THURSDAY STUFF: AWAKE YOU WHO SLEEP -VI: Part B

“Just Hitting Another Brick Wall”

AWAKE VI:

The United Nations’ Plans for the Future

of the World - B

The UN bureaucrats and NGOs are skillful with semantics, and their goal of world government is waffled with words that have specialized meanings but may appear non-threatening. Their jargon words used in a positive connotation are sustainable (their favorite word), global, interdependent, civil society, environmental, inclusive, diversity, common good, demilitarize, fair distribution, international, and universal responsibility. Among the jargon words always used negatively are production and consumption. Forbidden words include independence, freedom and sovereignty.

Much of what has been proposed sounds very nice and Christian, kind of “warm fuzzy”, but the cost to our freedoms, our national sovereignty and our safety would be too high a price to pay. Not only would we be signing away our rights and freedoms, and our souls, but we would also be signing away these same rights and freedoms of our children and grandchildren.

What can Americans do to preserve our independence and sovereignty? Here are some first steps that should be taken immediately:

The UN Millennium plans must be made an issue with all presidential and congressional candidates. Urge them to pledge to repudiate global governance goals, all proposed UN treaties, and all acceptance of the authority of UN commissions or committees.

Demand endorsement of a law requiring that, if the UN tries to impose any direct tax, the United States shall immediately withdraw from the UN and expel it from our country.

Demand a pledge to oppose or reject all UN proposed treaties, specifically those on the International Criminal Court, Global Warming (Kyoto), Biodiversity, the Rights of the Child, Discrimination Against Women, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Nuclear Test Ban, and any purported extension of the defunct 1972 ABM Treaty.

Clinton's Abuse of the Treaty-Making Power_:

Annoyed with the Senate's refusal to ratify his various United Nations treaties, Bill Clinton has arrogantly tried to bypass the Senate by signing international agreements to implement them anyway. Each one cedes more U.S. sovereignty to some global organization. Clinton knew that his proposed United Nations Convention (treaty) on the Rights of the Child would never be ratified by the Senate because it would be a codification of Hillary's plan to put the global "village" in charge of raising children instead of parents. So Clinton made an end-run around that obstacle by going to the UN in New York and signing two protocols to the unratified Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Unfortunately, President George W. Bush is also abusing the Treaty Making Power with his secret North American Union Pact with Mexico and Canada.

The first of these protocols, a pet project of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), would prohibit military service by minors. This encountered stiff resistance from the Pentagon because every year the U.S. Armed Services enlist about 50,000 high school seniors before their 18th birthday. Clinton worked out a compromise; he agreed not to send them into combat until their 18th birthday.

The protocol's first paragraph makes its real purpose clear. It is "to achieve the purposes of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the implementation of its provisions." The protocol is quite lengthy, nine pages of fine print. That gives the global commission lots of excuses to inject itself into U.S. laws and behavior. Article 12, for example, requires that we submit, within two years, a report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Since that committee is a creation of Article 44 of the unratified treaty on the Rights of the Child, this is another way that Clinton's protocol locks us into the unratified treaty.

The second protocol that Clinton signed would make it a crime to sell children for sex, to engage minors in prostitution, or to use them for pornography. Again, the real purpose is to validate UN authority, not to protect children. Those acts are already crimes in the United States. The countries that engage in such behavior will not be deterred by some piece of paper that Clinton signed.

Furthermore, the UN committee set up to monitor compliance under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) recently ordered China (which has ratified that treaty) to allow women to sell their bodies as "sex workers." The UN committee calls prostitution a "reproductive right" over one's body.

Clinton told the United Nations General Assembly on September 22, 1997 that he wants to take America into a "web of institutions and arrangements" that will set "the international ground rules for the 21st century." Unable to get the advice and consent of the Senate, he used his last few months to try to bypass the Constitution and do it anyway.

The UN and our Constitutional RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms – (the right of the people to private ownership of guns)

When the founding fathers included a right to bear arms as the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, it was for a very important reason. This Amendment reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What were they thinking when they proposed this amendment? They knew, from experience, that when the people are armed, it is far less likely that their government will be able to enslave them, because the people will rise up and fight back.

But “something stinks in Denmark”. There is a plan in the works to do away with this very important amendment and if you doubt this, consider the following:

On May 10, 1994, at Twenty-Nine Palms Marine Corps Base in California, active military from Somalia, Panama and Iraq were given a 44 page questionnaire. The last question asked was:

“Would you fire on American citizens if the government bans all but sporting rifles and citizens refuse to give up their arms?

After a horrendous public outcry which was kept contained by the news media, the military tried to shrug it off as some “thesis exercise” by a candidate for a Master Degree. Hog wash! It has been confirmed that active members of the United States Air Force were also given the same questionnaire. Why?

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice-president of the National Rifle Association, told News Max.com that “the United Nations is dead set on writing a treaty that will curb domestic ownership of guns”. Already, just about every European country, belonging to the European Union, has either totally outlawed the private ownership of guns or they have placed very heavy restrictions on them. England, Australia and Canada have outlawed private gun ownership, all under pressure from the United Nations, and there is a push behind the scenes to bring the United States into the fold.

LaPierre went on to say his worst fear is that a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency would allow such a treaty to severely damage our Second Amendment rights. "She has never cast a pro-gun vote in the U.S. Senate," advises LaPierre, author of "The Global War on Your Guns: Inside the U.N. Plan to Destroy the Bill of Rights."

"She will probably be the most anti-firearm Second Amendment candidate to ever run for President of the United States." This is not some vague future scenario, warns LaPierre. The world's governments will be attending the second world gun summit in New York City between June 27 and July 7, 2006 and the anti-gun factions are raring to go.

LaPierre says that while a formal treaty needs two-thirds of the Senate to get approved, the damage to gun ownership rights can be done with a simple agreement, which requires only a simple majority in the House and the Senate.

"That is how President Clinton passed NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement]. The U.N. can do it with a simple agreement - if someone like Hillary Clinton ever becomes president. Here is the nightmare scenario on that: Yes, our Supreme Court has said the U.S. Constitution trumps treaties. But say Hillary Clinton becomes President in 2008 and gets a couple of Supreme Court appointments. The policy of her husband when he was president is that the Second Amendment applies only to the government and not individuals. Individuals have no right to own guns - only the government. If the U.S. Supreme Court, stacked with Hillary Clinton appointments, were to decide that the Second Amendment is only a government right and not the individual right, there would be nothing in the Constitution then to prohibit this U.N. treaty from taking effect," LaPierre said.


Making matters worse, adds LaPierre, is that in his opinion, Supreme Court Justices are increasingly looking to international custom and international law – a phenomenon the U.N. is counting on. The chief NRA spokesman also warns that in yet another wave of attacks, the U.N. will be preparing international lawsuits against American firearms manufacturers.

For anyone who doubts that the U.N. could weasel its designs into the political and judicial fabric of the country, LaPierre gives a short course in reality. He explains that the whole anti-gun movement in the U.S. is linked to the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) umbrella at the U.N.

IANSA's director, Rebecca Peters, who once famously debated LaPierre in London, is a great advocate of what she says is the "need to address the problem of guns circulating among civilian populations."

Another way anti-gun activists "have tentacles into the grass roots of this country" is through 527 committees, instructs LaPierre. "One of the major funding people at the U.N. in terms of the gun ban movement and the NGOs [Non-governmental Organizations] is [billionaire activist] George Soros, who is putting tens of millions of dollars into 527 committees within the U.S. designed to manipulate our elections. Soros is like a new toxin that is polluting American politics. These people consider themselves earthlings first and citizens of any other country second. They eat breakfast in London and dinner in New York and fly around the world in their jets.”

La Pierre goes on to explain how IANSA is further funded by the governments of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and Norway, and by what he describes as many left-wing foundations, including the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Samuel Rubin Foundation. The Rubin Foundation is headquartered right at the United Nations Plaza in New York City and touts that its mission is to "search for an equitable reallocation of the world's resources."

La Pierre says, "As I talk about in the book, Samuel Rubin was a member of the Communist Party. His daughter, Cora Rice, is now running that Foundation. There is a lot of money behind this effort and they are dead serious about writing a treaty that gives guns to the governments and takes the right to own a firearm away from any citizen anywhere in the world, including the United States."

When asked to comment on the sentiment of the severest critics of the U.N. – that it is time for the U.S. to simply abandon the organization – LaPierre says he thinks everything ought to be on the table. LaPierre would like to see a serious overhaul that includes cutting U.S. funding in a very serious way and turning to other international organizations. As to that funding issue, U.S. taxpayers last year put $3.8 billion in United Nations programs - $1.5 billion in directly assigned money and $2.3 billion in voluntary money.

Unfortunately, says LaPierre, "a lot of that has gone for all kinds of scandals and a lot of it is being misused on this U.N. gun ban effort. The U.N. is even trying to grab control of the Internet and take it away from the United States, and we need to step back and look at this whole thing from a prospective of whether the U.N. is doing anything these days to serve the interest of the United States of America or not."

In his free-ranging conversation with NewsMax, LaPierre reserved special vitriol for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who recently hosted a conference of fellow mayors from around the country. LaPierre points out that Bloomberg, in his opinion, wants to impose a New York City-style gun law on the citizens of Texas and Kansas and Wyoming and North Carolina - throughout the whole United States.

In LaPierre's view, the Big Apple is denying ordinary citizens the right to own a firearm and the right to self-defense. "It's a misguided, wrong-headed, freedom-grabbing approach that our founding fathers wanted nothing of. It goes right back to the policies of King George and it is elitist. If you are rich, you can have your bodyguard," laments LaPierre. "If you are rich, you can live behind a security system. If you are rich, you get your carry permit and you get your gun because you are special. But the less special people, all the rest of us, are flat out of luck." LaPierre says Bloomberg doesn't want to impose gun bans on the "special people," who get gun permits.

"The American public saw straight through Rosie O'Donnell, who wanted to be protected by bodyguards with guns and yet wanted to take guns away from the American people. People can see straight through this hypocrisy coming out of the Bloomberg administration and they choke on it," said LaPierre.

LaPierre says that a good part of the reason he penned his latest book is that Senators on Capitol Hill don't realize how bad the U.N. has become.

"You have to get up there [to New York City] to see and feel and taste it, and then you realize it is actually scary. Most people in the U.S. have no idea how extensive the structure of the UN is. It has three headquarters, not one. It has a huge facility in Vienna; a huge facility in Geneva."

But most of all, he decries what he sees as the institution's contempt for the freedoms that we have as citizens of the United States. These are not people who respect the Bill of Rights, he says, and these are not countries that have a Bill of Rights.

"They would like to reduce the United States of America's freedom to some lower United Nations standard that doesn't include many of the freedoms that are central to the United States.”

"It is time to step back, all Americans, and take a good look at the U.N. and re-evaluate what we are doing."

IS THE UNITED NATIONS TO BE THE SEAT OF THE ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT?

I stated in a previous section of this series that I do not believe that the UN will be the head of the One World Government, that the UN is only the forerunner. I believe this for several reasons, one being that all indications from Holy Scripture shows that the seat of the One World Government would be very likely in Rome, or at least somewhere in Europe, with the head of the One World Religion being in Rome. Holy Scripture states the One World Government will arise from the revived Roman Empire. The only thing that fits this prophecy is the European Union, since the major countries which form the EU are, in reality, all the countries that comprised the original Roman Empire. (It was through the members of the Club of Rome* that the European Common Market was first formed. The European Common Market then became the European Union.) Another reason why I do not believe that the UN will be the seat of power for the One World Government, is because one can see how ineffective the UN is when it comes to handling the various problems that come before it. They have also been racked with all sorts of scandals, in the past few years, involving financial mismanagement, profiteering, and sexual misconduct. For these reasons and more, many nations are becoming disillusioned with the UN.

Today, the UN is the 1500 pound elephant in the middle of the living room that no one really wants to talk about. It has become bloated and so corrupt that its stench is far-reaching. UN is a shameful organization whose corruption is beyond any rational description. The scandal involving the Oil-for-Food program, which seems to have involved Kofi Annan, his son Kojo, who managed to find a spare quarter-million dollars sitting around to invest in a Swiss football club, even though he had a mere $30,000-a-year job.

Even Kofi’s brother, Kobina Annan, the Ghanaian Ambassador to Morocco, has been implicated. Kobina has ties to a businessman behind several of the entities involved in the scandal—one Michael Wilson, the son of the former Ghanaian Ambassador to Switzerland and a childhood friend of young Kojo. Mr. Wilson is currently being investigated for bribery involving a $50 million contract to renovate the Geneva offices of the UN World Intellectual Property Organization. The head of the Oil-for-Food program was Kofi’s good friend, Benon Sevan, who had a mysterious six-figure sum appear in his bank account. He claimed that the money was a “gift” from his dear elderly aunt, a lady of very modest means who lived in a two-room flat in Cyprus. Investigators had planned to question her to see if her nephew’s version of events panned out, but unfortunately she took a “tumble” down an elevator shaft and died. Now seems that the windfall had less to do with Mr. Sevan’s late aunt than with his soliciting of oil allocations for a company run by a cousin of Kofi Annan’s predecessor, Boutros Boutros-Ghali. See how birds of a feather flock together?

Whatever your particular vice, the UN can find somewhere that will fulfill your depraved desires—in West Africa, it’s Sex-for-Food, with aid workers demanding sexual services from locals as young as four; in Cambodia, it’s drug dealing; in Kenya, it’s the refugee extortion racket; in the Balkans, sex slaves. On a UN peace mission, everyone gets his lusts fulfilled.

A UN staffer in Congo and the Central African Republic, Didier Bourguet, enjoyed the pleasures of 12-year-old girls. He is now on trial in France. Bourguet’s lawyer has said he was part of a UN pedophile network operating from Africa to Southeast Asia. So many children and so little time. Do you hear Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore or any of the other liberal nut cases rail about these abuses? Hell no! But let a U.S. servicewoman lead an Abu Ghraib inmate around with women’s panties on his head and you would think that the world had come to end. Sen. Kennedy was so outraged over the panty party at Abu Ghraib that he stated that Saddam’s torture chambers were now open “under new management.” But systemic UN child sex in at least 50 percent of their missions, not a word. So if you work for the UN or wear a blue helmet, then you can take all the bribes your pockets can hold. Snort, smoke or shoot up as much drugs as you can and engage in all the child sex your little heart desires (that’s what they mean by world piece) because with the UN to back you, it is ok.

Europe will one day almost certainly be the heart of the Antichrist beast-system of governmental, economic and religious control prophesied to engulf the world. It will also be at the heart of a false peace process that will initiate the tribulation, which will culminate at Armageddon.

All of the groundwork has been laid by the UN for the implementation of the One World Government, and when the time is right, I believe that the EU will pick up the ball and run with it.

Next Week: What is the Club of Rome?

“Abouna” Gregori