best to get the wealth from developed
countries into the UN for redistribution to the undeveloped countries. The
documents coming from each of the successive World Conferences continue to
reflect the assumption that government -- the United Nations Government --
should be sovereign, and that nation states are secondary, and individuals
are cannon-fodder.

FROM BEIJING TO SAN FRANCISCO (1995)

The Beijing Conference had hardly adjourned when Gorbachev's State of the
World Forum convened in San Francisco, September 27, 1995. Though not an
official UN function, the Forum was designed to advance global governance.
Forum President and founder of the Christic Institute, Jim Garrison, told
the San Francisco Weekly, "We are going to end up with world government . .
. we have to govern and regulate human interaction.98 Gorbachev told the
hand-picked audience of celebrities and dignitaries that "we are giving
birth to the first Global Civilization." Zbigniew Brzezinski, President
Carter's National Security Advisor, told the audience that "regionalism"
must precede world government. New-age guru, Sam Keen received enthusiastic
applause for his pronouncement:

"If we cut the world's population by 90%, there won't be enough people left
to do ecological damage."

The Forum's agenda called for the transfer of all armaments to the UN, the
initiation of global taxation, stricter population control programs, and
the elimination of nationalism and national borders. The highlight of the
event was a joint presentation by Gorbachev, former President George Bush,
and former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Gorbachev is the founding
President of Green Cross and the Gorbachev Foundation. He along with
Maurice Strong were regarded as candidates to replace Butrous Butrous-Ghali
as Secretary-General of the United Nations at the expiration of Ghali's
term December 31, 1996.99 However since UN rules have required that an
African hold the position of Secretary-General for another term, Kofi Annan
has assumed this position. Maurice Strong has been designated his "Senior
Advisor" for restructuring the United Nations. On 16 July 1997, Kofi Annan
released a report on UN "reform" plans. They coincide with the blueprint
drawn in Our Global Neighborhood: Report of the Commission on Global
Governance. It is noteworthy that its lead author is Maurice Strong.

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE (Part 9 of 9)
By Henry Lamb

FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO ISTANBUL (1996)

Habitat II, the UN Conference on Human Settlements, convened in Istanbul in
June 1996. Despite the fact that Habitat I called for the elimination of
private property in 1976, the U.S. has contributed more than $32 million100
to its operations and sent an enthusiastic delegation to Istanbul to assure
the Conference that America is supporting its objectives. The entire agenda
was bathed in the ambiguous language of sustainable development. Two of the
major issues to emerge through the noise of 4000 delegates and 25,000 NGO
representatives, were: (1) the right to housing, and (2) good governance.

Although at least three previous UN documents declare the right to housing,
two of them have not been ratified by the U.S. Consequently, the universal
right to housing is in question. Article 5 of the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination declares a right to
housing. The U.S. has ratified that Convention. The International Covenant
on Economic, Social, and Human Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of
the Child, both of which declare the right to housing, have not been
ratified by the U.S. As the leader of one NGO, called the Centre on Housing
Rights and Evictions, says: "The right to housing is a powerful, mobilizing
tool for women's groups, street children and so on. Denying this right
would be a great step backwards." 101 If housing is declared to be a
universal right, then the UN would have the responsibility of guaranteeing
and enforcing that right. And to have meaning, the UN would have to have
the authority to collect the money necessary to provide universal housing.

Of more direct importance is the issue of "good governance." Throughout all
the conferences of the 1990s, emphasis has been placed on expanding the
role and functions of NGOs in the decision-making process and the
management and administration of government programs at every level.
Habitat II Director-General, Wally N'Dow, said:

"The road to Istanbul has been marked by many innovations. One of seminal
importance has been a pioneering change in the rules of procedure -- a
change that was initiated during the preparatory process and subsequently
endorsed by the General Assembly [Rule 61] in recognition of the important
role of local authorities and NGOs. As a result, all the organizations and
institutions of civil society will receive unparalleled recognition at a UN
conference, nominating their representatives to participate in a formal
session . . . . They speak for countless millions of men and women in the
cities and towns across the planet, the true constituents of Habitat II."102

This rule change officially elevates NGOs to participatory status in the
policy-making process of the United Nations. Policy making by individuals
who have no direct or indirect accountability to the electorate is a
foreign concept in America. It is common -- in fact expected -- in
socialist countries. In America, if voters do not like the way America is
being represented in the UN, voters can remove the President who appoints
UN delegates and elect someone else who more accurately reflects American
values. American voters cannot unelect representatives from the Sierra
Club, or the president of a gay feminist NGO, or any other NGO who may be
selected by their peers to make global policies which affect Americans.

Moreover, Rule 61 invites participation by local officials. Heretofore, the
UN has served its member nations as represented by official delegates. This
rule is the first step toward bypassing the official national government to
extend UN influence, programs, and eventually money, regulations, and
enforcement -- directly to the people within the nation. This is the
essence of governance by civil society, orchestrated by the United Nations.
This is the first wave of the reality of global governance.

FROM ISTANBUL TO GENEVA (1996)

The second meeting of The Conference of the Parties to the Framework
Convention on Climate Change (COPII-FCCC), convened in Geneva, Switzerland
July 8-19, 1996. The treaty was presented in 1992 at the Rio "Earth
Summit," and has now been ratified by 159 nations, including the U.S. The
treaty requires participating Annex I (developed) nations to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.

At COPI, however, meeting in Berlin in 1995, the Alliance of Small Island
States (AOSIS) proposed that developed nations reduce emissions to a level
20%, less than 1990 levels. The COP did not adopt the proposal, but did
adopt the "Berlin Mandate" which was an agreement to develop a legally
binding Protocol by 1997. COPII was designed to negotiate The terms of the
Protocol for adoption at COPlII in Kyoto, Japan in 1997.

To influence the proceedings, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) released its Second Assessment Report (SAR). For the first time, the
official UN body claimed that ". . . the balance of evidence suggests a
discernible human influence on global climate." Although 100 scientists --
some of whom were participants in the IPCC process -- publicly objected to
the report's findings in a statement called the "Leipzig Declaration," the
Conference pushed forward toward a legally binding Protocol. The conference
document, called the "Ministerial Declaration," endorses The SAR; declares
that emissions will eventually have to be reduced by 50%; and calls on
developed nations to initiate policies to reduce emissions within specific
industries: energy, transportation, agriculture, forestry, waste
management, and economic instruments.

FROM GENEVA TO GLOBAL GOVERNANCE (1998)

When Shirdath Ramphal handed over the IUCN gavel to Jay Hair in 1993, he
turned his attention to the Commission on Global Governance which he
co-chaired along with Ingvar Carlsson, former Prime Minister of Sweden and
then-Leader of the Social Democratic Party in Sweden. Like the Commissions
of the 1980s (Brandt, Palme, MacBride, and Brundtland) it was an
independent commission, meaning that it was not created by a resolution of
the UN General Assembly. It operated officially as an NGO but, as a
practical matter, it was an instrument of the United Nations. The
Commission on Global Governance received the formal endorsement of
Butrous-Butrous Ghali, UN Secretary-General, and funding from the United
Nations Development Program. Nine nations and several private foundations
also supplied funding. Oscar Arias, former President of Costa Rica was a
member of the Commission. Arias won the Nobel Peace Prize for his "peace
plan" which called on nations to direct disarmament savings to the UN's
development programs.

Adele Simmons, President of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, was a member.
Maurice Strong also served on the 28-member Commission.

Several of the Commission's ideas were advanced experimentally at the
various world conferences during the early 1990s. They tested the waters
particularly for the several global taxation ideas, and for their ideas
about global governance through civil society. Their final report was
released in conjunction with the 50th anniversary of the United Nations in
the fall of 1995, entitled Our Global Neighborhood: The Report of the
Commission on Global Governance.

The Commission recommended that:

"the General Assembly should agree to hold a World Conference on Governance
in 1998, with its decisions to be ratified and put into effect by 2000."103

Hereafter, numbers in parentheses indicate the reference page number in Our
Global Neighborhood.
The Commission bases its recommendations on the belief that human
activities have irreversible environmental impacts and that human
activities need to be "managed" to keep the "adverse outcomes within
prudent bounds" (p. 11). "Effective and equitable management calls for a
systemic, long-term, global approach guided by the principle of sustainable
development. Its universal application is a priority among the tasks of
global governance" (p. 30).

The Commission is convinced that the world is ready to accept "a set of
core values that can unite people of all cultural, political, religious, or
philosophical backgrounds.... It is fundamentally important that governance
should be underpinned by democracy at all levels and ultimately by the rule
of enforceable law" (p.48). "Underpinned by democracy" has a totally
different meaning to people who live in a socialist democratic nation, than
to people who live in a "free" country such as America. Americans think of
"democracy" as the process by which they elect the individuals to represent
them in their exercise of the limited power that Americans have chosen to
give to their government. In socialist nations, "democracy" means
participating in the process by which the sovereign government decides how
to manage its subjects.

The "core values" upon which global governance is to be based include
liberty. But again, in America, liberty has a totally different meaning
from what the Commission describes. "Liberty is threatened by deprivation,
economic dislocation, oppression based on gender or sexual orientation,
abuse of children, debt bondage, and other social and economic patterns."
(p. 50) Americans realize that these conditions are only some of the
inherent risks of being free. Liberty is the freedom to exercise individual
ingenuity and apply individual energy to avoid the risks and rise above all
other dangers.

The very fact that Americans, and others who live in free societies, have
risen above these risks, creates an injustice in the world according to the
Commission. "Although people are born into widely unequal economic and
social circumstances, great disparities in their conditions or life chances
are an affront to the human sense of justice. . . . A concern for equity is
not tantamount to an insistence on equality, but it does call for
deliberate efforts to reduce gross inequalities . . . and to promote a
fairer sharing of resources" (p. 51). Mutual respect which is defined to be
"tolerance," caring -- with a global reach -- and integrity, which is
defined as supporting the program, round out the Commission's core values.

Voluntary acceptance of global governance is the preferred means of
achieving it. Education programs to teach the "global ethic" have been
underway by UNESCO and by UNEP for more than 20 years. That the U.S.
government, through its representatives to the various UN agencies, has not
already crushed this global governance agenda is a testament to the
effectiveness of the UN's education program. But the Commission is not
content to rely upon voluntary acceptance. An intricate maze of
international, enforceable law is encircling the planet in the form of
Conventions, Treaties, and Executive Agreements.

To implement, administer, and enforce global governance, the Commission has
recommended a major restructuring of the UN system. The Commission
recommends an "Assembly of the People" which "should consist of
representatives of organizations accredited to the General Assembly as
Civil Society Organizations . . . . A Forum of 300-600 organs of global
civil society would be desirable and practicable" (p. 258-259). A new
"Petitions Council" is recommended, to consist of five to seven
representatives of "civil society," for the purpose of reviewing petitions
from NGOs in the field to direct to the appropriate UN agency for
enforcement action (p. 260).

A new Economic Security Council (ESC) would replace the existing Economic
and Social Council. The new ESC would consist of no more than 23 members
who would have responsibility for all international financial and
development activities. The IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO -- virtually
all finance and development activities -- would be under the authority of
this body. There would be no veto power by any nation, nor would there be
permanent member status for any nation (p. 266f).

The existing Security Council would be restructured. Veto power of the five
permanent members would be eliminated, as would permanent member status
over time. With the Secretary-General's office expanded to include the
function of Commander-in-Chief, the Security Council would oversee a new UN
standing army, complete with support and transport car capabilities. (p.
100f) The Commission calls for an international convention on curtailment
of the arms trade (p. 129), a demilitarization of international society,
and disarming of civilians. (p. 131)

A new International Criminal Court would be created, complete with its own
"independent prosecutor or a panel of prosecutors of the highest moral
character." (p. 324) The International Court of Justice would become
"compulsory" and it would issue binding verdicts in order to ''strengthen
international law." (p.308f)

To protect the environment:

"We propose that the Trusteeship Council . . . be given the mandate of
exercising trusteeship over the global commons. The global commons include
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. Its functions would include the administration of
environmental treaties in such fields as climate change, biodiversity,
outer space and the Law of the Sea. It would refer, as appropriate, any
economic or security issues arising from these matters to the Economic
Security Council or the Security Council." (p. 251f)

The Commission suggests that "the new Council "would benefit from
contributions from civil society organizations. Of major significance is
the expansion of the concept of security:

"All people, no less than all states, have a right to a secure existence,
and all states have an obligation to protect those rights. (p. 84) Where
people are subjected to massive suffering and distress, however, there is a
need to weigh a state's right to autonomy against its people's right to
security. (p. 71) We believe a global consensus exists today for a UN
response on humanitarian grounds in cases of gross abuse of the security of
people." (p. 89) The security of the people is challenged "from threats to
the earth's life-support systems, extreme economic deprivation, the
proliferation of conventional small arms, the terrorizing of civilian
populations by domestic factions, and gross violations of human rights."
(p. 79)

The Commission believes that the UN should protect the "security of the
people" inside the borders of sovereign nations, with or without the
invitation of the national government. It proposes the expansion of an NGO
"early warning" network to function through the Petitions Council to alert
the UN to possible action. It has recommended implementation of the Tobin
Tax, and several other taxing schemes. (p. 217f) It has called for a world
conference in 1998 to present the treaties and other documents necessary to
bring about complete global governance by the year 2000.

NOTICE:

The views expressed in this article are not
necessarily the opinions of the list owner.

This material is distributed free to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving
it for non-profit educational purposes.

-- John Henry

http://www.newnetizen.com/globalelite/gg/index.htm

Wow that was long.
Kerry was is and shall always be a yellow-back, slime of a traitor.

But Rove and Bush chose to go easy on him, just like they've been doing with the Dem's for 6 years now.

They went easy on him because Kerry launched his attack first on Bush's National Guard service. If you look at past elections Kerry has been involved in, he won using his phony record as a war hero against his opponent who usually did not have military service. That was the strategy against Bush, including his "reporting for duty" speech at the Dem National convention, traveling to the convention by boat with his swift boat crew, and trotting out former flag officers like potted plants. It almost worked.

Rove was terrified to go after Kerry's phony war record and his anti-war efforts for fear that the comparison between Bush's lack of wartime military service with Kerry's war record would be a negative. Thankfully, the SBVFT took Kerry on and froze him like a deer in the headlights for almost a month during the campaign. He had no answer to the charges except to trot out surrogates to defend him. That was the difference between victory and defeat. I fault Rove for not going after Kerry's anti-war record, including his meeting twice with the North Vietnamese and VC in Paris while still a member of the USNR subject to recall and his participation in VVAW meetings, at which there were discussions to assassinate USG officials.

From my post 30, "THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT (1980s)"

>>>National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE<<<

More on who the NRPE is:

In October 1994, Paul Gorman, executive director of the National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE), told Cleveland, Ohio’s Plain Dealer that, [NRPE’s] focus is not on legislation . . . but rather the integration of [environmental issues] permanently into religious life. ‘We are not’, he insisted, ‘the environmental movement at prayer’. Despite Mr. Gorman’s assurances, however, the Partnership has taken an active role in the political debate on Endangered Species Act reform. In January 1996, the Partnership -- which includes the U.S. Catholic Conference, Evangelical Environmental Network, Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, and National Council of Churches of Christ -- launched a $1 million political campaign against ESA reform. Executive officers of the Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, and World Resources Institute greeted this activism with joy. Green organizations, over the last few years, had lost grassroots activists to the property rights and Wise Use movements. Finances had been fractured so badly that green groups had been forced to rely on government grants and nonprofit foundation and corporate donations for more than half their budgets. More important, the environmental lobby had fewer troops to mobilize against Congress. All that changed, however, when the religious community was shepherded into the environmental fold.

Environmental leaders moved quickly to establish control over the National Religious Partnership for the Environment’s agenda. Religious leaders were convinced to establish NRPE’s headquarters at the Green Cathedral, St. John the Divine Episcopal Church in New York City. Then they set out to control the scientific information upon which NRPE policy decisions were based. One of the Partnership first acts upon creation was to establish a Science Office that would address the inescapable evidence on conditions threatening the integrity of the global environment. According to NRPE, the Science Office represents an essential resource for all program areas . . . as well as a vehicle to sustain the dialogue and alliance between religious leaders and scientists. NRPE’s Science Director participates in the Partnership’s key strategy meetings, and provides scientific information and public policy recommendations. It is, therefore, of critical importance that the Partnership chose to headquarter its science office with the Union of concerned Scientists in Cambridge Massachusetts. The Partnership claims it abdicated this crucial role to UCS because it enables the religious community to draw upon UCS’s extensive body of research, its national network of scientists, its longstanding experience in public education and its knowledge of environmental policy. In reality, NRPE placed entire control of its agenda in the hands of a left wing organization.

In 1969, forty-eight professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology formed the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) to protest America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The group conducted a highly publicized strike in March 1969, that included such speakers as leftist MIT professor Noam Chomsky, and Eric Mann of the Weatherman faction of the Students for a Democratic Society. (SDS was the terrorist organization responsible for bombing the U.S. Capitol Building in 1971.) The Union used the strike as a forum to declare that misuse of scientific and technical knowledge presents a major threat to the existence of mankind. This philosophy was starkly articulated by key organizer, Jonathan Kabat: You’ve got to say, No, we want capitalism to come to an end.

The Union’s trendy radicalism launched it into money, power and influence. A permanent office was opened in Cambridge, and UCS grew into a multimillion dollar activist organization. Three of its original founders still sit on the board: James A. Fay, Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering (MIT); Kurt Gottfried, Chairman of the Physics Department at Cornell University; and Victor Weisskopf, Professor Emeritus of Physics (MIT). The Board of Directors of this organization also includes the standard litany of corporate America special interests, liberal nonprofit foundations, and former government agency employees.

Political activism in UCS’s early years was confined primarily to opposing nuclear power and the military defense establishment. Emphasis later shifted to include all energy policy issues and global warming. In 1989, the Union commissioned Republican pollster Vince Breglio of Research/Strategy/Management to conduct a survey on global warming and environmental protection. Breglio found that the environment is becoming a political issue with some bite. This poll convinced the group to change its focus. In 1990, UCS brought together forty-nine Nobel laureates, and 700 members of the U.S. Academy of Scientists to sign an appeal for action against global warming. The event was highly publicized and called for tougher fuel efficiency standards for U.S. automobiles, centralized government control of energy issues and the continued deactivation of America’s nuclear power generating industry. That same year, however, 425 scientists and intellectual leaders presented another document to the world at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janerio. Entitled The Heidelberg Appeal, it condemned UCSs document as an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development. Today, more than 2,700 signatories, including
dozens of Nobel Prize winners, from 102 countries have signed The Heidelberg Appeal.

Undaunted by professional criticism, or the fact that a mere 10% of the Union’s membership actually comes from the scientific community, UCS decided it needed to coordinate a new movement to save our planet from the looming threat of global warming, environmental degradation, over-consumption and population growth. It was at this time that former Senator Al Gore brought the Union and religious leaders together. UCS provides the scientific foundation upon which the Partnership’s faith groups inform tens of millions, establish thousands of model congregational programs, train leaders, distribute resources, undertake research and scholarship and set in place networks to assure the permanent commitment of the American religious community to environmental activity." In short, the National Religious Partnership has become a front organization for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Environmental Grantmakers Association -- sugar daddy of the environmental movement -- is also using its power of the purse to manipulate the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. Every year, the EGA bestows hundreds of millions of dollars on green organizations, and coordinates the environmental movement’s political strategies. EGA includes such high-powered members as the Ford Foundation (which claims it fathered the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s), and Pew Charitable Trusts. Less known nonprofits like Surdna Foundation are also members. Surdna owns 165,000 acres of timber in Northern California. It likes to donate to green groups that file timber appeals against its competitors. Not one appeal, however, has ever been filed against Surdna. As a result, the Foundation enjoyed a $2.7 million income from its timber holdings between 1992 and 1993.94 Other EGA members include Apple Computers, L.L. Bean, Chevron, Waste Management, ARCO and Pategonia Inc. The later openly promotes Earth First!’s radical Wildlands Project in its adult clothing catalogue.

EGA members use their money to entangle organizations in a financial spider web of control. Grantmakers Association foundations donate directly to the National Religious Partnership, but they also manipulate the members that belong to it. Like Surdna Foundation, Nathan Cummings Foundation is one of the fourteen direct NRPE funders. However, the organization also has a representative on the advisory board of one NRPE partner, the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life. EGA tentacles extend to Partnership support organizations as well, like the Union of Concerned Scientists. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s president sits on the Union’s board of directors. It also receives donations from George Gund Foundation and the Florence and John Schumann Foundation -- both Grantmakers Association members. The Partnership relies heavily on the Union to provide essential resource[s] for all program areas, and to supply congregations with speakers who can relay the true condition of the planet, tell them how their families and communities are at risk, where to find reliable scientific data on the issues, and instruct congregants on how to become politically active. When the Partnership abdicated control of its science program to UCS, therefore, it not only relinquished power to a radical environmental group, it gave EGA members a seat at the NRPE policy-making table.

Other green policy makers have sought, and obtained, influential positions with the NRPE. When the Evangelical Environmental Network launched a $1 million media campaign in January 1996 to save the Endangered Species Act, it hired the Environmental Information Center. EIC was formed in 1994 by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Rockefeller Family Fund (whose director is the Grantmakers Association’s Coordinator of the Secretariat), Pew Charitable Trusts, W. Alton Jones Foundation, and the Conservation Law Foundation. EIC literature claims it was created to combat environmental misinformation and help strengthen grass roots support for environmental protection. In reality, the Center conducts training sessions that instruct green groups on how to use the media to reach religious, scientific, and children’s constituencies. Fenton Communications, the Washington, D.C. based public relations firm that orchestrated the Alar scare, participates in these training sessions. Top EIC staffers came directly from the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee and the League of Conservation Voters. EIC’s media consultant, Mike Casey, was a former press secretary for Al Gore. The Center’s executive director, Philip Clapp, served on the Clinton-Gore National Steering Committee of Environmentalists.

It appears the National Religious Partnership for the Environment answers to a more earthly master. San LeQuire, director of the Evangelical Environmental Network, bristles at the suggestion the NRPE is nothing more than a front for the environmental movement. Trying to link us with secular environmentalists is just not true, he fumed in a February 27, 1996 Washington Post article.102 Nevertheless, the Evangelical Environmental Network charged in a January press release that Congress and special interests are trying to sink the Noah’s Ark of our day." EEN also circulates a publication called Green Cross, whose 1996 consulting editor was Michael Crook, Senior Director of Policy Communication for the National Wildlife Federation. Mr. Crook wrote in the Green Cross article Truth, Lies and the Endangered Species Act, that landowners were lying about ESA horror stories. He ended the piece with the instruction: Green Cross members and supporters can help by demanding that the [Endangered Species Act] debate be grounded in another Christian value: simple honesty. Crook should have heeded his own words, making it clear to Green Cross readers where his own loyalty lay.

At Environmental Grantmakers Association’s 1992 workshop, funders candidly discussed their influence over programs like the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. Donald K. Ross, Vice President of Rockefeller Family Fund observed at that time, ‘The fundamental effort that has to be made is a reorganization of the [environmental] movement . . . We have to look much more at a task force approach on major issues . . . Where funders can play a real role . . . is using the money to drive, to create ad hoc efforts .” When asked if organizations resisted being driven by the foundations, Ross replied ‘that many groups did not like funders setting their political campaigns, strategy and style. I know that there are resentments in the environmental movement toward funders doing that,’ he said. ‘Too bad. We’re players. They’re players.’ He then tried to justify this arrogant retort with the following remarks: ‘There isn’t one of them, even the biggest -- National Wildlife, or Audubon or Sierra Club -- that has the capacity to wage full-scale battles on major issues by themselves.’

Long? The PDF this thread pertains to is 162. Mine is only a few paragraphs in comparison.

This is what happens when illegal activity is allowed to continue and not stopped. History gets longer.

From post 33:

>>>In October 1994, Paul Gorman, executive director of the National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE), told Cleveland, Ohio’s Plain Dealer that, [NRPE’s] focus is not on legislation . . . but rather the integration of [environmental issues] permanently into religious life. ‘We are not’, he insisted, ‘the environmental movement at prayer’. <<<

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/fbifiles/100-HQ-448092/Section%2007/Section%2007.pdf

See page 11, Cleveland Ohio is a bed of socialists.

The NRPE was started by SDS. They have engulfted the EPA. Partnered with the USDA in 1999. Signed onto the UN's Agenda 21 and have been granted Executive Powers to arrest for pretty much any judgement call:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:\
+42USC7603
Environmental Emergency Powers:

Excerpt:

the Administrator, upon receipt of evidence that a pollution source or combination of sources (including moving sources) is presenting an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment, may bring suit on behalf of the United States in the appropriate United States district court to immediately restrain any person causing or contributing to the alleged pollution to stop the emission of air pollutants causing or contributing to such pollution or to take such other action as may be necessary.

/excerpt

Let's not forget Gore's threat:

Today, the Federal Office of the Environment and Public Works has released this statement:

NUREMBERG-STYLE TRIALS PROPOSED FOR GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS
http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568

A Farben Cartel style threat.
http://justwhatithink.com/blog/index.php?post=s1160243095

bump

The idiot doesn't realize that most of our troops show great restraint by not just beating the snot out of him.

Fixing the hotlink for Environmental Emergency Powers

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:\+42USC7603

IBM - VeriChip - EPA - Sun King

A Must See:

IBM and the Holocaust
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4040930009676933149

A Must Read:

http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/

Because they never stopped.

http://justwhatithink.com/blog/
Global Nazism and the Muslim Brotherhood

Edgar B. Nixon, ed., Franklin D. Roosevelt and Foreign Affairs, Volume III: September 1935-January 1937, (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1969), p. 456.

Much as I believe in peace as our best policy, I cannot avoid the fears which Wilson emphasized more than once in conversations with me, August 15, 1915 and later: the breakdown of democracy in all Europe will be a disaster to the people. But what can you do? At the present moment more than a hundred American corporations have subsidiaries here or cooperative understandings. The DuPonts have three allies in Germany that are aiding in the armament business. Their chief ally is the I. G. Farben Company, http://justwhatithink.com/blog/index.php?post=s1160243095 , a part of the Government which gives 200,000 marks a year to one propaganda organization operating on American opinion. Standard Oil Company (New York sub-company) sent $2,000,000 here in December 1933 and has made $500,000 a year helping Germans make Ersatz gas for war purposes; but Standard Oil cannot take any of its earnings out of the country except in goods. They do little of this, report their earnings at home, but do not explain the facts. The International Harvester Company president told me their business here rose 33% a year (arms manufacture, I believe), but they could take nothing out. Even our airplanes people have secret arrangement with Krupps. General Motor Company and Ford do enormous businesses/sic] here through their subsidiaries and take no profits out. I mention these facts because they complicate things and add to war dangers.

Indicators of Connections

By Christopher Brown

Introduction

At first glance, there appears to be little more than an anti-semitic rhetorical connection between the islamic movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood (hereafter referred to as the Brotherhood) founded in Egypt in 1928 and the Nazi Party in Germany, which came to power in 1933-1934. However, the indicators are that these two movements share some commonality in their intellectual development and goals, in addition to a long-standing covert relationship. This relationship included coordination between the Brotherhood and other more overtly Nazi organizations, individuals, and as well as a direct working relationships between the Brotherhood, its associated organizations and those of the Third Reich.

More at link