Skip to comments.Global governance here we come!
Posted on 12/13/2008 10:28:09 AM PST by thetru
Global governance here we come! For more than 20 years, the politically correct liberal elitists have ridiculed the "black helicopter crowd" whenever the words "world government" were uttered.
Global governance, however, is a perfectly acceptable term the U.N. says is somehow different from world government. According to the U.N., "Governance is not government it is the framework of rules, institutions and practices that set limits on the behavior of individuals, organizations and companies" (UNDP Human Development Report, 1999, page 34).
Any institution that has the power to issue rules and that limits the behavior of individuals, organizations and companies is a government. When those rules apply worldwide, it is world government. The difference between "global governance" and "world government,"
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
U.S. troops’ new mission: America’s ‘special events’
Proposal would allow civilians to activate Army to prevent ‘environmental damage’
Posted: December 13, 2008
New rules published in the Federal Register would allow certain civilians to call American soldiers into action inside the U.S. to prevent environmental damage or respond to “special events” and “other domestic activities.”
The alarming warning is contained in proposed rules published last week for the Department of Defense’s “Defense Support of Civil Authorities” plan.
Under the U.S. Constitution, soldiers inside the country essentially are tasked with the responsibility of quelling “insurrections” and repelling invasions as well as making sure each state has access to the republican form of government.
But the new rules go far beyond that, essentially establishing a plan to activate the U.S. military inside the country to deal with social issues under provisions that appear to be devoid of any connection to the Constitution, according to an expert.
(Story continues below)
“I think the thing that’s of concern with respect to this set of rules is it appears to have no constitutional foundation, no reference whatsoever of any constitutional structure. It’s totally missing,” said Herb Titus, a onetime candidate for vice president for the Constitution Party and a longtime constitutional professor.
Titus, whose biography includes teaching at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools and service as founding dean of the College of Law and Government at Regent University, reviewed the federal proposal at WND’s request.
The multi-page plan is to establish policies and assign responsibilities “regarding military support for civilian law enforcement.”
“Who Killed the Constitution?” Here’s a dirty little secret: The bedrock of our country is ... dead
The plan states, “This proposed rule will allow civil authorities access to the correct procedures when they are seeking assistance from the Department by establishing updated policy guidance and assigning the correct responsibilities within the Department for the Defense for support of civil authorities in response to requests for assistance for domestic emergencies, designated law enforcement support, special events, and other domestic activities.
Titus, who has testified before Congress on constitutional issues and is authorized to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and a long list of federal court districts, said, “All of this is based on the assumption that government was created for the purpose of preventing things from happening in our lives.”
A plain reading of the law, he said, would allow drastically different actions than what Americans probably expect.
“Instead of prosecuting somebody charged with murder, we should profile people who are likely to commit murder, round them up and prevent them from endangering lives,” he said, citing the plan’s apparent permission for the government to restrain liberties when there is concern about potential damages or injury.
A contact at the Department of Defense did not return a WND call requesting comment on the proposal.
But the plan itself says the person calling for soldiers’ actions could be either a military official or civilian leader. And it renews questions about Barack Obama’s stated plans for a National Civilian Security Force that is at least as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.
Even Obama’s new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, says there will be a mandatory “force” for Americans.
“If you’re worried about, are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks, the answer is yes,” Emanuel told a reporter who was podcasting for the New York Daily News.
WND also reported when the official website for Obama, Change.gov, announced he would “require” all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs.
That proposal, however, was changed suddenly after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama’s proposal. The new wording reads, “President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.
WND previously reported on a video of a marching squad of Obama youth.
Obama, meanwhile, also has yet to clarify what he meant during his July “Call to Service” speech in Colorado Springs in which he insisted the U.S. “cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set” and needs a “civilian national security force.”
A video of his comments is here:
Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it.
“If we’re going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn’t this rather a big deal?” Farah wrote. “I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
“Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?” Farah wrote.
The Obama campaign has declined to respond to WND questions on the issue.
The newly proposed Department of Defense rules leave a virtually wide open door for what could be cited as a reason for military intervention.
It defines “Imminently Serious Conditions” as “Emergency conditions in which, in the judgment of a military commander or responsible DoD civilian official, immediate and possibly serious danger threatens the public and prompt action is needed to save lives, to safeguard public health or safety, or to prevent or mitigate great property or environmental damage.”
Repeatedly the rules cite “special events.”
“Special event support to non-governmental organizations is a DSCA activity,” it states under policy issues.
That, Titus contemplated, could even be a Democratic National Convention in Denver.
He said it’s important to keep the foundations of the nation in mind and that many of the principles of justice and government for America were derived from the pulpits of the 1700s.
“If you go back and look at Romans 13, the civil government was authorized to punish evil doing, not to prevent it from happening,” Titus said.
The new proposal specifically states it applies to a “potential or actual domestic crisis” and even confirms that conditions not always will allow “prior authority” before “action is necessary for effective response.”
“All this is really designed to do is legitimize by rule essentially a broader discretionary power,” Titus said.
It also reverses the role of the boss, he said, because of the repeated references to a situation “manager.”
“It’s the image that’s being created. A manager. You’re supposed to do what the manager tells you. Contrast that with civil authorities who are our servants. They’re supposed to do what we want them to do,” he said.
Many state constitutions were specific in that area, he noted. Virginia’s, for example, declared that all powers derive from the people, and in Pennsylvania the constitution specifically reserved the right to regulate police to the people.
Although many would argue such military occupation of the U.S. would be reserved only for such “emergencies,” the Washington Post reported just a few days ago on plans by the U.S. military to have 20,000 uniformed troops stationed inside the U.S. by 2011.
The plan has been lauded by some in the Bush administration and Congress as a reasonable response to the threat of terrorism, despite concerns over how it would undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that restricts the military’s role in domestic law enforcement.
At word of the plan, the ACLU warned of expansions in “presidential and military authority,” while the Cato Institute called it a case of “creeping militarization,” according to the Post.
Gene Healy, Cato vice president, told the newspaper, “There’s a notion that whenever there’s an important problem, that the thing to do is to call in the boys in green and that’s at odds with our long-standing tradition of being wary of the use of standing armies to keep the peace.”
The DoD says it will accept comments on the proposal until Feb. 2 at the federal government’s link.
>Even Obamas new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, says there will be a mandatory force for Americans.<
I wonder if Rahm Emanuel will be provided with SS protection?
Only if he takes a personal loyalty oath to the Obamafurer..
The Financial Times, one of the most respected and widely read newspapers on the planet, features an editorial today that openly admits the agenda to create a world government based on anti-democratic principles and concedes that the term global governance is merely a euphemism for the move towards a centralized global government.
For years we were called paranoid nutcases for warning about the elites plans to centralize global power and destroy American sovereignty. Throughout the 1990s people who talked about the alarming move towards global government were smeared as right-wing lunatics by popular culture and the media.
Now the agenda is out in the open and in our faces, the debunkers have no more ammunition with which to deride us.
A jaw-dropping editorial written by the Financial Times chief foreign affairs commentator Gideon Rachman entitled And now for a world government lays out the plan for global government and how it is being pushed with deceptive language and euphemisms in order to prevent people from becoming alarmed.
For the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible, writes Rachman, citing the financial crisis, global warming and the global war on terror as three major pretexts through which it is being introduced.
Rachman writes that global governance could be introduced much sooner than many expect and that President elect Barack Obama has already expressed his desire to achieve that goal, making reference to Obamas circle of advisors which includes Strobe Talbott, who in 1992 stated, In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasnt such a great idea after all.
Rachman then concedes that the more abstract term global governance, which is often used by top globalists like David Rockefeller as a veil to offset accusations that a centralized global government is the real agenda, is merely a trick of soothing language that is used to prevent people reaching for their rifles in Americas talk-radio heartland.
But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on, says Rachman. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: Global governance is just a euphemism for global government. As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law.
Rachman proceeds to outline what the first steps to an official world government would look like, including the creation of A legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force.
A world government would involve much more than co-operation between nations, writes Rachman. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.
So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government, concludes Rachman, before acknowledging that the path to global government will be slow and painful.
Tellingly, Rachman concedes that International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic, citing the continual rejection of EU expansion when the question is put to a vote. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters, writes Rachman.
So there you have it - one of the worlds top newspapers, editorially led by chief economics commentator Martin Wolf, a top Bilderberg luminary, openly proclaiming that not only is world government the agenda, but that world government will only be achieved through dictatorial measures because the majority of the people are dead against it.
Will we still be called paranoid conspiracy theorists for warning that a system of dictatorial world government is being set up, even as one of the worlds most influential newspapers admits to the fact? Or will people finally wake up and accept that there is a globalist agenda to destroy sovereignty, any form of real democracy, and freedom itself in the pursuit of an all-powerful, self-interested, centralized, unrepresentative and dictatorial world government?
Susan Rice, who worked with Strobe Talbot at the Brookings Institution,
I can’t wait for the UAW workers to be ruled by these two pieces of C. We are the home of the stupid.
Quotes by Strobe Talbot
“In the next century nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single global authority. National Sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”
“The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining super capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.”
- Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets
People are too stupid to even know who this guy is.
The NWO comes marching in. Don’t you just love those uniforms?
If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers normally good Americans, but Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free, Americans who have been lulled away into a false security.
- Ezra Taft Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. - Thomas Jefferson
The system of banking [is] a blot left in all our Constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction... I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity... is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
- Thomas Jefferson
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.
- Thomas Jefferson
... To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill [chartering the first Bank of the United States], have not, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution.
- Thomas Jefferson - in opposition to the chartering of the first Bank of the United States (1791).
“I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.”
- General Douglas MacArthur
“The United Nations will spearhead our efforts to manage the new conflicts (that afflict our world)....Yes the principles of the United Nations Charter are worth our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”
- General Colin Powell, 4/21/93, receiving the UN-USA Global Leadership Award
FReepers are afraid to investigate Agenda 21. Can you blame them? That’s where the answers lay about the agenda to create a world government based on anti-democratic principles. The term global governance is merely a euphemism for the move towards a centralized global government.
I have been saying this for years and sadly I am proven correct as I knew that ultimately I would be.
As long as WE run the world, okay. After we’ve run the libs out to 3rd world countries where they can ride their bicycles, donkey carts, rickshaws (jinrikishas) both human and motorcycle powered or pile on Jeepneys LOL! Used to love riding in Jeepneys in the Philippines, a Jeep lovers paradise.
I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.
- General Douglas MacArthur
We need a resistance leader now. I think I will go buy some ammo.
Can you think of many instances that make you believe that YOU run even your own Nation? Hell, we can't even make our president elect show proof of natual citizenship.
Well darn, I forgot my /SARC tag. Oh well, but did you agree with me about Jeepneys??
I suspect manpower will take a new meaning here in the US in the near future. Those of us who have traveled abroad know what is coming. The fools here don't know what they've got, and what can be lost.
There are a lot of peculiar vehicles in China as well, most of them literally "man powered". I suppose those "engines" make enough to feed their families. I wonder if Americans will be charming to their customers?
>As long as WE run the world, okay.<
Yeah it would be but in a short time the UN will have more financing than any one country can defeat and that’s when the tables turn and we become the oppressed minority, much to the satisfaction of the worlds third world countries.