Tag Archives: President Woodrow Wilson

To President Trump: The United Nations was Designed to Destroy Freedom 0 (0)

To President Trump: The United Nations was Designed to Destroy Freedom “Americans have been slowly indoctrinated toward Global Government…

by Bill Lockwood

President Trump’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly this week had much to commend it. Emphasizing national sovereignty and independence, he also rightly criticized the unfair cost burden to the United States. The American taxpayer shoulders 22 percent of the entire UN budget, more than double the next leading contributor, Japan. Yet, in spite of Trump’s defense of “national sovereignty” he praised the United Nations by urging that the world body live up to its “potential” by continuing to provide a world “forum” for peace which he called its “true vision.”  In these remarks, however, he is mistaken, for the United Nations is flawed by design.

Why is it that almost every American leader since Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt have worked toward the lessening of our sovereignty and towards a World Government, working to erode it “piece by piece” in the words of more than one global leader?

For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security advisor, a longtime CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) member, and a founder of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, explained to world leaders at the 1995 State of the World Forum:

We cannot leap into world government in one quick step. [It] requires a process of gradually expanding the range of democratic cooperation as well as the range of personal and national security, a widening, step by step, stone by stone, [of] existing relatively narrow zones of stability in the world of security and cooperation. In brief, the precondition for eventual globalization — genuine globalization — is progressive regionalization, because thereby we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units.

Almost the same words were used by Richard N. Gardner (CFR) in his April 1974 essay in Foreign Affairs, entitled “The Hard Road to World Order.”

Gardner opined that a “case-by-case approach can produce some remarkable concessions of ‘sovereignty’ that could not be achieved on an across-the-board basis.” Rather than pursuing “instant world government,” Gardner explained to the world that “the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down”—by means of “and end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.…”

Former President Bush, Sr. offered this about the original vision of the UN: “We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for the future generations a new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders.”

His son, President George W. Bush signed the Declaration of Quebec in 2001 in which he gave “commitment to hemispheric integration and nation and collective responsibility for improving the economic well-being and security of our people.” By “our people” Bush meant people of the Western Hemisphere, not the people of the United States. He pledged that the United States will build a hemispheric family on the basis of a more just and democratic international order, such as the world is witnessing in the EU and now the African Union (AU).

These statements are not unlike former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s “The time for absolute and exclusive sovereignty … has passed.” Or, like former President Obama’s speech to the UN in which he urged nations to surrender some of its sovereignty.

Again, the UN’s goals of world government by gradually eroding United States sovereignty could not be plainer than David Rockefeller’s (founder of the CFR) praise to the major media in 1991 for its complicity in this stealth design.

We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years …it would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national determination practiced in past centuries.

According to these major players, as well as dozens of others who have been coming out of the closet as Americans have been slowly indoctrinated toward Global Government, what is now occurring via the UN has been planned from its inception. This means that UN programs, including global wealth distribution, government control of production, government control of consumption (Sustainable Development), international taxes, world currency, globalized education for children, family planning, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), which already siphons wealth of hard-working taxpayers in America–are all by design.

So, who is right on this? President Trump, who calls upon the UN to live up to its “true vision” which emphasizes national sovereignty; or, the long list of globalists who praise the UN for its gradual implementation of eroding national sovereignty? Obviously, not Trump.

Almost 15 years ago, Michael Hirsch wrote a piece in Newsweek in which he frankly confessed that transforming America into a global policeman and moving toward Global Government is not accidental. Entitled Death of a Founding Myth, he stated,

While the isolationists … tempted millions with their siren’s appeal to nativism—the internationalists were always hard at work in quiet places making plans for a more perfect global community. In the end the internationalists have always dominated national policy. Even so, they haven’t bragged about their globe-building for fear of reawakening the other half of the American psyche, our berserker nativism. And so they have always done it in the most out-of-the-way places and with little ado.

In December 1917 the Inquiry, a group of eager reformers who included a young Walter Lippmann, secretly met in New York to draw up Wilson’s Fourteen Points. In 1941, FDR concocted the Atlantic Charter in the mists off Newfoundland. The dense woods of New Hampshire gave birth to the Bretton Woods institutions—the IMF and the World Bank—in 1944.

And a year later the United Nations came to life at the secluded Georgetown estate of Dumbarton Oaks….So what emerged took us more or less by surprise. We had built a global order without quite realizing it, bit by bit, era by era, with our usual schizoid approach: alternating engagement and withdrawal….Like it or not—and clearly large numbers of Americans still don’t—we Americans are now part of an organic whole with the world that George Washington wanted to keep distant.

Americans have been stealthily and semi-secretly maneuvered into globalism. Why this has occurred is seen in simply glancing at some of the original founders of the UN. The first secretary-general of the UN was America’s own Alger Hiss, later convicted in court of being a Soviet spy.

Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin played a key role in it early years, as did our own John Foster Dulles, who wrote the following in 1950: “The United Nations represents not the final stage in the development of the world order, but only a primitive stage. Therefore, its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization.”

Later, Dulles had this to say, “I have never seen any proposal made for collective security with teeth in it, or for world government or for world federation, which could not be carried out by either the United Nations or under the United Nations Charter.”

Like most programs to control free people by socialistic programs, the UN is following the totalitarian path laid out by its founders. It is on track. President Trump needs to realize that the UN is indeed living up to its potential. Global Government. This is why national “sovereignty” and “independence” of nations, particularly America, is anathema to the world body. It is all about transferring the wealth of America to socialist nations. It also explains why the major media globalist elites spin out of control at the mention of such concepts by Trump.

If America is to survive we must get out of the United Nations and the United Nations must get out of the United States. There is currently legislation in Congress called the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017 (H.R. 193), which proposes to do exactly that. It is sponsored by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL). Americans need demand its Congressional leaders support it.

Kingmakers 0 (0)

Kingmakers

by Bill Lockwood

Ugliness of the debate aside, one worrisome element pertaining to Donald Trump was revealed that has received little, if any, attention. When asked who he would consider putting on his security team if elected president, businessman Trump named three persons: Richard Haass, Gen. Jack Keane and Col. Jack Jacobs. It is troubling that Richard Haass was the billionaire’s first-mentioned name.

As reported by The New York Times Donald Trump held a private briefing last summer with Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Described by the Times as “an independent nonpartisan organization,” the CFR has offered to hold briefings with all candidates from both parties.

To date, Senator Marco Rubio, Jim Webb, Hillary Clinton, Gov. Chris Christie, Gov. John Kasich and Jeb Bush have all made appearances at the Council of Foreign Relations. The back-story of the CFR fills in the details which make this a matter of serious concern.

CFR Beginnings & Goals

The Council on Foreign Relations began in 1921 as the brainchild of Edward Mandell House, a “progressive” who was the real power-broker behind President Woodrow Wilson. House anonymously published a book entitled Philip Dru: Administrator in which he laid out his clandestine plans to create in the United States a government that reflected the “socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.” This absolutism needed to be masked, therefore he established the CFR as a “neutral think tank” to influence politicians into a “globalist” system.

On page 222 of Philip Dru House wrote: “Our Constitution and our laws served us well for the first 100 years of our existence, but under the conditions of today, they are not only obsolete, but even grotesque.” This was the design of the CFR from the beginning. Those familiar with Woodrow Wilson recognize a commonality in ideas that House shared with Wilson.

The CFR itself does not shy away from these roots, trumpeting on its website that “Since 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations has been the privileged and preeminent nongovernmental impresario of America’s pageant to find its place in the world.” This velvet-covering to its real iron-fisted mission is plainly described by CFR member Richard Gardner in Foreign Affairs in 1974: “An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.” This is what is intended by The New World Order.

Current Direction

Some Congressmen and Senators who are CFR members have distributed for public consumption that the “beginnings” of the CFR were indeed globalist-minded to destroy United States sovereignty, but now those ideals are not part of the CFR. Today, it is only a “neutral think tank,” we are told.

In a 2006 op-ed piece entitled “State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era,” current CFR president Richard Haass removes any doubt about CFR goals. He openly opined that we must “rethink” national sovereignty and “redefine” it. In Haass’ view “new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance” and “states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies.” Because of this wonderful globalization Haass said that “sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but … it needs to become weaker.” World Government is his solution—spoken in so many words.

In order to accomplish this goal, which for years was camouflaged by disguising words and using alternate synonyms for “world government,” the CFR now openly declares its plans for “integration” and “convergence” of various governments via the Trans-Pacific-Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). In 1995 it was offered that these “trade agreements” will assist the final mission to “promote and assist the convergence of EU/US Government policies … into a single political framework by early in the next century.” It is hard to miss this meaning.

Sadly, almost every administration since the time of Franklin Roosevelt has been larded with CFR Globalists whose primary aim is driving toward more international power. The Council on Foreign Relations may declare to be a “neutral” think-tank, but Establishment politicians know better. American voters better catch-on, and quick.

That Donald Trump names Richard Haass as his number one man on foreign policy in a potential Trump Administration shows his true colors. Trump’s stumping against unfair trade policies with such nations as China is apparently only words. If and when Trump becomes president it is certain that Kingmaker Richard Haass will show him the way.

Back To Homepage