Post by Tom Green on Jan 28, 2007 11:15:22 GMT -5
Is the UN a World Government?
There are several specific places in the Bible which speak of a one-
world government to be in power during the time just before the
return of Jesus. Are we living in those days? Is the United Nations
that prophesied world government?
Here, Endtime director Irvin Baxter Jr. makes an airtight case.
After interviewing Maurice Strong on Politics & Religion and reading
his book, ìWhere On Earth Are We Going?î Irvin Baxter Jr. knew that
this article had to be written.
Itís a story for the common manóand for some uncommon men, too.
Maurice Strong, by the way, is the United Nations Under-Secretary
General in charge of UN Reform. This article appeared in the
July/August 2001 edition of Endtime magazine.
When our tour group entered the United Nations on March 27, 2000,
our UN tour guide stressed from the outset, ìThe United Nations is
not a world government.î When the time came for our special
briefing, UN official Bill Hass again stated, ìThe United Nations is
not a world government. Itís nothing like that.î
It was obvious to me that these employees of the UN had been
carefully trained to specifically emphasize that the United Nations
is not a world government. But merely declaring that something is
not true, does not necessarily make it not true. So the question
remains: ìIs the UN a world government?î
Why does it matter?
Before we attempt to determine if the United Nations is, in fact, a
world government in the making, we need to understanding why it even
matters.
The most urgent reason for needing to know is that the Bible
prophesies the emergence of a system of world government on earth
for the immediate future. If the UN is a structure for global
governance, then it is obviously the prophesied world government,
especially since no other structure for world government presently
exists on earth.
Speaking of the world government and the powerful political leader
that will rule it, Revelation 13:7 says, ìAnd it was given unto him
to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was
given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.î Notice that
this coming world government will have power over all nations.
Furthermore, the leader of this world government, a man the Bible
calls the Antichrist, will make war against true Christians that
will be on earth at the time.
The same prophecy is given in Daniel 7:21-23, ìI beheld, and the
same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against themÖThus
he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,
which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole
earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.î Both of
these prophecies, though written seven hundred years apart, foretell
a government that will rule over all the earth. They also state that
the ruler of the prophesied world government will launch a time of
terrible religious persecution. These scriptures clearly indicate
that the prophesied world government will become tyrannical and will
support the satanically inspired reign of the Antichrist.
Are global planners evil?
When the United Nations was launched in 1945, the horrible carnage
of World War II and its 52 million dead was fresh in everyoneís
mind. World leaders believed that the next war might destroy all of
mankind. Many of them saw nationalism as the root cause of war and
sincerely felt that a system of global government had to be
implemented. The United Nations was designed to be that system of
global governance.
However, letís make one thing clear. The prime movers at the
founding of the United Nations understood full-well that they were
launching an organization designed to be a global government. A
world economic system was created including the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. A World Court was provided
for and structures for military action were set up.
The thinking of some of the globalists at the time is illustrated by
a statement made by Assistant U.S. Secretary of State William Benton
before the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) in 1946.
ìAs long as a child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism,
education in world-mindedness can produce only precarious results.
As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the
child with extreme nationalism. The schools should thereforeÖcombat
family attitudes that favor jingoism (or as it is
definedónationalism). We shall see presently recognized in
nationalism the major obstacle to the development of world-
mindedness. We are at the beginning of a long process of breaking
down the walls of national sovereignty. UNESCO must be the pioneer.î
Not all political leaders of the time shared Assistant U.S.
Secretary of State Bentonís enthusiasm for world government. Leaders
in the United States insisted on retaining veto power over the
decisions of the UN Security Council in order to preserve U.S.
sovereignty. Many believed that this move condemned the UN to
impotence! They contended that nothing short of an enforceable world
government would be able to banish the scourge of war from the earth.
Fifty-six years later
The report card of the United Nations since its birth has been
somewhat mediocre. On the positive side, there has not been another
world war and mankind has not been obliterated from the face of the
earth. On the other hand, many millions have died in armed conflict
during the past 56 years. Weapons of mass destruction, more deadly
than ever, threaten the future of the world. As we enter the new
millennium, there is enough weaponry poised at the ready to destroy
all human, plant and animal life off the face of the earth many
times over. Mankind is as close to self-annihilation as it has ever
been.
However, since the birth of the UN, those who believe that world
governance is the answer to peace on earth have not been idle. They
have been diligently weaving a web of international law, which they
believe can lead the world into a genuine new world order. Since the
fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, most conflicts
have been confronted by the UN in the name of the World Community.
Most of the lesser nations of the world have learned that the
international forces of the United Nations cannot be ignored. The
blue-helmeted soldiers of the UN have developed teeth. The leaders
of the 184 nations that do not enjoy veto power on the UN Security
Council have recently learned that, if they do not bow the knee to
the edicts of the emerging global government, they face the very
real danger of being placed on trial before the World Court.
Yet, because of the continued existence of the veto power and
weapons of mass destruction, the major powers still teeter on the
precipice of igniting a world-engulfing nuclear holocaust.
So what are the globalists planning?
After the fall of the Berlin Wall and with the approaching of the
fiftieth anniversary of the birth of the UN, it was felt that the
time was right to conduct a reappraisal of the structures of the UN.
This was set in motion through the initiative of Willy Brandt,
former Prime Minister of Germany and president of the Socialist
International. A group of 26 people were assembled to form the
Commission on Global Governance. They worked under the leadership of
Ingvar Carlsson of Stockholm and Shridath Ramphal of London. Their
job was to evaluate the path that global governance should take as
the world entered into the 21st Century.
Their report was released to the World Community in November 1994
under the title Our Global Neighborhood. Since that time, Our Global
Neighborhood has served as the road map of the globalists and the
United Nations.
So that we can know what is being planned by the UN for our future,
letís review some of the proposals made by the Commission on Global
Governance.
A global belief system
Our Global Neighborhood says it this way: ìThe quality of global
governance will be determined by several factors. High among them is
the broad acceptance of a global civic ethic to guide action within
the global neighborhoodÖî
The document goes on to explain, ìPeople have to see with new eyes
and understand with new minds before they can truly turn to new ways
of living. That is why global values must be the cornerstone of
global governance.î
Over the past ten years, many people and organizations have
attempted to formulate a belief system that could serve as the
global ethic for the emerging system of global governance.
The Parliament of the Worldís Religions, which met in Chicago in
1993, offered its version of a global ethic to the world.
Hans K¸ng, the eminent Roman Catholic theologian, has written a book
entitled, A Global Ethic for a Global Politic and Global Economic.
When the religious leaders and the political leaders of the world
gathered at the UN for the Millennium Summit (August 28-September 8,
2000), they adopted a mission statement for the world called the
Millennium Declaration. With this adoption of the Millennium
Declaration, the dream of a global ethic for the world became a
reality.
A world court
The Commission on Global Gover-nance was adamant concerning the need
for compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court. They stated their
case as follows:
ìWhen the founders of the United Nations drew up the Charter, the
rule of law world-wide loomed as one of its central components. They
established the International Court of Justice at The Hagueócommonly
known as the World Courtóas the ëcathedral of lawí in the global
system. But states were free to take it or leave it, in whole or in
partÖThe rule of law was asserted and, at the same time, undermined;
from the outset the World Court was marginalized.
ìIn an ideal world, acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the
World Court would be a prerequisite for UN membership. Those who
wish to belong to the community of nations should be willing to
abide by its rules and demonstrate their willingness by accepting
the competence of its highest legal body.
ìA number of states, however, are willing to use the World Court
only when it suits their short-term interests. This last situation
is wholly unsatisfactory.î
This dream of a world court system with compulsory jurisdiction is
now very close to realization. The International Criminal Court
Statute of Rome was adopted on July 17, 1998. It establishes a
permanent world court with jurisdiction over every person on earth
whether his nation ratifies the Criminal Court Statute or not.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) will begin to function once
sixty parliaments ratify the statute. That is expected to be
achieved some time in 2002.
Abolish the veto
When the United Nations was formed in 1945, the total surrender of
national sovereignty to a world government was just not
acceptableóespecially to the United States. The powerful opposition
to the surrendering of U.S. sovereignty was mollified by the
granting of veto power to the five victor nations of World War II.
The possession of the veto over decisions of the UN Security Council
insured that the ìbig fiveî could not be forced into compliance to
edicts of the world government system against their will. Critics of
the veto contend that it is the number one reason why the UN has
been unable to fulfill its mandate of freeing the earth from the
scourge of war.
The Commission on Global Gover-nance agrees with this assessment as
the following statements from Our Global Neighborhood illustrate:
ìReform of the Security Council is central to reforming the UN
system. Permanent membership limited to five countries that derive
their primacy from events fifty years ago is unacceptable; so is the
veto.
ìThe second stage (of UN reform) should be a full review of the
membership of the CouncilÖaround 2005, when the veto can be phased
outÖî Ladies and gentlemen, once the veto power is removed, we are
in world government! Need I remind you that 184 of the 189 UN member
nations have no veto power right now? These nations have been under
the control of world government for some time. Just ask Saddam
Hussein. Ask Slobodan Milosevic, former president of Yugoslavia,
who, even now, is desperately seeking to avoid trial before the
World Court.
A global tax
For some time, the globalists have contended that the UN must have
an independent source of revenue in order to fulfill its mandate.
They point out that large contributors can hold the UN hostage by
withholding contributions until they get their way. Especially
galling to some has been the withholding of funds by the United
States, the UNís largest contributor.
The Commission on Global Gover-nance came down hard on the side of
global taxation. Following are some of the ideas proposed in Our
Global Neighborhood.
ìA start must be made in establishing schemes of global financing of
global purposes, including charges for the use of global resources
such as flight lanes, sea lanes, and ocean fishing areas and the
collection of global revenues agreed globally and implemented by
treaty. An international tax on foreign currency transactions should
be explored as one option, as should the creation of an
international corporate tax base among multinational companies. It
is time for the evolution of a consensus on the concept of global
taxation for servicing the needs of the global neighborhood.î
You heard right! The Commission on Global Governance clearly called
for a global tax!
This really should not surprise us. For several years globalists
have been quietly and carefully promoting the idea of a global tax.
The most mentioned is called the Tobin Tax. It would be levied on
all international financial transactions at the rate of five-tenths
of one percent. This seems like an insignificant amount. However, it
would generate $1.5 trillion in income for the United Nations per
year. The present yearly budget for the UN is listed as $10 billion.
This tax would multiply the UN income by 150 times! With that kind
of money to spend, the United Nations could really do some global
governing!
UN standing army
Our Global Neighborhood points out that the United Nations is
handicapped when dealing with armed conflict around the globe. Since
it has to rely on nations to supply troops when a crisis arises,
many times the UN response time is too slow. The solution to this
problem as set forth by the Commission on Global Governance is to
create a standing UN army. Listen to the ideas of the Commission.
ìThe United Nations has, at present, no capacity to deploy
immediately a well- trained force to carry out the mandate of the
Security Council in the early stages of a crisis, before a situation
gets completely out of control. Governments are understandably
reluctant to commit troops rapidly for UN action, particularly in
civil wars and internal conflicts, where the risk of loss of
personnel is higher than in traditional peacekeeping operations.
This has renewed interest in an idea originally raised in 1948 by
Trygve Lie, the first UN Secretary-General. He called for the
establishment of a small United Nations ëguard forceí that would be
recruited by the Secretary-General and placed at the disposal of the
Security CouncilÖIt is high time that a UN Volunteer Force was
established. We envisage a force with a maximum of 10,000 personnel.î
Back to the question
Letís summarize. The UN plans for a World Court that can try
individual citizens from any nation on earth. It wants to abolish
the veto power so that nations will be unable to stop any action
that the global majority would decide upon. The United Nations is
planning for its own tax system so that it will not be subject to
the financial control of donor nations. And it wants a standing army
that can move quickly to enforce its decisions upon the nations of
the earth.
Now for the questionÖIs the United Nations in the process of
becoming a government? When you have a system of international law,
the power to tax, the power to place on trial and to incarcerate,
and the power to employ troops to enforce your decisions, ladies and
gentlemenÖyou have a government.
Do not be misled by the slick oratory of those that would deceive us
with such nonsensical statements as: The UN is global governance,
not a global government. Stop the presses! Does anyone have a
dictionary?! What is governance anyhow? World Book Dictionary gives
the following definition for governance: government, rule, control.
The next time a globalist tells you that the UN is not a global
government, but is an instrument for global governance, ask if he is
stupid or if he thinks you are! Governance is government, and global
governance is global government!
The UN has a constitution, a system of laws, courts, an army and a
system of taxation. Only five nations can disobey the edicts of the
United Nations without risking military reprisal. And plans are in
the offing to remove the special status of these five.
What global leaders are saying
Richard Gardner, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, wrote
in Foreign Affairs, April 1974:
ìWe are likely to do better by building our ëhouse of world orderí
from bottom up rather than from the top downÖan end-run around
national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, is likely to get us
to world order faster than the old fashioned assault.î Strobe
Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State during the Clinton administration
and Bill Clintonís roommate at Oxford:
In fact, Iíll bet that within the next hundred years nationhood as
we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single,
global authority. A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid-20th
Centuryóëcitizen of the worldíówill have assumed real meaning by the
end of the 21st Century.î
Robert Muller, Assistant Secretary General to three UN Secretary
Generals; served at the UN for 38 years.
ìAt the beginning the UN was only a hope.
ìToday it is a political reality.
ìTomorrow it will be the worldís religion.
>National sovereignty and global governancebr> When interviewing
Maurice Strong, the man entrusted with reforming the United Nations,
I asked him to explain the difference between global governance and
global government.
Strong stated that nations retained their sovereignty even though
they delegated government at the international level to the UN. He
explained that the states of the United States retain a level of
sovereignty even though they have delegated sovereignty at the
national level to the federal government.
This comparison did not comfort me at all since I live in the United
States. All U.S. citizens know very well that the individual states
are not sovereign. Perhaps this would be a good time to take a look
at the definition of sovereignty. World Book Dictionary defines
sovereignty this way: Independent of the control of another
government or governments. World Book gives the following example to
clarify the definition: The United States of America is a sovereign
nation, but the 50 states which compose it do not have full
sovereignty.
The bottom line is thisÖif the United States ever surrenders its
veto on the UN Security Council, we will merely be one of the states
in the United States of the World. We will no longer be a sovereign
nation.
Why do globalists attempt to deceive by saying that the UN is global
governance not global government? Because they know that the vast
majority of us do not want to be under the control of a world
government. But they believe that world government is the answer for
the future of the world. Consequently, they attempt to disguise
world government by calling it global governance. The effort to
deceive is deliberate!
The UN has a set of laws. It has a court system. It has a Secretary
General and a General Assembly. The UN has soldiers that enforce its
will on the world. And it will soon have its own system of global
taxation.
The sooner we face the truth, the better. If it looks like a duck,
walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.
Ladies and gentlemen, the United Nations is a world government!
Furthermore, it is the world government prophesied in the Bible over
which the Antichrist will soon rule!
There are several specific places in the Bible which speak of a one-
world government to be in power during the time just before the
return of Jesus. Are we living in those days? Is the United Nations
that prophesied world government?
Here, Endtime director Irvin Baxter Jr. makes an airtight case.
After interviewing Maurice Strong on Politics & Religion and reading
his book, ìWhere On Earth Are We Going?î Irvin Baxter Jr. knew that
this article had to be written.
Itís a story for the common manóand for some uncommon men, too.
Maurice Strong, by the way, is the United Nations Under-Secretary
General in charge of UN Reform. This article appeared in the
July/August 2001 edition of Endtime magazine.
When our tour group entered the United Nations on March 27, 2000,
our UN tour guide stressed from the outset, ìThe United Nations is
not a world government.î When the time came for our special
briefing, UN official Bill Hass again stated, ìThe United Nations is
not a world government. Itís nothing like that.î
It was obvious to me that these employees of the UN had been
carefully trained to specifically emphasize that the United Nations
is not a world government. But merely declaring that something is
not true, does not necessarily make it not true. So the question
remains: ìIs the UN a world government?î
Why does it matter?
Before we attempt to determine if the United Nations is, in fact, a
world government in the making, we need to understanding why it even
matters.
The most urgent reason for needing to know is that the Bible
prophesies the emergence of a system of world government on earth
for the immediate future. If the UN is a structure for global
governance, then it is obviously the prophesied world government,
especially since no other structure for world government presently
exists on earth.
Speaking of the world government and the powerful political leader
that will rule it, Revelation 13:7 says, ìAnd it was given unto him
to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was
given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.î Notice that
this coming world government will have power over all nations.
Furthermore, the leader of this world government, a man the Bible
calls the Antichrist, will make war against true Christians that
will be on earth at the time.
The same prophecy is given in Daniel 7:21-23, ìI beheld, and the
same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against themÖThus
he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,
which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole
earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.î Both of
these prophecies, though written seven hundred years apart, foretell
a government that will rule over all the earth. They also state that
the ruler of the prophesied world government will launch a time of
terrible religious persecution. These scriptures clearly indicate
that the prophesied world government will become tyrannical and will
support the satanically inspired reign of the Antichrist.
Are global planners evil?
When the United Nations was launched in 1945, the horrible carnage
of World War II and its 52 million dead was fresh in everyoneís
mind. World leaders believed that the next war might destroy all of
mankind. Many of them saw nationalism as the root cause of war and
sincerely felt that a system of global government had to be
implemented. The United Nations was designed to be that system of
global governance.
However, letís make one thing clear. The prime movers at the
founding of the United Nations understood full-well that they were
launching an organization designed to be a global government. A
world economic system was created including the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. A World Court was provided
for and structures for military action were set up.
The thinking of some of the globalists at the time is illustrated by
a statement made by Assistant U.S. Secretary of State William Benton
before the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) in 1946.
ìAs long as a child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism,
education in world-mindedness can produce only precarious results.
As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the
child with extreme nationalism. The schools should thereforeÖcombat
family attitudes that favor jingoism (or as it is
definedónationalism). We shall see presently recognized in
nationalism the major obstacle to the development of world-
mindedness. We are at the beginning of a long process of breaking
down the walls of national sovereignty. UNESCO must be the pioneer.î
Not all political leaders of the time shared Assistant U.S.
Secretary of State Bentonís enthusiasm for world government. Leaders
in the United States insisted on retaining veto power over the
decisions of the UN Security Council in order to preserve U.S.
sovereignty. Many believed that this move condemned the UN to
impotence! They contended that nothing short of an enforceable world
government would be able to banish the scourge of war from the earth.
Fifty-six years later
The report card of the United Nations since its birth has been
somewhat mediocre. On the positive side, there has not been another
world war and mankind has not been obliterated from the face of the
earth. On the other hand, many millions have died in armed conflict
during the past 56 years. Weapons of mass destruction, more deadly
than ever, threaten the future of the world. As we enter the new
millennium, there is enough weaponry poised at the ready to destroy
all human, plant and animal life off the face of the earth many
times over. Mankind is as close to self-annihilation as it has ever
been.
However, since the birth of the UN, those who believe that world
governance is the answer to peace on earth have not been idle. They
have been diligently weaving a web of international law, which they
believe can lead the world into a genuine new world order. Since the
fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, most conflicts
have been confronted by the UN in the name of the World Community.
Most of the lesser nations of the world have learned that the
international forces of the United Nations cannot be ignored. The
blue-helmeted soldiers of the UN have developed teeth. The leaders
of the 184 nations that do not enjoy veto power on the UN Security
Council have recently learned that, if they do not bow the knee to
the edicts of the emerging global government, they face the very
real danger of being placed on trial before the World Court.
Yet, because of the continued existence of the veto power and
weapons of mass destruction, the major powers still teeter on the
precipice of igniting a world-engulfing nuclear holocaust.
So what are the globalists planning?
After the fall of the Berlin Wall and with the approaching of the
fiftieth anniversary of the birth of the UN, it was felt that the
time was right to conduct a reappraisal of the structures of the UN.
This was set in motion through the initiative of Willy Brandt,
former Prime Minister of Germany and president of the Socialist
International. A group of 26 people were assembled to form the
Commission on Global Governance. They worked under the leadership of
Ingvar Carlsson of Stockholm and Shridath Ramphal of London. Their
job was to evaluate the path that global governance should take as
the world entered into the 21st Century.
Their report was released to the World Community in November 1994
under the title Our Global Neighborhood. Since that time, Our Global
Neighborhood has served as the road map of the globalists and the
United Nations.
So that we can know what is being planned by the UN for our future,
letís review some of the proposals made by the Commission on Global
Governance.
A global belief system
Our Global Neighborhood says it this way: ìThe quality of global
governance will be determined by several factors. High among them is
the broad acceptance of a global civic ethic to guide action within
the global neighborhoodÖî
The document goes on to explain, ìPeople have to see with new eyes
and understand with new minds before they can truly turn to new ways
of living. That is why global values must be the cornerstone of
global governance.î
Over the past ten years, many people and organizations have
attempted to formulate a belief system that could serve as the
global ethic for the emerging system of global governance.
The Parliament of the Worldís Religions, which met in Chicago in
1993, offered its version of a global ethic to the world.
Hans K¸ng, the eminent Roman Catholic theologian, has written a book
entitled, A Global Ethic for a Global Politic and Global Economic.
When the religious leaders and the political leaders of the world
gathered at the UN for the Millennium Summit (August 28-September 8,
2000), they adopted a mission statement for the world called the
Millennium Declaration. With this adoption of the Millennium
Declaration, the dream of a global ethic for the world became a
reality.
A world court
The Commission on Global Gover-nance was adamant concerning the need
for compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court. They stated their
case as follows:
ìWhen the founders of the United Nations drew up the Charter, the
rule of law world-wide loomed as one of its central components. They
established the International Court of Justice at The Hagueócommonly
known as the World Courtóas the ëcathedral of lawí in the global
system. But states were free to take it or leave it, in whole or in
partÖThe rule of law was asserted and, at the same time, undermined;
from the outset the World Court was marginalized.
ìIn an ideal world, acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the
World Court would be a prerequisite for UN membership. Those who
wish to belong to the community of nations should be willing to
abide by its rules and demonstrate their willingness by accepting
the competence of its highest legal body.
ìA number of states, however, are willing to use the World Court
only when it suits their short-term interests. This last situation
is wholly unsatisfactory.î
This dream of a world court system with compulsory jurisdiction is
now very close to realization. The International Criminal Court
Statute of Rome was adopted on July 17, 1998. It establishes a
permanent world court with jurisdiction over every person on earth
whether his nation ratifies the Criminal Court Statute or not.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) will begin to function once
sixty parliaments ratify the statute. That is expected to be
achieved some time in 2002.
Abolish the veto
When the United Nations was formed in 1945, the total surrender of
national sovereignty to a world government was just not
acceptableóespecially to the United States. The powerful opposition
to the surrendering of U.S. sovereignty was mollified by the
granting of veto power to the five victor nations of World War II.
The possession of the veto over decisions of the UN Security Council
insured that the ìbig fiveî could not be forced into compliance to
edicts of the world government system against their will. Critics of
the veto contend that it is the number one reason why the UN has
been unable to fulfill its mandate of freeing the earth from the
scourge of war.
The Commission on Global Gover-nance agrees with this assessment as
the following statements from Our Global Neighborhood illustrate:
ìReform of the Security Council is central to reforming the UN
system. Permanent membership limited to five countries that derive
their primacy from events fifty years ago is unacceptable; so is the
veto.
ìThe second stage (of UN reform) should be a full review of the
membership of the CouncilÖaround 2005, when the veto can be phased
outÖî Ladies and gentlemen, once the veto power is removed, we are
in world government! Need I remind you that 184 of the 189 UN member
nations have no veto power right now? These nations have been under
the control of world government for some time. Just ask Saddam
Hussein. Ask Slobodan Milosevic, former president of Yugoslavia,
who, even now, is desperately seeking to avoid trial before the
World Court.
A global tax
For some time, the globalists have contended that the UN must have
an independent source of revenue in order to fulfill its mandate.
They point out that large contributors can hold the UN hostage by
withholding contributions until they get their way. Especially
galling to some has been the withholding of funds by the United
States, the UNís largest contributor.
The Commission on Global Gover-nance came down hard on the side of
global taxation. Following are some of the ideas proposed in Our
Global Neighborhood.
ìA start must be made in establishing schemes of global financing of
global purposes, including charges for the use of global resources
such as flight lanes, sea lanes, and ocean fishing areas and the
collection of global revenues agreed globally and implemented by
treaty. An international tax on foreign currency transactions should
be explored as one option, as should the creation of an
international corporate tax base among multinational companies. It
is time for the evolution of a consensus on the concept of global
taxation for servicing the needs of the global neighborhood.î
You heard right! The Commission on Global Governance clearly called
for a global tax!
This really should not surprise us. For several years globalists
have been quietly and carefully promoting the idea of a global tax.
The most mentioned is called the Tobin Tax. It would be levied on
all international financial transactions at the rate of five-tenths
of one percent. This seems like an insignificant amount. However, it
would generate $1.5 trillion in income for the United Nations per
year. The present yearly budget for the UN is listed as $10 billion.
This tax would multiply the UN income by 150 times! With that kind
of money to spend, the United Nations could really do some global
governing!
UN standing army
Our Global Neighborhood points out that the United Nations is
handicapped when dealing with armed conflict around the globe. Since
it has to rely on nations to supply troops when a crisis arises,
many times the UN response time is too slow. The solution to this
problem as set forth by the Commission on Global Governance is to
create a standing UN army. Listen to the ideas of the Commission.
ìThe United Nations has, at present, no capacity to deploy
immediately a well- trained force to carry out the mandate of the
Security Council in the early stages of a crisis, before a situation
gets completely out of control. Governments are understandably
reluctant to commit troops rapidly for UN action, particularly in
civil wars and internal conflicts, where the risk of loss of
personnel is higher than in traditional peacekeeping operations.
This has renewed interest in an idea originally raised in 1948 by
Trygve Lie, the first UN Secretary-General. He called for the
establishment of a small United Nations ëguard forceí that would be
recruited by the Secretary-General and placed at the disposal of the
Security CouncilÖIt is high time that a UN Volunteer Force was
established. We envisage a force with a maximum of 10,000 personnel.î
Back to the question
Letís summarize. The UN plans for a World Court that can try
individual citizens from any nation on earth. It wants to abolish
the veto power so that nations will be unable to stop any action
that the global majority would decide upon. The United Nations is
planning for its own tax system so that it will not be subject to
the financial control of donor nations. And it wants a standing army
that can move quickly to enforce its decisions upon the nations of
the earth.
Now for the questionÖIs the United Nations in the process of
becoming a government? When you have a system of international law,
the power to tax, the power to place on trial and to incarcerate,
and the power to employ troops to enforce your decisions, ladies and
gentlemenÖyou have a government.
Do not be misled by the slick oratory of those that would deceive us
with such nonsensical statements as: The UN is global governance,
not a global government. Stop the presses! Does anyone have a
dictionary?! What is governance anyhow? World Book Dictionary gives
the following definition for governance: government, rule, control.
The next time a globalist tells you that the UN is not a global
government, but is an instrument for global governance, ask if he is
stupid or if he thinks you are! Governance is government, and global
governance is global government!
The UN has a constitution, a system of laws, courts, an army and a
system of taxation. Only five nations can disobey the edicts of the
United Nations without risking military reprisal. And plans are in
the offing to remove the special status of these five.
What global leaders are saying
Richard Gardner, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, wrote
in Foreign Affairs, April 1974:
ìWe are likely to do better by building our ëhouse of world orderí
from bottom up rather than from the top downÖan end-run around
national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, is likely to get us
to world order faster than the old fashioned assault.î Strobe
Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State during the Clinton administration
and Bill Clintonís roommate at Oxford:
In fact, Iíll bet that within the next hundred years nationhood as
we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single,
global authority. A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid-20th
Centuryóëcitizen of the worldíówill have assumed real meaning by the
end of the 21st Century.î
Robert Muller, Assistant Secretary General to three UN Secretary
Generals; served at the UN for 38 years.
ìAt the beginning the UN was only a hope.
ìToday it is a political reality.
ìTomorrow it will be the worldís religion.
>National sovereignty and global governancebr> When interviewing
Maurice Strong, the man entrusted with reforming the United Nations,
I asked him to explain the difference between global governance and
global government.
Strong stated that nations retained their sovereignty even though
they delegated government at the international level to the UN. He
explained that the states of the United States retain a level of
sovereignty even though they have delegated sovereignty at the
national level to the federal government.
This comparison did not comfort me at all since I live in the United
States. All U.S. citizens know very well that the individual states
are not sovereign. Perhaps this would be a good time to take a look
at the definition of sovereignty. World Book Dictionary defines
sovereignty this way: Independent of the control of another
government or governments. World Book gives the following example to
clarify the definition: The United States of America is a sovereign
nation, but the 50 states which compose it do not have full
sovereignty.
The bottom line is thisÖif the United States ever surrenders its
veto on the UN Security Council, we will merely be one of the states
in the United States of the World. We will no longer be a sovereign
nation.
Why do globalists attempt to deceive by saying that the UN is global
governance not global government? Because they know that the vast
majority of us do not want to be under the control of a world
government. But they believe that world government is the answer for
the future of the world. Consequently, they attempt to disguise
world government by calling it global governance. The effort to
deceive is deliberate!
The UN has a set of laws. It has a court system. It has a Secretary
General and a General Assembly. The UN has soldiers that enforce its
will on the world. And it will soon have its own system of global
taxation.
The sooner we face the truth, the better. If it looks like a duck,
walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.
Ladies and gentlemen, the United Nations is a world government!
Furthermore, it is the world government prophesied in the Bible over
which the Antichrist will soon rule!