Feb 142010

Font Size » Large | Small

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama are actively engaged in efforts to bring about regional (such as the North American Community) and global governance, the preferred system for the New World Order. It is the approved version by corporations, financial interests and the United Nations. The Pope, however, has offered another tier to global governance which will be addressed later in this report.

In May of 2009 Clinton gave a speech at an annual meeting with foreign service retirees.

Daniel Strasser, a retired US Foreign Service Officer, had this question for Clinton:

“…listening to the various things that you are doing and also Deputy Secretary Burns-Under Secretary Burns’ list of things, I wonder if you feel that you have an umbrella over-an umbrella concept, an overarching concept in which to contain what it is that this Administration and you are trying to deal with what I call the problems of galloping globalization in the world. And I hope that you might have one.”

Strasser: “May I-I know you’ve talked about the three -”

Secretary Clinton: “Do you have any ideas?”

Two lines omitted.

Strasser: “I nominate the concept of global governance, which I know that Anne-Marie Slaughter knows a lot about, and which was proposed back in the 90s when you were in the White House by the UN Commissioner on Global Governance. I believe it still has a lot of good proposals that probably need to be updated, but recommend to you, considering global governance, as that concept for this administration. Thank you.”

Secretary Clinton: “Well. I can just imagine what Lou Dobbs will say about that.”

Strasser: “You know what? Who cares about Lou Dobbs?”

Secretary Clinton: “I agree with that. (Laughter.). We-you mentioned Anne-Marie Slaughter, who some of you know is our policy and planning director, first woman to have that job, former dean of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton.

“And we’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this. I mean, we don’t want to get hung up on coming up with a word. But we do have a pretty clear idea of the kind of approach that we’re taking. But I think she would be very disappointed if I were to preview any of it now, so give me a little-give me a few weeks, okay?”  Unambiguous. Wouldn’t you agree? See the transcript from the U.S. Department of State.

Anne-Marie Slaughter is an advocate of global governance and is active in pursuing this goal. She is the author of a scholarly work, “A New World Order,” published in 2004. As you can see, there is such a thing called “a New World Order.” John Fonte, a senior fellow and director of Hudson’s Center for American Common Culture, wrote:

“Slaughter argues that nation-states should cede a degree of sovereignty to transnational networks ‘horizontally’ and supranational institutions ‘vertically.’ Horizontal means, for example, that American judges would interact with foreign judges, quote each other’s opinions, and develop joint legal doctrine (what she calls ‘trans-judicialism’). Vertically, she argues that nations should cede sovereign authority to supranational institutions in cases requiring global solutions to global problems, such as the International Criminal Court. Slaughter maintains that global government networks ‘can perform many of the functions of a world government-legislation, administration, and adjudication-without the form,’ thereby, creating a genuine global rule of law.”

President Obama and Secretary Clinton have their plan for regional and global governance. As announced at the July 16, 2009 pre-summit meeting by Clinton and her counterparts from Canada and Mexico and later, at the summit of North American leaders on Aug. 10, 2009, integration of the continent will go forward , continuing the George Bush SPP initiative agreed to at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005.

At the pre-summit meeting, Clinton, Mexican Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa and Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon agreed to continued cooperation. Whenever you see the words cooperation and partnership, they mean integration.

Some comments from Foreign Minister Espinosa:

“During our conversation, I expressed my agreement with Secretary Clinton as well as Minister Lawrence Cannon from Canada. We agreed on the importance of continuing to push forward in our region with mechanisms for cooperation that respond to a very clear mandate from our leaders. We should make use of our positive experience in trilateral cooperation. We should have a more strategic approach, a deeper approach, and also an approach that allows us to truly have results for families in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico so they may benefit from our relationship.

“I feel that it is very important that this meeting between the foreign ministers has allowed us to expand on the regional and global agenda. This is a definitive moment internationally. So consultations between the three countries of North America are extremely important so that we can be more influential and so that we can promote the values that we share, as Secretary Clinton has stated. We have agreed to push forward with this engagement, to have a systematic approach to this engagement, so that we can contribute in a more significant fashion toward building a world that is more fair, that is cleaner, and that is more balanced.” More from this meeting. Note: These documents are subject to being removed at any moment so make copies for reference.

Clinton on a “partnership” with the Western Hemisphere:

“I have also joined ministers from more than a dozen countries in the Western Hemisphere to make good on the President’s and my commitment to re-launch [George Bush’s] Pathways to Prosperity [in the Americas], a multilateral initative to promote shared prosperity throughout the Americas.”

The Pathways to Prosperity in the Americas Initiative (PPA) is an attempt to replace the failed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). It failed despite being pushed by George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. Obama agreed to re-launch Bush’s last effort for this trading region of the Western Hemisphere, eventually consisting of 34 nations bound by a trade agrement.

The obligations of this hemispheric trading agreement, like those of the FTAA, would have sovereignty over the member nations’ “laws, regulations and administrative procedures.” That would include much of what goes on in the hemisphere, including the United States.

For a clear explanation of what the PPA really is, go to Florida-The Gateway of the Americas, a pro-regional and global governance site. Author Donna E. Shalala, who served under Bill Clinton, explains the goal:

“Some will criticize Pathways to Prosperity in the Americas since they believe it is too modest in its objectives because it mught be abandoning the broader version of a 34 country FTAA. In our judgment Western Hemisphere integration must start somewhere, and this is a good start. Remember, the European Union started small.”

This is what one would call crystal clear.

Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass is a big player in the pursuit of global governance. He appears frequently on MSNBCs’ Morning Joe. The only time the topic of global governance came up was a few days after I published “CFR President Richard Haass: A Leader in the Transformation to Global Governance.” The host jokingly made reference to secret groups meeting to decide the fate of the world. The response by Haass wasn’t audible. A little documentation is in order.

Haass is largely responsible for the plan, Building a North American Community, a trading region of North America and a part of the system of regional and global governance in this new world order. For his efforts on behalf of this integrated North America, he received this acknowledgment on page xx of the Task Force plan:

“At the Council on Foreign Relations, we would like to thank Council President Richard N. Haass,, who proposed this Task Force and supported it throughout.” Lee Feinstein, Executive Director, Task Force Program.

Haass opened the “first annual conference on global governance” on May 7, 2009 in New York. The topic, ‘American Leadership and Global Governance in an age of Nonpolarity,’ featured experts in the field and discussions.

In his opening comments, Haass revealed a system to track progress on global governance:

“Soon, coming to a site near you, will be the Global Governance Monitor. And what this is is a new multimedia tool that will constantly track and evaluate the status and the quality of international cooperation in various areas. We’re going to begin with the area of proliferation, I believe, and then we’re going to finance, and so forth. And gradually we’re going to, one by one, pick up various areas of international cooperation in these functional realms.

“And then we will update it, as necessary; and after six months, a year, essentially, you’ll have a fairly comprehensive guide to the state of global governance. And the idea, again, is to have it as an on-line resource for people here, but also much more broadly, for students, experts around-not simply this country, but around the world.”

Haass, the number one supporter of an integrated North America as a region under global governance, said in the foreword, page xvii, to the CFR plan for Building a North American Community:

“The Task Force offers a detailed and ambitious set of proposals that build on the recommendations adopted by the three governments at the Texas summit of 2005 (Canada, Mexico and the United States). The Task Force’s central recommendation is establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff an an outer security perimeter.” See the State Department article describing this North American Community.

The changing of our borders forever would require legislation by Congress. That legislation is in the current comprehensive immigration bill, H.R. 4321. See “Obama’s Amnesty Bill: Changing America’s Border and Launching a North American Community.”

(Note: The following link is slow.)

Haass, in a Taipei Times article, said:

“The near monopoly once enjoyed by sovereign entities (nations) is being eroded.

“As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional (North American Community) and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the UN General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organizations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global deliberations are met.*

“Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the WTO because on balance they benefit from an international trading order even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.”

“Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order  to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.” (Strength through weakness.)

*(Thirty CEOs from Canada, Mexico and the United States, the North American Competitiveness Council, have been meeting with the three leaders of North America at annual summits to advise them of policies and provide legislation for integrating the continent. That would include Wal-Mart, GM, and Whirlpool. Their status at the last summit in August of 2009, which Obama attended, was not mentioned.)

The next time you see Richard Haass, ask him how global governance is progressing and when does he think America will finally get rid of its sovereignty.

And last, even the Pope wants a piece of the New World Order. In his 2009 encyclical. Pope Benedict called for a “world political authority.” This authority would “manage the global economy and [provide] for more government regulation of national economies to pull the world out of the current crisis and avoid a repeat.”

The Pope, acknowledging the fact that this New World Order will be run by the world’s corporate/financial interests through trade agreements and the use of regional and global institutions, has decided to speak out for his version of world governance. It would be one in which these interests show more compassion for people and the environment and not base their actions on greed alone. Go here for more on the Pope.

in his 2009 encyclical : 67, the Pope rejected “unbridled capitalism and unregulated market forces, which he said had led to a “thoroughly destructive abuse of the system.”

His solution:

“One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical, and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity.”

“To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is the URGENT need of a true world political authority…Such an authority would need to be regulated by law…”

“Further more, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and to respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums…”

That sounds like the Pope wants a dictator to emerge, one who would rule all that he surveys. There are a couple of verses that may apply here; Revelation: 7, 8.

7. …and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

8. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

The reference here is to the antichrist, the beast who will rule the world. It just seems to be a strange choice of words by the Pope.

The fact is that a global ruling class has been involved in bringing about a New World Order, which means the end of democracy and a new era of rule by regional legislatures (EU), appointed institutions and agencies, all based on international (UN) law.

This effort to change the world isn’t a secret. It’s just that those in authority never briefed you on their plans. You might not like what you hear. But the evidence is there in abundance, including primary source government documents. The problem is most Americans don’t have the time to dig through the mass of data and connect the dots.

“Countless people…will hate the new world order…and will die protesting it…When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents…” H.G. Wells

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 Posted by at 12:33 pm