The Rise of Global Government in the Latter Days
The American Founding Fathers knew human nature. Among the most striking of all human tendencies they observed both in history and in their day, was the desire to rule the world. They saw it in their study of the Bible (e.g. Daniel 2), they saw it in their study of world history (e.g. Greece and Rome), and they saw it in their own experiences (e.g. British kings).
In order to preserve and completely separate the American people from the greedy aspirations of would-be world dictators who do not understand or agree with the principles of God-given unalienable rights of the people, the Founders built into the Constitution a great protection. It is in Article I, Section 8, clause 10. Congress is to have exclusive authority:
“To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;”
This clause isolated and protected the American people from all foreign domination and control by assigning to Congress, their American representatives, the power to decide what the law should be in relation to other nations and what should happen when those laws were violated. Let other nations do what they will, but Americans will set and enforce their own laws.
America let its guard down and embraced strange doctrines
For the first one hundred years America became the most powerful influence in the world, not by attempting to dominate other nations, but by minding its own business and letting its people pursue their own happiness. Then a change began to take place. The principles of freedom ceased to be taught to the rising generation; the super-rich seized control of elements in the government and the opinion-molding media and America were pulled into the slippery slope of world events which introduced anti-Constitutional doctrines. The great Constitutional protection of the American people slowly began to erode. The talk of a new world order and internationalism became popular in academic and political circles. America was faced with, not a new idea, but the same old idea of world dominance the Founders gave their fortunes and their lives to guard against.
Henry Lamb: the most authoritative chronicler of the Rise of Global Governance
No one person has studied and been an active observer of the story of those who want to govern world affairs more than Henry Lamb. Henry Lamb was the author of "The Rise of Global Governance," chairman of Sovereignty International, and founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization and Freedom21, Inc. He had perhaps attended more international conferences, read more international documents, and sounded the warning trumpet more than any other American. Henry Lamb died in May 2012. His family and close friends have asked NCCS to continue to spread his message of warning that the United States is being swallowed up by very powerful world-dominating forces who want to destroy individual freedoms of all people. One of his last publications was The Rise of Global Governance. The following material is taken from this book (available from NCCS) and chronicles the growth of world-dominating power.
Step One to Global Governance: Create an International Ruling Body
The League of Nations (1900-1924)
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. Even though the League of Nations was never adopted by the United States, the dream of world domination, however, did not die. Officials realized that public opinion in America had to be changed before any form of world government could succeed. A powerful organization was created to accomplish this. 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 United Nations (1925 -- 1950)
The process of creating the United Nations lasted throughout the Second World 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." After the UN was formed, it was 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.
In 1967, 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."
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO, was created to construct a world-wide education program to prepare the world for global governance. UNESCO advisor Bertrand Russell 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 . . . .
Step Two to Global Governance: Use the Ruling Body to Establish Worldwide Programs “for the People”
The Environmental Movement
Not a single vote was cast against the Wilderness Act of 1964 when it finally reached the U.S. 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. Using "bait-and-switch" tactics, 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.
By 1990, the United Nations Environment Program (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)
- in 1980, published World Conservation Strategy jointly with the IUCN and the WWF
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 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)
- 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 child rearing, 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.
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. It was dubbed "Earth Summit II."
Step Three to Global Governance: Use established programs to popularize local control of people
A product of the Rio conference, Agenda 21, was a distillation of documents consisting of 294 pages and 115 specific program recommendations based on the following:
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.
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. It requires member nations to change their laws to conform to the WTO and each member shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with its obligations. 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. "No reservations may be made in respect to any provision of the Agreement."
As a result of many UN Conferences held from 1980 to 2011, in places like Rio de Janeiro, Vienna, Cairo, Copenhagen, New York, Beijing, San Francisco, Istanbul, and Geneva, agreements were signed by over 100 nations agreeing to the following global governing concepts:
The first major project of UNESCO in 1949 was a series of training sessions called "Toward World Understanding," designed to teach teachers how, and what to teach. The text for training session V, instructs teachers thusly:
" .. .it is sufficient to note that it is most frequently in the family that the children are infected with nationalism ... this may be more ridiculous than dangerous, but it must, none the less, be regarded as the complete negation of world-mindedness. We shall presently recognize, in nationalism, the major obstacle to the development of world-mindedness. As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only rather precarious results."
The National Education Association and the U.S. Department of Education were very active partners with UNESCO during these early years. The cooperation between U.S. education institutions and the United Nations has continued. The curriculum for social studies, math, and environmental education at every level is replete with the principles advanced by the United Nations. Familiar programs such as "Outcome Based Education," "Goals 2000," "School to Work," "No Child Left Behind," and now “Common Core” are all constructed on the U.N.'s principles of developing "world-mindedness" at the expense of accurate American history, the supremacy of national sovereignty, and the benefits and responsibilities of individual freedom.
Sovereignty and the oceans
The Convention on the Law of the Sea is an excellent example. Article II (3) states:
"The sovereignty over the territorial sea is exercised subject to this Convention and to other rules of international law."
This provision violates Article I, Section 8, clause 10 of the U.S. Constitution already quoted.
The aspirations of global governance reaches across every facet of human existence. Land use policies affect not only Biosphere Reserves, but all land. The UN first published its land use policy in 1976. The preamble to the report of the UN Conference on Human Settlements says:
"Land ... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable.... "
Many of the specific policy recommendations in this document have been incorporated into the model legislation developed by the American Planning Association with grants from the federal government. As states continue to enact comprehensive planning legislation, these policy recommendations become law in the United States.
Gun control is another item on the global governance agenda. In its 1996 report, Our Global Neighborhood, the Commission on Global Governance said:
"The production and trade in arms should be controlled by the international community. We strongly endorse community initiatives to protect individual life, to en- courage the disarming of civilians .... "
The United Nations called together representatives of 33 non-government organizations in 1998 to create the International Action Network on Small Arms. There are now more than 500 local groups working in 100 countries to promote international law to ban small arms, and to promote gun ban legislation at the local level. These groups are funded by government agencies and by private foundations, many of which are in the United States.
Actually, the United Nations wants all trade and commerce controlled by the international community. The General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) evolved into the World Trade Organization in 1994. This U.N. organization has the power to invoke sanctions against any nation, including the United States, that does not comply with its regulations. At the recent WTO meeting in Hong Kong, the proposal for the WTO to control the movement of "guest workers" gained substantial ground. "Mode 4,-movement of natural persons" as the proposal is known, would allow the WTO, rather than sovereign nations, to determine the number of migrant workers, and the circumstances under which they may enter a sovereign nation to work.
Since the emergence of the Internet, the U.N. has lusted after its control, not only to control the flow of information, but also to exploit its revenue-producing potential. The Council of Europe began developing a treaty in 1997, known as the "International Convention on Cybercrime." The United Nations, however, wants much more control. The U.N. convened a "World Summit on the Information Society" in Geneva, Switzerland in December 2003. This meeting attracted delegates from 175 nations who agreed to create a U.N.-sanctioned "Working Group on Internet Governance." The WGIG met four times officially in preparation for the second World Summit on the Information Society, held in Tunis, in 2005. Their first goal was to define Internet governance:
"Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet."
The International Criminal Court
The final element for enforcement is the International Criminal Court, also recommended by the Commission on Global Governance. This court was created in 1998, and signed by then-President Bill Clinton. Initially, this court would address only "genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity." Nothing in the court's founding documents precludes the court from expanding its jurisdiction at any time. Further, it is up to the court to determine just exactly what constitutes a "crime against humanity." Several nations, as well as the former UN Commissioner for Human Rights, have declared that the U.S. should be indicted for war crimes. And at virtually every climate change meeting, delegates have charged that the US.'s pollution and refusal to join the Kyoto Protocol constitutes a crime against humanity. The document that created the International Criminal Court specifies that all nations-whether they ratified the court or not-are subject to the court's jurisdiction.
Surely, Americans must awaken to our awful situation before this world-dominating juggernaut completely overpowers us.
Earl Taylor, Jr.