Those who are familiar with the inner workings of the Council on Foreign Relations and the United Nations have faced the reality of this movement a long time ago. However, Americans do not have to look beyond the White House and today’s world leaders to see that this movement is beginning to come to fruition, and suddenly, ”world order” and “global government,” or “global governance” as the leftists attempt to call it (as if there is a difference), have become inoffensive and widely accepted terms. It is as if we are growing desensitized to the language at its increasing presence.
In a 1997 speech given by James Gustav Speth, executive director of the United Nations Development Program, at the World Conference on Rio, he definitively claimed, “Global governance is here to stay and driven by economic and environmental globalization, global governance will inevitably expand.”
In 1999, the United Nations released a development report attempting to differentiate between “global government” and “global governance” that stated: “Governance is not government. It is the framework of rules, institutions, and practices that set limits on behavior of individuals, organizations, and companies.” Did that clarify things for you? I think not, seeing as though despite attempts at semantics, there is truly no difference.
During President Obama’s campaign, then-candidate Obama appeared in Germany, where he remarked, “Now is the time to join together through shared sacrifice and global commitment of progress.” Why would the man running for election to the position of United States President feel the need to give a campaign speech in Europe?
More recently, President Obama gave a speech at West Point in which he shamefully tried to sell the idea of global government to the cadets. He said, “The international order we seek is one that can resolve the trouble of our times.” Fortunately, Obama’s words were not warmly received by the cadets, most of whom recognize the importance of American sovereignty.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the United States Navy, whose newest advertisement reads: “America’s Navy: A Global Force For Good.”
Andy Stern, former president of the SEIU, has openly argued for the necessity of global government. Stern maintained, “We created global trade, we created global finance, we created global companies, but we forgot to create a global government, or global organization, or global regulators…. We realize we let global capitalism run amok and we need global regulation. And today, we began the process in London of actually putting in place those regulations.” Americans didn’t ask for global economic interdependence, and now that it has been imposed on us, the initiators are arguing for the necessity of global regulation.
In his 2004 keynote address to the SEIU Convention, Stern stated, “And today, I send this message to every emerging global corporation — ‘justice,’ ‘family,’ ‘community,’ and ‘union’ are the same in every language. And wherever you go and whatever you do, a new global labor movement is coming to find you.” Intimidating much?
What’s worse is that President Obama has added Andy Stern to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. When he did, Obama celebrated and said, “This is our moment, SEIU. This is our time. And if you keep marching with me and organizing with me in all the 50 states, together, you and I, we’re going to change this country and we are going to change the world.”
When the Minister of International Trade signed the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement on May 14, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper noted, “In a globalized economy, we are going to have to take global responsibilities. And they’re going to — it is going to have to be some semblence of global governance on these questions.”
On May 25, Tim Geithner, U.S. Treasury Secretary, admitted that Washington is “quite open” to the gradual development of a global reserve currency proposed by China that would be controlled by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The United States already maintains a 17-percent investment with the IMF, which virtually means that for every $1 the IMF pays out, America pays 17 cents. Already we are beginning to see the downfalls of entities like the European Union and the IMF, even as they have forced global and economic interdependence. One false move in Europe can topple the world’s economy. The White House intends to exploit this fear to manipulate us into buying into their scheme of “global governance.”
In 2009, the politically powerful billionaire George Soros told the Financial Times, “I think this would be the time because you really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order.”
Most troublesome is that Americans have not yet realized what a global government truly means for them. Andy Stern, the same man who argued for the necessity of global government, remarked, “There are opportunities in America to share better in the wealth, to rebalance the power and unions and government are part of the solution. But we need big answers, not small ones. Workers of the world united. It’s not just a slogan anymore. It’s the way we’ll have to do our work.” Yes, Stern quoted Karl Marx.
Furthermore, in 1976, the United Nations addressed land use at the Conference on Human Settlements, and noted, “Private land ownership is also a principle 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.” Interestingly enough, Fannie and Freddie now control 96 percent of American residential mortgages. The federal government already owns 30 percent of American lands, and plans to acquire 10 million more acres just this year alone.
In other words, we are beginning to see the words of global-government supporters become a reality.
On a global level, when the political elite talks about the redistribution of wealth coupled with global government, they are referring to the redistribution of American wealth since America remains the richest country in the world. This will be achieved through cap and trade, government bailouts, and financial regulation if the progressives have their way. In 2007, Al Gore himself confessed that the congressional climate bill would “drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.”
When you are hearing it straight from the horses’ mouths, can you still pretend it’s not happening?
Photo of Andy Stern: AP Images