By Al Colombo
In last Friday's commentary we discussed the issue of government; by the people, for the people vs. government by the few, for special interest groups. In particular, we talked about the possible presidential veto of a House bill that threatens to bring our fighting men and women back home, where they belong, I might add.
I ended with the comment: "You can bet that this President will, indeed, veto that measure, despite the fact that it's the peoples' representatives that voted to establish this deadline. Tune in Monday and find out why."[1]
To answer that question, one must understand a little bit about the big picture involving economic and governmental power and control here and elsewhere throughout the world. Unbeknownst to most common folks, there are special interest groups who are working very hard to gain total control over us, our money, and our children. They have almost total control over our money, they've been working on our children for some time now (including us), and now they're working on total control over us.
You can see this effort throughout all of society and government, from our public school system, where 6-year-olds are suspended from school for violent, verbal threats on the playground; the once honorable halls of the Capitol building in Washington; to the White House. Everywhere we look, it seems like there is someone working to commandeer more of our money, more of our private properties, and more of our God-given and constitutionally-protected freedoms, usually through more government controls at every level.
Another way that these powerfully rich and influential men and women are working to do this is by the provision of more enforcement powers at the International level through the United Nations (U.N.). If the goals of these folks, as well as the founders of the U.N., are to be realized, this governing body must have enforcement teeth, and this is now evident by virtue of the many peacekeeping missions now taking place across the world; and this is precisely the reason why President Clinton will either assure Europe's pledge or he will veto this House bill altogether.
Why is it so important that our men and women in uniform remain in Kosovo? Because if the United Nations is to continue to enjoy growth, repect, and an increase in enforcement powers, powers that the people of the world permit it to have, then it must continue to have some degree of assumed success. This can only happen if our U.S. Armed Forces remain in Kosovo. The acceptance of global government depends on it.
Brigadier General, Ricardo Sanchez, top U.S. commander in Kosovo, recently stated that U.S. troops would remain in Kosovo for at least one generation.
"To guarantee the safety of all the people here, we're talking at least a generation for NATO's commitment to secure the Balkans region," Sanchez said. "I'm not saying troop size would be the same. But it's a long-term commitment for NATO."[2]
You must remember that NATO was originally established to counter the Communist threat. Now that the Communists are assumed to not be a threat, it has become the political army of the United Nations, much as the brown shirts (SA) did in Germany for the infamous Adolph Hitler. The brown shirts gave Hitler's political threats the teeth they needed in order for him to commandeer total control over the German Reichstag. The message is, in essance, if you don't do as I say, or if you don't do as I do, then we'll make sure you do.
To further illustrate the importance of the apparent success of these peacekeeping missions, we turn to a statement made by then President George Bush:
"[The] new world order is only going to be enhanced if this newly activated peacekeeping function of the United Nations proves to be effective," said President George Bush at a press conference on January 9, 1991.
Yes, President Bush, just like President Clinton, endorsed global government through the United Nations. What's more, President Bush freely spoke of the New World Order, as you will see a little later by merit of his own words.
However, ask yourself this one question: is it in your best interest, our best interest, to have folks in Geneva, Germany, Netherlands, France, or any other country determining policy on a national level here in the U.S.? When we get to this point, you know it's only a matter of time until this control reaches down into state and local affairs.
For those who lived in Austria during the 30s, for example, this is reminiscent of Adolph Hitler's entrance into their beloved country. Captain VonTrapp, in the epic movie, The Sound of Music, said, in essance, "What do you do when you see your world disappearing around you?" VonTrapp, being the true and patriotic Austrain he was, could not bear to accept changes that were taking place in his country during the German occupation.
If you have never seen The Sound of Music, then you need to see it. If you have not read the book above, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L. Shirer, then you need to.
Early on, it was the Brown Shirts (SA) who implimented Hitler's political policies in Germany and Austria. Although somewhat undisciplined and often routy, the SA was his political strong arm needed to change the polical minds of the people, if not by their mere presence, then certainly by force.
Although President Bush spoke of the New World Order, Hitler did as well. He often spoke of a new order. (There is nothing new about either a new order, a new world order, or a new economy. To you and I, it all means economic and personal domination. Call it slavery, but by another name if you will.)
Most folks believe the U.N. to be nothing more than a bargaining body that merely works to negotiate peace between nations. Although this was true in the past, it is not so today. There is a much darker side to the U.N. today than most of us are aware of, although we should be considering the military action being perpetuated by the U.N.
This is quite obvious by the peacekeeping missions in Bosnia, Yugoslavia, and other nations. Although the U.N. may not have a military of it's own, member nations commit control of of their troops to them. What's the difference? Bullets kill no matter what the cause and who owns the guns they come from, no?
"A United Nations University study of NATO's intervention in Kosovo said Monday a profound change in world politics has emerged, mainly that sovereignty can be forfeited on humanitarian grounds," said William M. Reilly, United Press International, March 20, 2000."But the study...warned the precedent will have dangerously undermined international order unless world powers can agree on principles to guide future interventions, in similar circumstances. 'Kosovo and The Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention' is billed as 'compendium of authoritative viewpoints on many dimensions of the 1999 crisis' and on recommended follow-up steps," Reilly added.
Further, because a single veto in the UN Security Council can stop military action against a nation state on a humanitarian cause from taking place, the report further suggests that the Security Council be reformed, removing nations' veto power in such circumstances. (The report, Kosovo and The Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention, was co-edited by the Tokyo-based institution's vice rector, Ramesh Thakur, and Albrecht Schnabel. Ray Funnel, a retired Australian air marshal, contributed to it's making.)
Removing member nations' veto power is a very dangerous thing to do, indicating the desire on the part of a select group to provide the U.N. with even more enforcement teeth. Considering that, 1) the U.N. is top heavy with socialists and communists, and 2) no U.S. citizen occupies any of the top ten positions within the U.N. itself, do you want member nations not to be able to veto an unreasonable resolution? Do you fully understand the danger inherent in this for the people of the United States?
This dark side also includes the comandeering of federal land use by International environmental mandates and the Heritage Treaty, all the while circumventing Congress' right to decide land use and other matters involving federally owned land nominated under one of the Heritage programs.
This dark side includes the gradual dismantling of our Constitution, which is a most significant and excellent document that has served thie people of this nation well by slowing the degradation of God-given rights protected by the core amendments, also called the Bill of Rights. One of these rights that the U.N. intends to interfere with is that of the Second Amendment, the right to own and bear arms.
"The U.N. Disarmament Commission has adopted a working paper, a basis for future debate, that proposes tighter controls on the gun trade in the United States and other member nations as a way of combating international arms trafficking," said Charles J. Hanley, AP special correspondent, U.N. Commission Proposes Limiting Small-Arms Trade, May 24, 1994. "So quietly that even the gun lobby hasn't noticed, the United Nations is beginning to set its sights on global gun control."
To realize what the goals of the UN are, we must closely look at what the founders of this organization envisioned. Some of those goals include the centralization of power on a global scale, the elimination of personal property ownership, total control economically and physically over every person alive, and the elimination of national sovereignty. In it's place would be an International, Global government, by way of the United Nations, of course.
All of these add up to one thing, a significant change of life for each one of us. It also represents global domination of the masses by the few. Incidently, these goals also happen to closely match the 10 goals set forth in the Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848.[3] This document is the guidebook of all good Socialists and Communists across the globe. It promotes ten basic steps for all good Communists to take in order to overcome the free world, particularly the United States of America. They are:
Read through all ten very carefully and determine where each of these are in terms of what we see today at the federal level. Frankly, most of them have already been achieved. There's a published time table by which these folks are now operating and that is why our decent into socialism is now fast and furious. Just look around you. Take the blinders off for a short period and take a good, hard look at what you see. This is not the same land it was twenty years ago.
What does the socialist/communist agenda have to do with President Clinton and the possible veto of the aforementioned House bill? Well, because it is absolutely imperative that the United Nations succeed in every peacekeeping mission it embarks on. Why? Because the job of totting this global organization as the savior of the world would be all the harder if it were to lose control over our military.
The fact is, our country has had a long line of presidents who say one thing and do another. Many of them have worked to bring about a global government. Worse yet, many of them have labored to degrade our sovereignty by handing control of our military to the UN.
For example, on May 3, 1994, President Clinton signed over co-control of U.S. Armed Forces to the Secretary General of the United Nations through PDD-25 (Presidential Decision Directive 25). What this means is that any serviceman, airman, or shipman can be assigned to United Nations duty in response to "territorial disputes, armed ethnic conflicts, civil wars, and the collapse of government authority in some states..."
No, it does not matter if the President is a Republican or Democrat, for the goal is much the same. For all the fussing and fighting, people often believe that it's one or the other, but for those presidents who belong to the same club, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and/or the Trilateral Commission, political party simply does not matter. Of course, for some presidents, enough patriotism and religious conviction may have slowed the process during their tenure, but with the next, the process continues on in the same direction.
If you're a Republican and you doubt that President George Bush sold us out, then please read the following quotes, spoken by President Bush during his presidency.
"Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective-a new world order-can emerge.... We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders."[4]"I think that what's at stake here is the new world order. What's at stake here is whether we can have disputes peacefully resolved in the future by a reinvigorated United Nations."[5]
The Gulf crisis "has more to do with a new world order. And that new world order is only going to be enhanced if this newly activated peacekeeping function of the United Nations proves to be effective."[6]
"When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN's founders."[7]
"In the Gulf, we saw the United Nations playing the role dreamed of by its founders.... I hope history will record that the Gulf crisis was the crucible of the new world order."[8]
In 1991, presidential hopeful, Pat Buchanan, then a Journalist, warned us of George Bush's affiliation with globalists' plot to take the world by storm. He said, "He is a globalist and we are nationalists. He believes in some 'Pax Universalis;' we believe in the Old Republic. He would put America's wealth and power at the service of some vague new world order; we will put America first."
Isn't this precisely what has happened? For example, the United Nations owes the United States billions of dollars for peacekeeping missions, and yet, we were forced to pay our delinquent membership dues or face expulsion from voting status in their organization. Many internationalists said, "shame on you, Al Colombo, for suggesting that this delinquent money be charged against money due for peacekeeping missions. After all, the U.S. is the wealthiest nations on earth and so we ought to pay out more to assure world peace." Sure.
How could such an insidious plan for global domination take shape and form, since there are so many people across government that would have to be on board in order for it to take place? Again, let us examine the worlds of one, Pat Buchanan:
"The Trilateralist-CFR, Wall Street-Big Business elite: the neo-conservative intellectuals who dominate the think tanks and oped pages; the Old Left, with its one-world, collective-security, UN uber alles dream: All have come together behind the 'new world order.' Everyone is on board, or so it seems. But out there, trying to break through is the old, authentic voice of American patriotism, of nationalism, of America First, saying hell, no, we won't go."[9]
In the coming days we'll talk about the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). We'll learn what they are, what they stand for, and what they're doing today.
| Editor's Note: Permission is granted to reproduce this or any of the other articles and commentaries that appear on this web site, providing they appear in their entirety with the author's name, e-mail address, and www.GiantKillers.Org included.
Thank you. --Al Colombo |
Return to Comments Menu
Return to Main Menu
