A Short Look at the UN Plan for Global Governance

Editor’s Comment:

I wrote the article you are about to read over twenty years ago. I’ve only modified it making few comments, but the basic article has not been changed. Read it carefully, because what was planned is still in action. You just never hear about it.

 A Short Look at the UN Plan for Global Governance

There was once a song entitled “Killing Me Softly.”

There is a phrase, “Killing me with kindness.”

There is also a saying, “You get more with sugar than with salt.”

They all address how someone can make gains by appearing kinder, gentler, more loving and appearing to have the other person’s benefit at heart.

In today’s world of international politics and world domination, old tactics are no longer used. Ideological wars are no longer fought with bullets by the intellectually superior elites. Words and changing definitions of words are the new secret weapons used against the average person. The word “conspiracy” is thrown about by many who believe the “one worlder’s” have been conspiring for years for world domination.

“Conspiracy” means to plot in secret and that has also changed. The so called conspirators now know there is no need to do anything in secret because a willing media will only report what they feel the average person will accept.

A report released in 1995 by the UN’s Commission on Global Governance’s is entitled “Our Global Neighborhood.” How much kinder could anything sound?

“Our Global Neighborhood,” indeed!

Can you imagine Hitler calling his book, “Mien Kampf,” “Our Neighborhood Needs Expanding?”

Talk about sugar.

This Global Governance Commission report details “suggestions” on what the “neighborhood” requires to live in harmony as seen by the one world socialists of the planet.

It is not a conspiracy, but it is a plan of action that has been put in place by the United Nations and supported by your hard earned money. A plan filled with sugar and terminology that is designed to KILL your freedom with kindness and KILL your freedom very softly.

Forget how it has come about, we must admit it has come about.

This report is only one of many type “UN” commissions, agencies and the like, whose main thrust is the implementation of world order.

Because “World Order” has not been widely received, the planners have changed it to “Global Governance.”

Every phase of the plan is in direct opposition to the basic tenets of our Constitution. None of these people, who are determining what is best for the rest of the world’s people, were elected by the people to make the determination.

In the UN scheme of things our freedom comes from the UN. In our Constitution our freedom comes from our Creator and the power to govern is given by the people.

The report outlines

•Global taxation;
•A standing UN army;
•An Economic Security Council;
• UN authority over the global commons;
• An end to the veto power of permanent members of the Security Council;
• A new parliamentary body of “civil society” representatives (NGOs);
• A new “Petitions Council”;
• A new Court of Criminal Justice;
• Binding verdicts of the International Court of Justice;
• Expanded authority for the Secretary General.

The UN Security Council is the supreme organ of the United Nations system. Originally, the Council had eleven members, of which China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States were permanent members with veto power. The other six positions rotated in two-year terms among the remaining members of the UN General Assembly. The Council now has 15 members which would be increased to 23.

The proposal stops short of recommending the elimination of permanent status, but does recommend that the remaining members serve as “standing members” until a full review of member status can be conducted, including the permanent members, “in the first decade of the next century.” (2000)

A phase-out of the veto power of permanent members is also recommended.

Perhaps more important are the proposed new principles under which the Security Council may take action.

“We propose that the following be used as norms for security policies in the new era:

 All people, no less than all states, have a right to a secure existence;

Global security policy should be to prevent conflict and war and to maintain the integrity of the planet’s life-support systems by eliminating the economic, social, environmental, political and military conditions that generate threats to the security of people and the planet;

 Military force is not a legitimate political instrument except in self-defense or under UN auspices.

The production and trade in arms should be controlled by the international community.”

 The Security Council would also be empowered to raise a standing army.

Article 43 of the UN Charter authorizes such a force, but has never been activated. The Commission says: “it is high time that this idea – a United Nations Force – was made a reality.”

Such a force would be under the exclusive authority of the UN Security Council and under the day-to-day command of the UN Secretary General.

It would maintain its own support and mobilization capabilities and be available for “rapid deployment” anywhere in the world.

The Commission envisions a small, highly trained, well equipped force of 10,000 troops for immediate intervention while more conventional “peace keeping” forces are assembled from member nations.

The Commission’s refusal to recommend taxing power for the UN, while advancing dozens of global revenue-raising schemes, is similar to declaring that “global governance” is not “world government.”

The Commission says “It would he appropriate to charge for the use of some common global resources. Another idea would be for corporate taxation of multinational companies.”

The favored scheme was first advanced by Nobel Prize winner, James Tobin. He has proposed a tax on international monetary exchange which would yield an estimated $1.5 trillion per year.

“Charges for use of the global commons have a broad appeal on grounds of conservation and economic efficiency as well as for political and revenue reasons.”

 The Commission supports a $2 per barrel tax on oil, which automatically escalates to $10 per barrel in 10 years.

“A carbon tax introduced across a large number of countries or a system of traded permits for carbon emissions would yield very large revenues indeed.”

 Now you know why the UN’s IPCC must make man made global warming caused by our use of carbon based fuel the central catastrophe of our time.

Other recommendations for global revenues include:

• A surcharge on airline tickets for use of the global commons
• A charge on ocean maritime transport
• User fees for ocean fishing
• Special user fees for activities in Antarctica
• Parking fees for geostationary satellites
• Charges for user rights of the electromagnetic spectrum

 “We urge the evolution of a consensus to help realize the long discussed and increasingly relevant concept of global taxation.”

Allowing the UN to impose its own tax would be a major disaster for freedom loving people all over the world. It would give the UN an independence to exert enormous power.

It would create a new world body with the powers of a sovereign nation and placed above all other nations of the world. It would literally be the birth of the “Empire” as depicted in the Star Wars Trilogy.

This “Empire” would be made up of NON-ELECTED elites who feel they know what is best for the world and would have the authority, finances and moral high ground to impose their beliefs on the rest of the world.

The UN’s environmental position (thin IPCC) is used to further the liberal, socialistic ideology.  Maurice Strong, an avid Gaia worshipper, is as green as they come was unanimously elected to head UNEP during a December 1972, meeting of the UN General Assembly.

The United Nations Environment Program, (UNEP) in their “objectives” paper stated the following objectives:

1. Control resource use.
2. Equalization of benefits of resource use
3. Reduce resource use.
4. Allow resources to evolve naturally without human influence.

Please read each one of these again.  Consider the “equalization” of resource benefits.  Equalization is the “new” word for redistribution.

Now they want to redistribute the “benefits” of resources.  Would that include money if money is a resulting benefit?

Or how about number four which allows resources to evolve without human influence?

Sounds like goodbye property rights, mining, logging, and all the rest.

If we allow any of this to happen, and it is happening, the American children of the 21st century will have lost their freedom.

I’d like to ask one question, what are you going to do about it?