UNITED NATIONS NEW WORLD ORDER
Your Secretary General. Your New World Order Keepers. Your E-mail!
Registrant: United Nations New World Order (UNNWO2-DOM) 950 Charter Street Redwood City, CA 94063 US Domain Name: UNNWO.COM Administrative Contact, Billing Contact: Vixie, Paul (PV15) paul@VIX.COM M.I.B.H., LLC 950 Charter Street Redwood City, CA 94063 +1.650.779.7000 (FAX) +1.650.779.7055 Technical Contact: Stuart, Stephen John, Jr. (SHS) stuart@TECH.ORG Stephen Stuart 950 Charter St. Redwood City, CA 94063 650-779-7036 (FAX) (415) 324-2797 (FAX) 650-779-7055 Record last updated on 09-Jan-2000. Record expires on 09-Jan-2002. Record created on 09-Jan-2000. Database last updated on 9-Jan-2001 00:58:07 EST. Domain servers in listed order: NS-EXT.VIX.COM 22.214.171.124 NS1.GNAC.COM 126.96.36.199
Registrant: United Nations New World Order (UNNWO3-DOM) 950 Charter Street Redwood City, CA 94063 US Domain Name: UNNWO.NET Administrative Contact, Billing Contact: Vixie, Paul (PV15) paul@VIX.COM M.I.B.H., LLC 950 Charter Street Redwood City, CA 94063 +1.650.779.7000 (FAX) +1.650.779.7055 Technical Contact: Stuart, Stephen John, Jr. (SHS) stuart@TECH.ORG Stephen Stuart 950 Charter St. Redwood City, CA 94063 650-779-7036 (FAX) (415) 324-2797 (FAX) 650-779-7055 Record last updated on 09-Jan-2000. Record expires on 09-Jan-2002. Record created on 09-Jan-2000. Database last updated on 9-Jan-2001 00:58:07 EST. Domain servers in listed order: NS-EXT.VIX.COM 188.8.131.52 NS1.GNAC.COM 184.108.40.206
Registrant: United Nations New World Order (UNNWO-DOM) 950 Charter Street Redwood City, CA 94063 US Domain Name: UNNWO.ORG Administrative Contact, Billing Contact: Vixie, Paul (PV15) paul@VIX.COM M.I.B.H., LLC 950 Charter Street Redwood City, CA 94063 +1.650.779.7000 (FAX) +1.650.779.7055 Technical Contact: Stuart, Stephen John, Jr. (SHS) stuart@TECH.ORG Stephen Stuart 950 Charter St. Redwood City, CA 94063 650-779-7036 (FAX) (415) 324-2797 (FAX) 650-779-7055 Record last updated on 09-Jan-2000. Record expires on 09-Jan-2002. Record created on 09-Jan-2000. Database last updated on 9-Jan-2001 12:52:41 EST. Domain servers in listed order: NS-EXT.VIX.COM 220.127.116.11 NS1.GNAC.COM 18.104.22.168
This seemingly innocuous information adds a new and dangerous connotation to Vixie's crusade. It is the link that explains many things he's doing "in your face" as implementing the agenda of extremist political activists. The New World Order (Novus Ordo Seclorum in Latin, loosely translated) is a controversial political subject. And Vixie is not alone: David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, leader of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and Bilderberg group member, is also a director and major stock holder of Metromedia Fiber Network.
While NetSide doesn't necessarily take sides in endorsing any views expressed by others, we do present the following relevant information for your understanding of the issue.
Friday July 25, 2003
NEW YORK - Doers and doings in business, entertainment and technology.
After six decades running the world's biggest banks, promoting American interests abroad and giving millions to charity, the last thing you would want for your golden years is to be pestered by the Securities and Exchange Commission. But that's happening to David Rockefeller. The 88-year-old financier was subpoenaed to supply documents related to an investigation of bankrupt Metromedia Fiber Network. The former chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank served as a company director from 1997 until 2001, and sat on the teleco's audit committee. The firm announced it would restate 2001 results after filing for Chapter 11 in May 2002. The SEC began investigating the Metromedia Fiber Network's revised loss of $5.36 billion a month later. Word of the subpoena was made public after Rockefeller filed court papers asking for reimbursement for the cost of producing the documents. Rockefeller could probably pay for all fees involved out of his own pocket--he has an estimated net worth of $2.5 billion.
Sunday August 27, 2000
Several years ago, businesswoman Joan Veon had no idea she would one day be standing toe-to-toe with world leaders, challenging their ideas on global government. Since that time, however, Veon has done extensive research on the United Nations and the organization's agenda and has attended dozens of U.N. conferences. In her book, "Prince Charles -- The Sustainable Prince," Veon explores the prince's connections to both the U.N. and the most powerful corporate leaders in the world.
WorldNetDaily reporter and talk show host Geoff Metcalf recently interviewed Veon about her analysis of the United Nations and its plans for the future.
Metcalf's daily radio show can be heard on TalkNetDaily weekdays from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern time.
Question: Please explain to our readers the path to your discovery about the United Nations and its agenda.
Answer: Before I went to Cairo to attend a U.N. conference, I thought I was sophisticated; I thought I was well informed. I was a community activist and was very concerned with what was going on in the schools -- abortion, condom distribution, outcome-based education. I was testifying at the county level and at the state level on various social issues. I really thought I had it together. I was challenged to go to this economic conference in Cairo because I write an economic newsletter and I really wanted to see up close what the United Nations was, because I realized I didn't know who they were or what they did.
I was quite shocked and amazed at what I saw at this United Nations conference. It wasn't just the conference itself, it was the structure. It was the sophistication of advancement of an agenda that I had absolutely no knowledge about. I remember Vice President Gore -- he was just elected at that time -- giving a keynote address about reducing population. And I thought, "What? Do the American people know what's going on?"
Cairo was my wake-up call. I came home from Cairo mad, upset and with a suitcase full of their material. I wanted to find out how big, deep, vast, broad, how far advanced the whole agenda was. When I got back home, I realized there was a complete dumbing-down, a complete blackout of what the whole agenda was and what it meant.
Q: What was the difference between when you attended the Cairo event, ostensibly as an innocent, and when you went to Gorbachev's party in San Francisco in '95?
A: That was about a year later. In between those two conferences, I went to about seven others. I was still in the process of trying to figure out the agenda when I went to my first Gorbachev "State of the World" forum. For two and a half years, I felt like my head was in a bowl of Jell-O because I was trying to connect, I was trying to understand.
You know, when you and I talk about this agenda, it's not a short, 24-second stringer like they have us do in radio because that's how long people's attention span is. It really takes some time to get into the agenda. In six years, I have attended 36 conferences and have talked with presidents and prime ministers all over the world.
Q: I'd like to throw a few key phrases at you and get your response. "Public-private partnerships." That sounds pretty benign.
A: One of the things to remember is the United Nations never defines words. Actually, words end up becoming very hidden in their meaning. That was part of what I was trying to figure out in trying to understand what their agenda was. Public-private partnerships is a phrase I first came across in 1996. I spent six months researching it. I've written two books about it. It is extremely simple and very, very key. And let me say, it is Al Gore who has spearheaded a complete structural change of our government through public-private partnership. Interestingly enough, he's not even talking about it as to why the American people should elect him president when he has already restructured our Constitution. But a public-private partnership is exactly what it says.
Q: Break it down for us into its various components.
A: First of all, it is a partnership. It is a business arrangement. That is extremely important. The idea of any business is profit. The partners in this particular arrangement are both public and private. The public partners pertain to government: local, county, state, federal, foreign and international governments. They can all be involved, one or two or three can be involved.
Q: We have a real good example that was just pushed through and it seemed benign at the time. The agreement that Andy Cuomo blackmailed Smith and Wesson to sign was ostensibly a public-private partnership, which would have resulted in government control of a private industry.
A: The private partners are business, multinational, transnational corporations -- as well as nongovernmental organizations, these minions of a different philosophy other than the Constitution who are all funded by the foundations of the multinational, transnational corporations. So, what is a public-private partnership? It is the shifting of government responsibility and government services into a partnership with other parties -- primarily those who have deep pockets -- because your county, local and state governments are all bankrupt. What they are now saying is, "Look, we need stronger hands, deeper pockets to help us do what we used to do. We're going to do it a little differently."
Q: Once again, the golden rule: The guy with the gold makes the rules.
A: Exactly. They say, "We're going to do it in a partnership, a public-private partnership."
The people of Dallas don't want their taxes raised, so they have to use what they call "innovative financing." The city sewer system has just shifted from being owned by the people of Dallas into this new entity, which is a partnership jointly owned by government and business. These people are sitting around the corporate table. The bottom line is, who has the power? Obviously, you and I know very clearly -- whoever has the deepest pockets and the most money has the power. What has just happened?
Q: A redistribution of assets?
A: Yes, sir. A major asset has been shifted out of governmental hands into a new relationship, a public-private partnership that is for business, which is, by way of philosophical bent, fascism, because fascism is the marriage between government and business. The bottom line now is profit -- and the citizens now become customers.
Q: One of the things we have to try to explain to our readers is a phrase that is starting to be repeated more and more -- "sustainable development." What does that really mean?
A: Sustainable development came out of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and, in fact, I titled my book, "Prince Charles -- The Sustainable Prince" after sustainable development. He was the one who has been pushing this Orwellian agenda.
The bottom line is, it is a new concept. The phrase "sustainable development" was never used in any U.N. document before 1992. The Rio Earth Summit is where it made its debut. Sustainable development basically says there are too many people on the planet, that we must reduce the population, that the United Nations is the only organization in a position to help monitor and control the assets of the world.
Q: When you tried to look for the genesis of the philosophy, you looked in the Constitution, and, not surprisingly, it's not there. But you did find it somewhere. Tell us where.
A: One day I was analyzing these concepts, and I thought, "Wait a minute. It's not in my Constitution." So, I immediately thought, "What is the opposite of my Constitution?" It is the Russian constitution. And I had just purchased a book, a copy of the 1977 U.S.S.R. constitution, and I got as far as Chapter 2, Article 18, and there it was. Not using the words "sustainable development," but there was a full description of sustainable development as to having to care for the earth for future generations.
If I needed any proof that the United Nations agenda was communist, that was the document that handed me the proof. When you look at all the countries in the world, the United States is the only country with the kind of representative government we have, with a Constitution with inalienable, God-given rights, not guaranteed or dependent on what you say or do -- they are your rights, period. In those rights, we have personal property rights. All of a sudden, we have the United States supporting, orchestrating, enhancing an evil agenda I realized was communist.
Q: Where does this spiritual link to Gaia come in? Is that just window dressing to try to sell it to the masses? It's like these would-be controllers are attempting a major spiritual shift from the Judeo-Christian ethic to Gaia. What is Gaia?
A: I guess you could call it window dressing. Gaia is Greek for "Mother Earth." What really happened at the United Nations Rio Earth Summit was, first and foremost, philosophical. The world up until 1992 -- and it still is in our opinion -- was under the Judeo-Christian ethic. Under the Judeo-Christian ethic, God gave man dominance over the earth. In 1992, what the United Nations did was, they perverted, inverted, that truth, and they basically said man was no longer dominant over the earth, but the earth was dominant over man. They said that we, as men, as living human beings, were equal to the plants and the animals. And so, what Gaia really is, is paganism. So, we now have the United Nations espousing a pagan religion and they are trying to make it equal for each one of us and therefore stamp out the validity and personhood of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the savior of the world.
Q: In their effort to use as a tool these public-private partnerships and all these non-governmental organizations, wouldn't it be reasonable to try to exploit the traditional churches as part of that public-private partnership?
A: That's coming; it's on the docket. Interestingly enough, we are seeing public-private partnerships in each area. It's not only the water system and the sewer but it is all areas, all levels of services that the government used to provide. We are now seeing, and interestingly, Rep. J.C. Watts from Oklahoma City has been spearheading, public-private partnerships between governments and churches.
Q: That's rather like a return to feudalism, isn't it?
A: Yes it is. That's exactly what's happening.
Under our form of government, we the people had rights and we had ownership in the government. When you shift the assets of government into a public-private partnership, as you are shifting those assets (which is a transfer of wealth), those of us who are paying taxes have to say, "Hey, what are my tax dollars going for?" Before, when we had government under the Constitution, I knew I was supporting government to provide certain services. Now, under public-private partnership, when all of these things and all of these assets have been shifted out from the aegis of government, where are my tax dollars going and for what reason? That equates to the same kind of feudal system whereby the serfs had to pay rent on the land that they worked.
Q: What I really see is an incremental progression from the republic we still think we enjoy to fascism to eventually feudalism. Is that the long-term plan?
A: Absolutely. And that is where I have been going in my research. I'm looking to write my third book about 21st century feudalism because that is exactly the shift we are making.
Q: Recently, you sent me a chart that I think was intended to crystallize and clarify things for me. I thought I was looking at some kind of DNA chart in a science class I didn't sign up for. Can you please try to explain the chart?
A: It's all interconnected. Two years ago when I wrote "Prince Charles -- The Sustainable Prince" -- and this book is as up-to-date today as it was then in the material and in the message -- I realized that this thing looks like an ameba.
Q: It looks like something Gene Rodenberry invented when he was way behind a deadline. There are financial bodies, U.N. agencies, multinational corporations, professional bodies, NGOs and a lot of arrows.
A: Let me explain. The United Nations has had the Security Council, which is composed of the five permanent members, and they decide whether or not we're going to go to war as a world. Then we have representatives from every country, which they call the "lower assembly" or the "first chamber," and that's composed of ambassadors from the different countries to the United Nations. What they have been working on in the United Nations since 1988, and even before, is a second chamber, a people's chamber or "the peoples parliament."
Q: The "perception" of democratization?
A: Yes. And so I include this chart to show that where the United Nations is evolving is toward a people's chamber or representative government on the international level that bypasses our Congress.
What we are seeing with the U.N. is, first of all, that all the countries are reinventing their governments. They are all shifting governmental assets into public-private partnerships. There are a few chosen in the inner circle who are busy as part of the multinational, transnational corporations.
Q: We are now seeing legislation in Congress to authorize about 6,000 troops for a United Nations army. Is this another part of the incrementalism?
A: Absolutely. Let me just mention, when we start taking a look at the United Nations and the power it has amassed over the last 55 years -- its structure -- it is pretty big, pretty vast and pretty deep. The bottom line is, there are three things missing to make it full world government. Number one, representative government at the international level, which is the People's Millennium Assembly. They want the people of the world to have their own voice.
Q: They want them to "think" they have their own voice.
A: That's correct. Number two, global taxation. Believe me: they are not going to rest until they have a way of unlimited income from you and me. Number three would be a rapid deployment force. And yes, we now have a House Bill, HR 4453, to allow America to send 6,000 of her finest to the United Nations to serve under United Nations jurisdiction and control. I think they want 42,000, so it's seven countries to begin with.
Q: Several countries have already agreed to this, and the core of the rapid deployment force is in place.
A: That's right. What that means is, every time somebody doesn't want world government, they already have a rapid deployment force that can be sent immediately to take care of the problem.
Q: How integral is the British Royal Family in all this?
A: That is something I have been researching and constantly I am finding connections to the British Royal Family with the United Nations. For example, Prince Charles, in the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum, which we haven't had time to go into, basically is writing books on corporate governance. You see, when you shift government from government to a public-private partnership, corporations now are in a position of governance. They call it corporate governance. Interestingly enough, Prince Charles and his Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum are leaders and trendsetters in what corporate governance means and how to do it through public-private partnerships.
Q: In an interview that Prince Charles gave on BBC in 1994, he said, "So much I try to do is behind the scenes. So it is difficult for people to understand how all the things fit together." Frankly, isn't part of his objective not to let people know how "all the things fit together"?
A: Absolutely! And that's why I find it fascinating that Charles is coming out of the closet for the Gorbachev State of the World Forum, which will be donuted around the People's Millennium Assembly. The agendas are the same. Mikhail Gorbachev, the United Nations and Prince Charles -- their agendas are all the same. And my question is, which throne does Charles really want?
Q: I know people who have received death threats for writing less compelling, less researched and documented stuff than you have. Yet you still continue to attend all these events. You are going to be in New York in September right?
Q: How are you received at all these U.N. conferences? Are you considered the crazy aunt in the basement no one wants to acknowledge?
A: Not at all, because I understand their agenda. To be honest, I have had some absolutely hilarious run-ins with major movers and shakers on a global level who, when I level THE question at them, are so dumbfounded, they answer it. Then, they get mad at me or they get mad at themselves for answering it. I'm doing a job, just like you and WorldNetDaily. I'm looking to help the American people understand the threats to our sovereignty, the threats to our freedom, our personal property rights and the fact that we appear to be on the deck of the Titanic and going down. It's up to Americans to make sure that doesn't happen.
Q: So how do we stop it?
A: Number one, the battle at this point has basically shifted down to the local, county and state levels. That's where our battle is. Get involved; look around; ask questions; don't be afraid. I believe it is a spiritual battle above all and, therefore, I think it begins with us, with our own humbleness and repentance before God. The bottom line is, once freedom is lost, it is lost forever. It is irretrievable. It would be a lot harder to get freedom once we lost it versus protecting it and saving it while we still have it.
In the aftermath of Y2K, many have been wondering exactly what all the hype was in the first place. Was Y2K real or imagined, was it built up to provide a cover for the real agenda and/or were we hoodwinked? The following combines my views before and after December 31, 1999. The depth of world government was made deeper and stronger by a number of other actions which took place economically as well while all eyes were on the Y2K hype as presented by our government and the media. World government became stronger as we were wired to one another electronically and while the global financial architecture was made stronger.
In the last five years I have covered, as a reporter, 35 UN and UN related conferences on a number of continents. It was my first conference in 1994 which made me realize that we are in a time of world government. It is my opinion that while the beginnings of world government began long ago, I believe the current world governmental infrastructure was begun between 1941 and 1943 with the passage of the United Nations Charter by the United States government in 1945 as its official birthday. In this regard, I have authored two books. My first is Prince Charles the Sustainable Prince which deals with the behind-the- scenes role of the British Royal family and their power and influence on the United Nations agenda as a way of bringing America back under their control. My second book, the United Nations' Global Straitjacket, is a hand book dealing with the political, economic, and environmental aspects of the world governmental structure which has been erected on the international level above us. All that is needed to bring this understanding into the forefront of everyone's understanding on the local level, in my opinion, is a planned (because everything is planned), managed and catastrophic event to make the transition from the world we know which is based on the United States Constitution to that of recognizable world government based on the United Nations Charter.
In the first edition of Global Straitjacket, I projected that Y2K would do a number of things which are enumerated below. The things which I said Y2K would do which have not been fulfilled (yet), will be fulfilled in a different way, or will never come to pass are: (1) it would present an excellent opportunity to move the United States and the world into "official" world government, that is we are currently living in world government but because all of the people have yet to recognize it, that a planned, managed and catastrophic event would be needed in order to effect a change in how we are governed from the Constitution to one of world government through the United Nations (perhaps it will be fulfilled in the future), (2) put into effect all of President Clinton's Executive Orders (not yet--you don't issue orders unless you have a purpose and a reason. In this case, we will have to wait and see), and (3) cause starvation in third world countries (hopefully will never happen).
In view of the fact that the lights never went out on December 31 1999, exactly what did happen through the Y2K process?
For two years the United States and the world prepared to fight a common enemy--one which has no face, borders, parliament or president. We were told that as a result of poor programming back in the 1960's, sufficient room was not made in computer memories for the roll over of the years into a new millennium. This problem was called "Y2K". We were told that if the software and billions of lines of computer software was not fixed, the world could find itself in chaos. In 1997 Newsweek printed an article entitled "The Day the World Shuts Down" in which it listed all of the sectors of society--industry, the military, banking, medicine, communications, and electrical utilities--that are dependent on computers to run and microprocessors to facilitate the computer process. The article pointed out that buildings could shut down, air traffic control systems could go dead, the entire financial infrastructure could go haywire, military preparedness could be adversely affected, billing systems could get lost, and cardiac monitors in hospitals could shut down (Washington Times-WT, October 17, 1998, A2).
On the heels of a growing awareness two Y2K books came out which became best sellers. Explaining the problem in a logical manner, one author, Michael S. Hyatt, offered three scenarios based on a survey of 38 computer experts and year 2000 researchers of what they predicted. The results pointed to either a blackout or a complete meltdown of the entire system. On top of that numerous executive orders were issued which could shift the power of government to the Federal Emergency Management System in the case of a catastrophe.
In response to this ominous threat, the President issued Executive Order 13073 establishing the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion in February 1998. The Council is comprised of representatives from more than 30 major federal executive and regulatory agencies and charged with outreach into the public and private sectors, both domestic and internationally. John Koskinen was appointed to head up the Council, a position which was given Cabinet level status. Since this posed a global threat, the United Nations held two well attended Y2K conferences in December 1998 and June 1999 for all of the nation-states. They also set up the International Y2K Cooperation Center and a Steering Committee to fight this common foe. Furthermore, they instructed each nation-state to appoint a Y2K National Coordinator who would be not only their country's liaison, but would be the key contact person for other countries, governments, agencies, organizations, and corporations as well.
While writing Global Straitjacket in late 1998-early 1999, I concluded in the middle of writing it that Y2K was going to be serious since it appeared to have all of the necessary requirements for a "planned, managed, and catastrophic event" to catapult us from "unofficial world government" with the form of government and way of life which we have known into "official world government" where the rules we live by and the government structure we have known is replaced with "new" rules using the infrastructure which has been put in place since 1945 on the international level. As you will see, I was incorrect when it came to a physical transfer because Y2K was a transfer of the world from individual nation-states to a new electronically interconnected world which uses wires, computer processors, and electricity to cement individual countries together! We are now ONE electronically (and economically).
From June 1998 until September 30 1999, I believed Y2K was going to be very serious. My whole understanding underwent a "sea change" when I attended the Annual September-October 1999 IMF/World Bank meeting in Washington, D. C. At that key and strategic meeting where everything of importance is discussed, Y2K was a non event--there were no rumblings or undertones about it. Since this was the last major economic conference for the year and the millennium, and in light of several other high level economic meetings earlier in the year where Y2K was a non-event, I concluded just that--a non event. If the "big boys" who run the world's monetary system were not concerned, then there was no reason to be concerned. Furthermore I realized these same "big boys" probably were not going to go out of 1999 on a market down, but they were going to go out on a major up swing (right before the IMF/World Bank meeting, the market dropped to a low for the year). I then realized and predicted that we would have one of the strongest bull markets ever. Furthermore, I made this statement at a number of conferences, on radio, and wrote about it in my September Veon Financial Services Inc. economic newsletter.
THE Y2K BUG
When there were no meltdowns, blackouts, or incidents of any kind on December 31, it was declared on national television, "The Y2K BUG HAS BEEN MET AND CONQUERED." This statement, along with reading Y2K Czar John Koskinen's press briefings provided me with new insight as to the real agenda behind the Y2K scare. I was correct with regard to The Report From Iron Mountain and a number of other observations but I was obviously wrong with regard to a physical transition into "official world government." Exactly what did Y2K do?
In addition to the things mentioned above, Y2K provided a once in a lifetime opportunity for the nation-states of the world who were not Internet savvy to get wired, it provided an opportunity to transition business and government into a new working relationship which compliments reinvented government, it sets up an electronic network (brains) which is unparalleled in all of history, it spurred the economies of the world and sets the tone for a cashless society, all of which facilitate world government and control.
When a new house is built, the foundation is laid, then the structure and roof are added. The wiring allows for the structure to have power and for the builder to chose the type of power which that house is going to use. Y2K was the wiring of the house of world government. Y2K provided the excuse to transfer the world from individual nation-states into an electronically knit together world--a world which is now ONE and which includes both governments and corporations. Beginning January 1 2000, we entered world government electronically--we now transcend time and space!
A follow up question then is, "Were we misled or deceived by our government as to the seriousness of the situation?" While each person will have to decide for him or herself, I believe Y2K had to be painted as being serious (and we are told that it was) in order to have sufficient reason to get Americans to agree with Congress that the money had to be spent. Telling American that the real reason for Y2K is to get the world wired or telling them that we have to spend money to fight the Y2K bug because of all the damage it will do creates that unifying desire to "meet the enemy eye to eye and win"! With regard to foreign countries, many of them do not have and cannot provide the basics for their people let alone spend monies on getting wired. In order for them to justify the repositioning of critical dollars, a "global problem had to be created."
This picture begins to make sense when you look at how the United Nations painted Y2K. It does appear that Y2K provided that timeless opportunity for the nation-states of the world who were not Internet savvy to get wired. In a speech at the second UN conference on Y2K in June 1999, UN Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette said in part,
"The millennium bug threatens to disrupt finance, trade, shipping, telecommunications, air traffic control and other vital public services such as electricity and natural disaster preparedness. It casts a shadow over issues of peace and security.
"The International Y2K Cooperation Centre was created with remarkable speed following the [UN] meeting in December 1998. The number of countries with a Y2K plan and a national coordinator has risen. New coalitions are being forged among business, industry, governments, and international organizations. Such solidarity and problem-solving shows the United Nations in action (emphasis added). Working Groups [have] forged innovative partnerships with all available expertise, including the private sector and academia; and it has facilitated the efforts of the Secretariat and wider United Nations family to create an electronic organization.
"Ambassador Ahmad Kamal [of Pakistan] helped all of us harness the Internet, e-mail and other new communications technologies to our global mission of peace, development and human rights (emphasis added).
"We must all continue to take advantage of what the new technologies have to offer--for diplomacy and development, for advocacy and education. We must all pursue a vision of a new century in which all people are [technologically] empowered (emphasis added)."
From this speech, it becomes clear that the need to battle the "Y2K bug" was basically an excuse and opportunity to synchronize the whole world electronically in order to bring the lesser developed countries into the electronic age--a different agenda than what we had been told by the American press starts to emerge.
So what did Y2K do? Let's take a look at what was said by Koskinen at several press briefings in early January as well as look at several publications.
(1) Electronic Network or Brains
The press briefings which John Koskinen gave in the first few days of this new millennium provided us with the real truth of what Y2K was--an excuse to "wage war" in order to integrate the world using an electronic medium which can only further erase borders, and make us ONE, facilitating global integration in a new way for a new century.
Koskinen outlined the following ways we were integrated (my word, not his):
The ICC was established, designed and run by General Peter Kind. It is an information collection mechanism focused on dealing with information from around the world, the country and various levels of government. Koskinen organized more than 25 task forces to reach out to industry groups, corporations, the United Nations, and foreign trading partners. He has collected confidential industry information to assess the potential Y2K risks (Washington Post-WP, 12/16/99, G8). Reports sent to the center came from all federal agencies, domestic agencies, the Federal Reserve Board, every area of the executive branch and FEMA.
In explaining the vastness of the ICC, Koskinen said, "What we have [en]capsulated here in the Information Coordinator Center is a unique operation. Communication going on, back and forth, with not only all of our embassies, but national coordinators in over 100 countries around the world, all freely exchanging information back and for now, which is the final step in a long process of exchanging technical information and advice over the last couple years. We have begun to look at the question of how we can build on this sort of unprecedented amount of cooperation and work together."
Interesting to note, at the 1996 United Nation's Habitat II Conference, the secretary-general of that conference, Dr. Wally N'Dow declared, "Now what we are doing here is building...the global brain." N'Dow was discussing the cooperation found in partnerships with governments, corporations, and civil society. When you "wire" this global brain, you get a powerful interconnectedness which cannot be taken apart.
Every major financial institution created a Y2K committee. At the Bank for International Settlements- BIS in Basel, Switzerland, they held several Y2K coordinating meetings. The Market Authorities Communication Service was established for financial authorities and involves and has involved for some time periodic conference calls between central bankers and market regulators on a regular basis to determine at key critical times if they were or are any issues which needed to be discussed and dealt with (Chapters 5,6,7)
In short, if you could encapsulate what transpired, it would be that an x-ray was taken of every aspect of life, business, industry, manufacturing, communications, defense, police--fire--rescue operations, water---electric-- gas--coal natural resources, hospital services, the operations of local, country, municipal, state, and federal government in order to determine how to change the system from what it was to meet that of 21st century global governance using technology.
(2) Partnerships (Chapter 2 of Global Straitjacket)
Joe Lockhart, White House Spokesman said this about Y2K, "I think the Y2K success story to date is very much a testament to the government working in partnership with local governments, communities, and corporations."
At the heart of Bill Clinton's "Reinventing Government" program begun in 1993 is a new form of government which is based on partnership---public-private partnerships which is a marriage between government, business and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In the old days, this was recognized for what it is--fascism. Throughout the United States, this new governmental form has been replacing representative government rendering politicians nothing more than paper pushers as the multinational and transnational corporations use their deep pockets to fund projects which heretofore had been the responsibility of county, local, municipal, state and federal governments.
For example in the area of utilities, there are 3200 independent electric utilities in which electric power is generated 51% by coal, 20% by nuclear energy, 15% by gas, and 10% by hydro. In order to come together, it required numerous levels of interaction: the Department of Energy (federal government), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to coordinate Y2K re-mediation efforts, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Rural Utility Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission (federal agencies), the North American Electric Reliability Council (non- federal entity, state public utility commission), along with the American Public Power Association, the Electric Power Research Institute, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Edison Electric Institute, the Nuclear Energy Institute and the Canadian Electric Association (associations/institutes) (Source: Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Program, published February 24, 1999). Most of the associations represent electric companies.
With regard to state and local government, in addition to the 50 state governments, there are 3,068 county government jurisdictions and approximately 87,000 other local government jurisdictions in the United States. In order to help these governments deliver police, fire, and emergency medical services response, financial support networks, welfare, and Medicaid, unemployment insurance, basic utilities such as water and wastewater, sanitation and local transportation, numerous intergovernmental councils and professional organizations were engaged: the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the International City/County Management Association, as well as the National Governor's Association which focused on state, local, and private-sector coordination and on establishing a common agenda" (Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Program, published 2/24/99, 113). In addition, you will see that there was a interconnectedness which occurred between the local fire, police, rescue and the global level. This was facilitated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and a number of international fire, police, rescue organizations.
We were told that in order to defeat the Y2K bug, it was necessary for government and business, industry, manufacturing, along with their respective associations to come together, and form partnerships in order to "fight it", when it now appears to be clear that the real reason was to wire the world. The more you mix and marry government and business on all levels, in all areas of government and society, the less likely it will be that the marriage can be undone as it becomes more and more complicated.
In early January 2000, Koskinen said "We have private sector associations and industries headquartered right now in federal agencies working together hand in glove, exchanging information, make sure that, if there are any issues, we all deal with them immediately. Again, we have been doing that for the last 18 months or so, [and] we hope that there are productive ways to continue and build upon this infrastructure that now exists but it won't happen automatically. We have connectivity and information exchange, both ways, going on between the federal governments, state and local governments, and private sector industries across the United States."
Lastly, there were several other permanent partnerships which were created to fight Y2K. U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and his Russian counterpart created a permanent partnership in the area of energy (WP, 1/4/00, A13). In addition, the United States and Russia created a joint team to monitor Y2K from the U.S. Space Command at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs. This agreement was set up under an agreement signed in 1998 by Defense Secretary William Cohen and his Russian counterpart, Marshal Igor D. Sergeyev. Ultimately the experiment begun will evolve into a permanent Joint Warning Center to be built near Moscow and staffed by officers from both countries (WP, 12/31/99, A29).
(3) Provided Corporations with a Leading Edge for the 21st Century
BusinessWeek declared that the "Y2K Bug Repellent Wasn't a Waste." As it "ultimately it forced
some companies to rethink the role of technology. With new, more 'robust' networks in place, companies can take full advantage of the Web and e-commerce to streamline their businesses and reach new markets. [It] forced companies and government agencies all over the world to get rid of buggy old software and aging hardware and invest in new technology. Now systems are in place to provide a solid foundation for all sorts of new online systems for e-commerce and e-government."
Furthermore, it allowed some companies to now hook up all their employees to the Net for the first time, making it possible to share information and coordinate activities of different operations." The Government was able to get rid of around 20% of their old systems.
DaimlerChrysler got rid of 15,000 old computer programs and made it possible for two-thirds of its plants to connect with each other on the same network for the first time, all for a cost of $260 million.
Technology departments had new discipline imposed by Y2K. Marriott's Y2K czar Ina Kamenz said, "We've got tougher standards in place for the installation, purchase and care of technology" (BusinessWeek-BW, 1/17/00, 35).
Lastly, e-commerce reduces the cost of doing business. Overall most industries will save between 5- 15%.
(4) Spurred the Economies of the World - An Economic Substitute for War (Chapter 4)
It was the Kennedy Administration which commissioned fifteen hand-chosen men who were
experts in their own chosen fields to come together and determine what would have to change in America if we were to enter a permanent time of peace. This top secret report was published by one of the fifteen whose identity still is not known to this day. Their conclusions stated that we would have to find another enemy than our fellow man. They suggested the environment. Since war is an economic stimulus, they determined that ten percent of our Gross Domestic Product would have to be wasted per year. They suggested a number of ways to do that. While the environment was to be the new chief "enemy", other "enemies" included: space, medical research, free housing for the poor, etc.
In Global Straitjacket, I suggested that the cost to fix Y2K would more than pay for any global war. To fight this enemy, the United States government spent over $8.5B and the country, as a whole, spent $100B. In comparison, the cost of the Vietnam War was $300B over ten years. Our legislature made numerous arrangements to accommodate the problems multinational and transnational corporations would encounter. Special legislation was passed giving them immunity from Y2K law suits and for small companies and a special one time tax write-off, limited to $40,000, for the expenses they would incur in fixing their (antiquated and obsolete) computer systems. Furthermore we assisted numerous foreign countries, including Russia and China. The global cost is estimated at $600B.
To what do we credit NASDAQ's stellar rise of 85.6%? I believe it was a combination of the spending to "fix" computers, i.e. to bring the rest of the nation-states on line, as well as a birthing of a new electronic era in business, industry, society, and politics.
The performance of the stock market reflects spending to stimulate the economy in the absence of war as 1999 witnessed the greatest rise in our stock market's history since 1914.
Besides the NASDAQ, the Dow was up 25%, and the Standard and Poor up 19%. It only took 38 trading days for the NASDAQ to climb from 3000 to 4000. Internet stocks were hot at the beginning and end of 1999. The cover of the 70th anniversary edition of BusinessWeek in October 1999 showed two hands edged in yellow to simulate a power surge with the two index fingers extended to meet. The cover read, "the Internet age." In 1998 Charles Schwab emerged as the giant of online trading, controlling 30% of the market and half of the assets in online accounts. In an effort to catch up, Merrill Lynch & Co, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter were both working on plans to be offered later in 1999. Instead of television commercials telling you to call their representatives, brokers are now competing for online traders. The December 27,1999/January 3, 2000 BusinessWeek reflected what happened in 1999 as it read, "Smart Investing for the Internet Age Where to Invest."
What is the product which the Internet stocks are touting? Is it a tangible like steel, automobiles, food, or housing? No, it is knowledge, an intangible something you cannot see or show, but something that gives you the edge over your competition. This alone has prompted politicians and economists alike to call it the "New Economy" as all of the rules for business, the economy, and investing are changing. Does the price/earnings ratio still have relevance in the New Economy? Time will tell.
The rash of Internet initial public offerings made millionaires of people. When E-Loan went public, at the end of the first trading day, the stock rose 164%, increasing its value to $1.4 billion and VA Linus shares went public at $30 and rose to $299 a share in ten days, making the company worth more than $9.5B more than Black and Decker, the steelmaker USX or Wigley (Financial Times-FT, 12/21/99, 14).
In commenting on the 1999 market rally, Allen Sinai, chief global economist at Primark Decision Economics said, "The powerful rallies, and particularly the strength in the NASDAQ, is a sign of the global economy picking up and continued prosperity in the United States. There is no end in sight."
Those looking into the future now predict that besides smart toys, a smart card, smart computers and cars will be "smart appliances" where the refrigerator will be able to tell you which items you need to reorder.
Time has moved from that of a graceful society where there was time to be polite and to smell the roses to one of real time in which knowledge is not only instant but power.
(5) Set the Tone for a Cashless Society
In a society where everything is cashless--American Express, Visa/MasterCard, etc., where we can go anywhere and obtain cash through our check cashing card, where everything can be done through the telephone or by Internet, the next thing to be fully changed is the monetary system. In 1999 there was a concerted effort to make gold obsolete. In 1998 a number of central banks declared their intentions to sell up to 50% of their gold holdings in order to diversify and invest in interest producing investments. This prompted the value of gold to drop to a 25 year low of $255 an ounce. In response a number of highly indebted poor countries were caught in a global squeeze as their indebtedness far exceeds the proceeds received from their gold mining sales. Is gold obsolete? Has it lost its shine?
No. Interestingly enough, the buyers of the gold which the central banks are selling are secret. In an interview with the World Gold Council, they told me there is no way to find out since most of the buying is done by third parties. In November I visited London and was able to look upon some of the extremely valuable gold serving pieces and objects d'art which the British Royal family have at Windsor. Do you think they are going to sell these pieces? No.
What is gold? In the early days of the ancient Middle Eastern trading routes, before there was any kind of currency, traders used several different kinds of specie for money: clothing, food, animals and gold/silver, in addition to jewels. In the Old Testament there are many stories about gifts given and financial exchanges made using any one or all of the above. For money to last, it must have four components:
Medium of Exchange--Durable, portable, divisible, homogenous (uniform structure)
Store of Value--Stable in value
Standard of Value -- Incapable of being counterfeited
Standard of Deferred Payment The purchasing power remains the same
How does gold compare as a form of money?
Medium of Exchange Durable: Gold in a sunken ship is still useable
Store of Value It still has value after all these years
Standard of Value Divisible If you divide a four carat diamond into one carat sizes, you lose value. If you divide gold, it retains value
Standard of Deferred Payment No matter when you use your money, it retains purchasing power. It will always buy the same amount of goods.
We can readily see that gold, over clothing, food, animals, and jewels is the best form of currency as it retains all of the above values. God is not supposed to fluctuate like stock. It's value has been brought down temporarily by the massive selling of central banks. Furthermore, in light of Y2K not being the catastrophic problem which was predicted, many more people have soured with regard to their opinion of gold--which was the objective all along. But for those who understand the possibility that the electronic age renders to "lose account records" with the pressing of a button, they also know and discern the real reasons for owning gold. Lastly, the old adage, "He who owns the gold makes the rules" still applies and always will.
The bottom line? While an electronic system increases production, reduces costs, eliminates waste and basically makes everything sustainable, it is also capable of tracking every individual, rendering them nothing but individual production units with value for as long as they can produce.
In Global Straitjacket, I wrote that Y2K would: (1) require global compliance in ways that companies would never adhere to as they now had to account to numerous government agencies, (2) cause local, state, national and international agencies to interact with each other about disaster relief and other issues which comprised a new level of global cooperation, all of which were needed for global government (chapter 8), (3) present a multitude of problems for which the UN and its nation-states must find solutions, (4) provide an excellent opportunity to merge the world's policemen, firemen, emergency management systems, military forces, national guardsmen, etc., (5) transfer wealth from the rich countries to the poor countries (chapter 8), (6) reinforce the implementation of "reinvented government" at the community level (chapter 2), and (7) would equate the economic stimulus of war without a real war through the expenditures of monies, a goal which " The Report From Iron Mountain" said would be necessary in the absence of war (chapter 4). It appears that all of the above is "right on the money."
Koskinen said, "We view this, not only in the federal government, not only in the state and local governments but in the private sector around the world, as a great accomplishment, meeting what I continue to believe is the most significant management challenge the world has faced in 50 years. Y2K has taught all of us is that the amount of reliance that we have on information technology now, the fact that the famous global economy is increasingly linked electronically, and over the next 5 to 10 years, all of that reliance, and all of that interconnectedness will increase, not decrease. If nothing else, the whole question of information security will become more and more critical to everyone around the world, not just the United States."
STRENGTHENING OF THE GLOBAL
We have been told by the "big boys" who run the world's monetary system that it is the Asian crisis which prompted them to make changes to the global financial architecture. I maintain that when you create the problem in the first place, you then can "solve" it your way--which is what they wanted all along. In 1999 there was a very deep and major restructuring of the global financial architecture which was very deep and very strong. While there were numerous changes and empowerments, we will deal with only two: the Financial Stability Forum and the creation of the GX or G20.
(1) Financial Stability Forum
Since 1975 it is the Group of Seven (G-7) presidents and prime ministers who have set the tone for the way the world turns. Over the years their "powers" have grown as they have expanded their influence over every aspect of life and government. The G-8 is assisted by their Foreign Ministers (our U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright) and their Foreign Finance Ministers (our U.S. Secretary of Treasury Lawrence Summers). It was the Foreign Finance Ministers who stated, "As a result of the Asian crisis, we agreed on the importance of intensified cooperation among us to work together to strengthen the international financial system." Their list was pretty extensive. They called on Hans Tietmeyer, the German Central Bank President to talk with all of the international financial institutions and agencies to recommend new structures.
On February 22 1999, Teitmeyer brought together the G-7 finance ministers and central bank governors as well as many of the global financial to establish the Financial Stability Forum. The first meeting was chaired by Andrew Crockett who is the General Manager of the Bank for International Settlements, the bank's central bank in Switzerland. The members of this new forum basically represent the most powerful international financial organizations in the world. Those organizations participating include: the Group of Seven central bank governors, G-7 finance ministers, G-7 presidents and prime ministers, and G-7 Regulatory agencies (our Comptroller of the Currency and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), along with the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, the International Organization for Security Commissions, the Organization for Security and Commissions, and the Bank for International Settlements. When one considers the power in this new structure, one cannot help but conclude that it resembles a "World Economic Security Council"! The group will meet two times a year to review the "state of the world's economy" and have formed four committees to help monitor changes in the world's economic balance.
(2) GX or G20
In September 1999, an extension of the Group of Seven was convened. It comprises the Group of Seven plus twelve large economies along with representation by the European Union and the IMF/World Bank. They include: China, Mexico, India, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, and Turkey (Note: Currently China and Russia are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council while Argentina's two year participation ends the end of this year). The Finance Ministers from these countries along, with their central bankers, will meet several times a year. Canadian G-7 Treasury Minister Paul Martin will chair the new body which will focus on the future of the international financial system and globalization. The GX or G20 now represents 80% of the world's economic production and about 65% of its population. (When you consider that China is a member of this new body and that they now lease the Panama Canal from Panama, are still being considered by the Clinton administration for "most favored nation" trading status as well as being considered as a new member of the World Trade Organization, you can see how their power is growing.)
What you can see is the transfer of national economic sovereignty to the international level through central banks, the Group of Seven, and the Financial Stability Forum. On the global economic level, we are now one and we act as one.
Lastly, in addition to a major re-wiring of the world so that we are all on the same "electrical system", the celebrations which we witnessed on television on December 31 1999 and the comments made by those who moderated sent a clear message, "We are one." On the PBS station which I watched, the moderator said, "In a sense, the lines between nations and borders are our own contrivance. As we go from capital to capital tonight to ring in the new millennium, we can see that we are one on earth--we are one people united." The songs sang worldwide had a common theme--"peace." Even the Queen of England joined in the celebrations at the Millennium Dome, singing a peace song. Bill Clinton in his Millennium address called for a "just and lasting peace" (the Bible says "Peace, peace when there is no peace").
Going back to building a new house--if the United Nations structure put in place since the 1940's is the foundation and walls, and if the Y2K bug was the wiring (and plumbing), then the only task remaining to complete the house is the finish work. Wonder what that will be comprised of. It will be interesting to see what kind of "moving van" is used to complete the "house of world government."
Tell me, were we hoodwinked? We must keep our options open as we may not have seen the last of Y2K since Executive Orders and the ICC mean something!
November 4, 1998
Is it possible to just take over the Internet's governance? As odd and implausible as this may sound, this is exactly what now appears underway. Last month, a handful of individuals emerged from behind closed doors after 10 weeks. On their own initiative, they announced that they were setting themselves up a new Internet governance regime and entering into a formal international agreement with two United Nations agencies to that effect. Furthermore, they asserted that this was all self executing - a fait accompli. How did this happen? What are the implications?
How this happened
The crown jewels of any communications network - whether the Internet, the telephone system, or anything else - are the unique addresses which everyone must use on the network In the case of the Internet and the popular World Wide Web, these are known as domain names - e.g., washpost.com For the past 25 years, the overall activity was administered by the US government with the actual work parceled out to DOD contractor thinktanks. During most of this period, the arrangement worked well, since the Internet was owned and operated first exclusively by DOD, then later jointly by DOD together with government science agencies. For important national security and research reasons, network-wide policies were established, registrations accomplished, databases maintained, and public directory services made available - all courtesy of the U.S. government.
Over the last couple of years, however, the Internet and the Web blossomed big-time on the public scene worldwide. The vestigial U.S. government role was a minor embarrassment that grew as hundreds of thousands of commercial users of the Internet began obtaining new domain names. To make matters worse, a minuscule few but vociferous users began publicly squabbling and litigating over domain name trademark infringements.
What should have occurred is clear. A responsible government agency should have initiated a public policy proceeding that began transitioning these responsibilities to an open, sanctioned industry body. There are ample applicable legal requirements and precedents. For example, when the government-sanctioned ATT telephone monopoly was broken up in the early 80s, the FCC conducted proceedings that led to open industry identifier and other bodies being created.
What happened instead is that one of the long-standing government contractor employees convinced a private non-profit Internet educational society of which he was a board member, to go forward with a proposal that they should govern Internet identifiers and sell licenses to register domain names. This occurred in early 1996, but didn't proceed very far. To bolster these claims, they created their own committee that consisted almost exclusively of several prominent society members plus staff from two Geneva based U.N. agency secretariats (the ITU and WIPO), and representatives of a private association of major trademark owners and attorneys, the INTA.
The committee was formed in November 1996, and after ten 10 weeks of private meetings and some limited public discussion, issued a "Final Report" setting forth a comprehensive and far reaching new global regime for Internet global identifiers woven around the committee participant's own institutions, with no industry involvement, and effected via a new international agreement with the U.N. agencies. This includes, among other things, the basis for this Internet governance being enabled solely by the society, a lottery scheme for selecting registrars with a $20,000 entry fee, an elaborate new WIPO administered trademark dispute process, and a "stipulat[ion] that the Internet top level domain space is regarded as a public resource and is subject to the public trust...[and] a public policy issue" and therefore under the ITU's general oversight. Thus, every one of the participating institutions got a little something out of the deal.
Setting aside the merits of the administrative details being proposed, what is really occurring here? And, is this a wise or even a lawful way to proceed? The issues can be distilled down to two fundamental ones.
1) Can a government policy making and administrative activity maintained for an important communications infrastructure for more than 20 years be simply spontaneously abandoned to any entity that asserts it is taking over in whatever manner it chooses? 2) Conversely, can a private group of individuals simply devise a global, comprehensive legal and administrative regime for the Internet in the form of an international agreement involving two of the world's major intergovernmental treaty organizations and have it self-enact?
Legally, the answer to both these question may be "yes and no." For example, the US government could simply treat Internet governance as abandoned property. Ultimately it will largely be Internet providers and users of various kinds who have the freedom in many markets to choose and implement administrative arrangements as they please. This is a laissez faire argument that recognizes it is Internet Service Providers and users who operationally will implement a result, and thus make their own arrangements and choices. If they want a different regime, the argument goes, they have the freedom to do so.
The problem with this approach is that it's unlikely to be emulated in most other countries and regions of the world. Furthermore, wording in an international agreement that casts Internet identifiers as "public resource," "subject to a public trust," and a "public policy issue" will assure a basis in international law for involvement of governmental organizations at all levels - national, regional, and global. Thus, the U.S. government having abandoned and eschewed involvement, will have effectively written itself out of a proactive role, turning everything over to a small closed click of secondary institutions rather than a broad open industry mechanism. The position is the antithesis of the program recently developed by the White House's Ira Magaziner; and indeed the result may undercut what is attempting to be achieved there for electronic commerce.
On the second question regarding privately devised intergovernmental agreements, it is patently clear the matter is not self-executing. Under both ITU and WIPO charter treaties, the secretariats have little delegated authority, and it is governmental members through one of the organizations' plenary bodies that must assent to the agreement.
The legal issues aside, the most significant consideration is the precedent of allowing an unfettered institutional freelancing regime to fall into place, where secondary institutions can devise and implement whatever infrastructure governance regimes they can cut among themselves, in any manner they chose, independent from the business and user communities that have enormous interests and monies at stake. This seems fraught with perilous scenarios, and fundamentally wrong-headed.
The Constitution of the United States provides a mechanism by which foreign treaties must be approved by both the President of the United States and the U.S. Senate. This also holds true for covenants and agreements that require United States participation in foreign bodies.
In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson was the architect of the League of Nations , an international body that would regulate the conduct of nations. The need for such a League was vital in the eyes of Wilson. But to implement it and have the United States participate in it, the Democratic President needed the confirmation of the Republican Senate. The Senate declined to oblige the President and the United States never became a member of the League of Nation. Without the United States, the League sat hopelessly by watching the clouds of World War Two form over Europe, Africa and Asia. With the outbreak of the war, the League of Nations collapsed.
President Franklin Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Premiere Josef Stalin formulated a plan to institute the United Nations. President Harry Truman stated immediately after Roosevelt's death that the United Nations concept would go forward. The United Nations was born in San Francisco in 1945. The world headquarters for the United Nation was scheduled to be built in Moraga, California, until the Rockefeller family offered the New York site free.
The United Nations power to cancel any action. There is a gathering strength in the United Nations today, that never existed before and that new position does worry some American political observers. More increasingly smaller countries are beginning to dominate votes in the General Assembly. The breakup of the Soviet Union, for instance, could provide a greater voice with each Republic gaining a seat in the United Nations. Already, the nation of Macedonia , part of Yugoslavia, has been admitted. There are more socialist countries in the United Nations now than there are democracies , shifting the balance of power in the General Assembly.
When the United States sought support for its invasion of Iraq, it turned to the United Nations and several powers, including the Soviet Union, to unify public opinion. At that time President George Bush referred to such operations as the New World Order. But the Iraqi War was not the driving force for the New World Order, it was the first public showing of such an Order. Going along with the concept of the New World Order, United Nations troops are becoming more active , in Yugoslavia, Somalia, and in Cambodia. President Bush even signed an Executive Order in April 1992 permitting United Nations troops to operate within the boundaries of the United States to quell domestic or international violence that might occur here.
Where did President Bush gain the authority for such an Executive Order? The authority can be found in the First Session of the 97th Congress in Senate Treaty Document No. 97-19. On January 17, 1980, while President Jimmy Carter was still in the White House, the President and Senate confirmed the Constitution of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization.
The Preamble, Article I (Objectives) and Article 2 (Functions), defines the entire concept of the New World Order , eight years before the election of President Bush and 10 months before the election of Ronald Reagan. The foreign Constitution states that the intent of the New World Order is to "direct, control, finance and subsidize all natural and human resources and agro-related, as well as basic industries...through dynamic social and economic changes...with a view to assisting in the establishment of a new international economic order." The Preamble establishes an oligarchy who will establish "rational and equitable international economic relations". United States currency and coin, used by most standards, would no longer be stablized nor assured of its value. A new economic standard would be implemented. An example of this type of shifting can be seen in Europe with the establishment of the Euro Dollar, which forced several European nations to devalue their currency. The United Nations Industrial Development Organization does not call for general elections. A total of 45 members are elected to a Board of Directors by the General Assembly. There is no guarantee the larger, more industrial nations will be represented on the Board.
Since the President and the Senate approved the U.N. Constitution, many laws have been created in this nation under the guise of Executive Orders or, for example, the Crime Bill of 1991, allowing more power to the President in time of domestic or international emergency. Senate Report 93-549 states: "Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and in a plethora or particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."
There has been much debate focused on whether the American people would allow such drastic measures to be taken. Most experts agree that it would take an extraordinary crisis in order for any President to invoke such non-Democratic measures. The criterion of an emergency has not been defined in any law, but it provides for domestic, international or even just monetary threat to allow the activation of such harsh controls. If the American people, in general, believed that such a crisis was that acute, the ability to invoke such measures would be made easier. Obviously, there would be some pockets of resistance. Though there have been such laws on the books since President Richard Nixon helped to shape them, no President has invoked them nor even threatened publicly to do so. But any given President at any given time has the power and the resources to invoke such laws. Under regulations approved by Congress, such laws could be invoked without their consultation or approval, and Congress would not be allowed to review such actions until six months after they had been activated. In the Crime Bill of 1991, Congress provided similar powers that allow for the construction of detention camps, the rounding up of aliens and U.S. citizens, the suspending of habeas corpus , Constitution law protecting against illegal detention , and the right to declare martial law in the event of a "drug crisis".
Senate Report 93-549 concedes, "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and government procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have in varying degrees been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency." Nixon declared a state of emergency in 1973 and there are no documents to support that the emergency was lifted. Much of the foreground of the "emergency" has been the atomic age. The fear of massive nuclear attack set a series of emergency agencies and laws into effect. The main purpose was to assure the continuity of government in the case of a nuclear attack , survival, pure and simple, of the American government. But in placing such regulations into the survival scenario, what the United States government did was to protect government officials and offices, but not the survival or assurances of the democratic processes. The intent was to be able to survive a nuclear attack and retaliate. Saving democratic principles was of less concern then preventing an aggressor who launched the nuclear attack to win an undeclared war in a matter of minutes. A nuclear counterattack would have been met with a second nuclear strike, met in turn by a second counterattack.
Today, that emergency level has shifted away from the nuclear attack scenario and focussed instead on economic problems and the potential of civilian unrest within the United States. The Executive Orders, transfer of power to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Crime Bill of 1991, and United States ratification of the United Nations Constitution in 1980, all commence to usurp the rights of Americans guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. The seizure laws, gun control measures, emergency legislation, all eke away at Constitutional rights guaranteed to all citizens. (See the March edition of Napa Sentinel THE MAGAZINE on Executive Orders.)
President John F. Kennedy attempted to shift the economic power base away from the independent Federal Reserve Board and back to Congress. Under the Constitution, only Congress shall have the right to coin money. Yet if you look at every bill in your wallet, you will see that it is a Federal Reserve Note. Kennedy signed an Executive Order in 1963, directing the monetary system of this nation be placed back into the Constitutional hands of Congress. He was assassinated within three weeks of that order and President Lyndon Johnson rescinded the order within a week of taking office. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the nation on his retirement from the Presidency not to trust the powers that were building , the military-industrial complex. The changes in our fundamental freedoms have, as the Senate stated, been eroded in some form for 40 years.
The public documentation exists on these erosions, but few individuals have sought them out and few people of influence have bothered to inform the public of these basic changes. The corporate-owned media has sat quietly by on the sidelines, reviewing profits and not public priority. America has been gradually shifting, laws have been created over four decades that have created the machinery for massive Presidential authority in any time of undefined emergency.
The only question that remains is: Will the day and the person come that
will see the implementation of these laws?