A Very Real New World Order

chefdennis · Jan 27, 2009

Here you go Turtle, enjoy yourself!!

Oh it might be a LIE, a Hoax, a Half Truth, It might even be "TIN FOIL HAT STUFF", or it mght be the truth!!!

A Very Real New World Order
By Chuck Baldwin
January 27, 2009

This column is archived at

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090127.html

It is hard to believe, but a majority of Americans (including Christians and
conservatives) seem oblivious to the fact that there is a very real, very
legitimate New World Order (NWO) unfolding. In the face of overwhelming
evidence, most Americans not only seem totally unaware of this reality, they
seem unwilling to even remotely entertain the notion.

On one hand, it is understandable that so many Americans would be ignorant
of the emerging New World Order. After all, the mainstream media refuses to
report, or even acknowledge, the NWO. Even "conservative" commentators and
talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Joe
Scarborough refuse to discuss it. And when listeners call these respective
programs, these "conservative" hosts usually resort to insulting the caller
as being some kind of "conspiracy kook." One host even railed that if anyone
questions the government line on 9/11, we should "lock them up and throw
away the key." So much for freedom of speech!

This is an area--perhaps the central area--where liberals and conservatives
agree: they both show no patience or tolerance for anyone who believes that
global government (in any form) is evolving. One has to wonder how otherwise
intelligent and thoughtful people can be so brain dead when it comes to this
issue. It makes one wonder who is really pulling their strings, doesn't it?

The list of notable personalities who have openly referenced or called for
some kind of global government or New World Order is extremely lengthy. Are
all these people "kooks" or "conspiracy nuts"? Why would world
leaders--including presidents, secretaries of state, and high government
officials; including the media, financial, and political elite--constantly
refer to something that doesn't exist? Why would they write about, talk
about, or openly promote a New World Order, if there is no such thing?

Many of us recall President George Herbert Walker Bush talking much about an
emerging New World Order. For example, in 1989, Bush told the students of
Texas A&M University, "Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a
family of nations."

Later, Bush, Sr. said, "We have before us the opportunity to forge for
ourselves and for future generations a new world order . . .. When we are
successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order,
an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to
fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders."

Bush, Sr. also said, "What is at stake is more than one small country, it is
a big idea--a new world order."

Bush, Sr. further said, "The world can therefore seize the opportunity to
fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order . . ."

What was President G.H.W. Bush talking about, if there is no such thing as
an emerging New World Order? Was he talking out of his mind? Was he
hallucinating?

England's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said, "We are all internationalists
now, whether we like it or not." He continued saying, "On the eve of a new
Millennium we are now in a new world. We need new rules for international
co-operation and new ways of organizing our international institutions." He
also said, "Today the impulse towards interdependence is immeasurably
greater. We are witnessing the beginnings of a new doctrine of international
community."

In 1999, Tony Blair said, "Globalization has transformed our economies and
our working practices. But globalism is not just economic. It is also a
political and security phenomenon."

What is Tony Blair talking about, if there is no emerging New World Order?
What does he mean by "a new doctrine of international community"? What does
he mean by "new world"? How can one have globalism, which includes "a
political and security phenomenon," without creating a New World Order? Is
Tony Blair hallucinating?

Likewise, former President George W. Bush penned his signature to the
Declaration of Quebec back on April 22, 2001, in which he gave a "commitment
to hemispheric integration and national and collective responsibility for
improving the economic well-being and security of our people."

By "our people," Bush meant the people of the Western Hemisphere, not the
people of the United States. Phyllis Schlafly rightly reminded us that G.W.
Bush "pledged that the United States will 'build a hemispheric family on the
basis of a more just and democratic international order.'"

Remember, too, that it was G.W. Bush who, back in 2005, committed the United
States to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which is nothing
more than a precursor to the North American Community or Union, as outlined
in CFR member Robert Pastor's manual, "Toward a North American Community."

If there is no such thing as an emerging New World Order, what was G.W. Bush
talking about when he referred to "a hemispheric family" and an
"international order"?

The public statements of notable world leaders regarding an emerging New
World Order are copious. Consider the statements of former CBS newsman,
Walter Cronkite.

In his book, "A Reporter's Life," Walter Cronkite said, "A system of world
order--preferably a system of world government--is mandatory. The proud
nations someday will see the light and, for the common good and their own
survival, yield up their precious sovereignty . . ." Cronkite told BBC
newsman Tim Sebastian, "I think we are realizing that we are going to have
to have an international rule of law." He added, "We need not only an
executive to make international law, but we need the military forces to
enforce that law." Cronkite also said, "American people are going to begin
to realize that perhaps they are going to have to yield some sovereignty to
an international body to enforce world law."

If there is no emerging New World Order, what is Walter Cronkite talking
about? Can there be any doubt that Cronkite is talking about global
government? Absolutely not!

Now, when Bush, Sr. talks about fulfilling "the promise and vision of the
U.N.'s founders," he was talking about the same thing former UN
Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali was talking about when he said, "The
time for absolute and exclusive sovereignty . . . has passed."

The United Nations has been on the forefront of promoting the New World
Order agenda since its very inception. In 1995, the UN released a manual
entitled, "Our Global Neighborhood." It states, "Population, consumption,
technology, development, and the environment are linked in complex
relationships that bear closely on human welfare in the global neighborhood.
Their effective and equitable management calls for a systematic, long-term,
global approach guided by the principle of sustainable development, which
has been the central lesson from the mounting ecological dangers of recent
times. Its universal application is a priority among the tasks of global
governance."

If there is no emerging New World Order, what is "global governance" all
about?

"Who are the movers and shakers promoting global government?" you ask.
Obviously, it is the international bankers who are the heavyweights behind
the push for global government. Remember, one cannot create a "global
economy" without a global government to manage, oversee, and control it.

In a letter written to Colonel E. Mandell House, President Franklin D.
Roosevelt said, "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a
financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S.
since the days of Andrew Jackson."

"Old Hickory" did his best to rid the United States from the death grip that
the international bankers were beginning to exert on this country. He may
have been the last President to actually oppose the bankers. In discussing
the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, Jackson said,
"Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced
that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of
the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you
lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits
from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families.
That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on,
you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a
den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God,
I will rout you out."

Unfortunately, the international bankers proved themselves to be too
formidable for President Jackson. And in 1913, with the collaboration of
President Woodrow Wilson, the bankers were given charge over America's
financial system by the creation of the Federal Reserve.

Ever since the CFR and Trilateral Commission were created, they have filled
the key leadership positions of government, big media, and of course, the
Federal Reserve.

In his book, "With No Apologies," former Republican Presidential nominee
Barry Goldwater wrote, "The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the
vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking
interests by seizing control of the political government of the United
States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort
to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power-- political,
monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission
intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political
governments of the nation-states involved. As managers and creators of the
system, they will rule the future." Was Goldwater a prophet or what?

And again, the goals of the global elite have been publicly stated. Back in
1991, the founder of the CFR, David Rockefeller praised the major media for
their complicity in helping to facilitate the globalist agenda by saying,
"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 auto-determination practiced in
past centuries."

How could Rockefeller be any plainer? He acknowledged the willful assistance
of the major media in helping to keep the elitists' agenda of global
government from the American people. To this day, the major media has not
deviated from that collaboration. And this includes the aforementioned
"conservative" talking heads. They know if they want to keep their jobs,
they dare not reveal the New World Order. The NWO, more than anything else,
is the "Third Rail" to the national media.

Is it any wonder that President Barack Obama has stacked his government with
numerous members of the CFR? Among these are Robert Gates, Janet Napolitano,
Eric Shinseki, Timothy Geithner, and Tom Daschle. Other CFR members include
CFR President Richard Haass, CFR Director Richard Holbrooke, and founding
member of the Trilateral Commission and CFR member Paul Volcker. Obama even
asked a CFR member, Rick Warren, to deliver the inaugural prayer.

Still not convinced? Just a few days ago, when asked by a reporter what he
thought the most important thing was that Barack Obama could accomplish,
former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said, "I think his task will be
develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a New
World Order can be created. It's a great opportunity; it isn't just a
crisis."

This is the same Henry Kissinger, you will recall, who said back in 1991,
"Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to
restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful! This is especially true if
they were told that there were [sic] an outside threat from beyond, whether
real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all
peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one
thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario,
individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their
well-being granted to them by the World Government."

Even Gideon Rachman, the chief foreign affairs commentator for the Financial
Times, wrote an editorial expressing his support for world government. In
his column he said, "I have never believed that there is a secret United
Nations plot to take over the US. . . . But, for the first time in my life,
I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

"A 'world government' would involve much more than co-operation between
nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a
body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government
for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a
currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability
to deploy military force.

"So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking
that it might."

Rachman then goes on to explain the reasons why he believes world government
is plausible.

Do you now see why it does not matter to a tinker's dam whether it is a
Republican or Democrat who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? For the most
part, both major parties in Washington, D.C., have been under the dominating
influence of the international bankers who control the Federal Reserve, the
CFR, and the Trilateral Commission. And this is also why it does not matter
whether one calls himself conservative or liberal. For the most part, both
conservatives and liberals in Washington, D.C., are facilitating the
emerging New World Order. It is time we wake up to this reality.

Presidents Bush, Sr., Bill Clinton, and Bush, Jr. have thoroughly set the
table for the implementation of the NWO, as surely as the sun rises in the
east. All Obama has to do is put the food on the table--and you can count on
this: Barack Obama will serve up a New World Order feast like you cannot
believe!

That a New World Order is emerging is not in question. The only question is,
What will freedom-loving Americans do about it? Of course, the first thing
they have to do is admit that an emerging New World Order exists! Until
conservatives, Christians, pastors, constitutionalists, and others who care
about a sovereign, independent United States acknowledge the reality of an
emerging New World Order, they will be incapable of opposing it. And right
now, that is exactly what they are not doing.

letzrockexpress · Jan 27, 2009

That was interesting. I didn't see anything about the UFO's, or the Avian Flu pandemic, or The shadow people. Elvis was spotted in Buenos Aires. Bob Seger has throat cancer. Mr. Green Jeans was Frank Zappa's dad. Mr. Rogers was a Navy Seal. Chef is a nutjob.

RLENT · Jan 28, 2009

letzrockexpress said:
That was interesting.

Indeed it was ......

I didn't see anything about the UFO's, or the Avian Flu pandemic, or The shadow people. Elvis was spotted in Buenos Aires. Bob Seger has throat cancer. Mr. Green Jeans was Frank Zappa's dad. Mr. Rogers was a Navy Seal.

Perhaps one of the best ways that there is to deflect attention from a matter (real facts and circumstances) or discredit it, is to position the matter - or the bearer of bad tiddings - with other things, which really have nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand, and which are of a questionable nature, and are viewed derisively by the public in general .... it a most effective method to divert attention .....

Some folks, having had this technique used on themselves so often and for so long (without their knowledge of course), will reactively parrot the same thing unwittingly, whenever they run across something which stretches their imaginations .....

Not all things which stretch the imagination are untrue, and not all things accepted commonly as fact necessarily are ....

I know nothing of Frank Zappa's parentage or Elvis whereabout's ...... but .....

This story that chef references however is one that I am well aware of .... and it is factual.

Chef is a nutjob.

Well, I wouldn't want to comment one way or another on the chef's mental health (as then someone might feel inclined to comment on mine ....

)

Suffice it to say, the chef and I probably differ a good bit on many things, politics among them.

But on this, what the chef has posted is entirely spot-on - it is largely documented fact, quite often from public statements directly out of the mouths of the very individuals that are involved. It is a story (meaning a rendition of facts and historical events - not a fairly tale) that I have been aware of, and have studied, for over 25 years. Ignore it, dismiss it, or remain ignorant of it at your own peril .....

Not so long ago I said "you have been sold into slavery ....."

This, is exactly what I was talking about ....

Layout, you wanted to know who was pulling BHO's strings ..... your answer lies down this path ..... it's the same folks who pulled GWB's strings (and many, many others before them) .... both serve the same masters. Any perceived differences between the two are merely for your viewing pleasure ....

Everything else is largely just the side-show ...... designed to keep the masses distracted (and paying .... and paying ......)

If one desires to be truly free (and many may not, for the price it carries is steep), one would do well to know and understand those who would enslave one ..... as well as what freedom actually is .... otherwise one might become enslaved ..... and never know it.

OntarioVanMan · Jan 28, 2009

My interruptation would be....

old saying ...Know your enemy! OBama is not the enemy by himself...who's pulling his strings?...he's a puppet..remember ya'll said that many times....he's the front man...the point man...

Turtle · Jan 28, 2009

Knowing about the NWO and being able to do something about it are two different things. A New World Order, in one form or another, has been emerging ever since civilization was invented.

Eventually we'll have a single planetary government and everybody will get along with each other. But that's not likely to happen until a passing Vulcan starship detects our first warp signature and makes First Contact. For only then will we realize that it is our similarities, and not out differences, that truly bond us together.

Of course, after that, the New World Order will take on an interstellar scale and we'll be fighting the New Galactic Order of the Borg.

layoutshooter · Jan 29, 2009

HEY, Maybe Obama is controlled by the Borg. That would explain a lot of things. Layoutshooter

RLENT · Jan 29, 2009

Turtle said:
Knowing about the NWO and being able to do something about it are two different things.

That's quite true ..... although it is rather unlikely that one would do something about a thing of which one had no knowledge. If one has knowledge of some thing and was willing to be responsible for it, then one might be able to control it. And a corollary would be: if knew of some thing and was willing to control it, then one could said to be responsible for it.

But it seems like having at least some knowledge might be a good place to start. More knowledge might even be a better thing. Generally speaking, one is never well served by burying one's head in the sand (..... or in one's shell as the case may be ...

)

Where's ol' Wright Patman when you need him ...... ?

Anybody here ever wonder about the guy that lake was named after ...... as you passed by it, after heading down I-35 out of Texarkana ?

Wright Patman .... he was a truly great American and a patriot ..... and he was a Democrat (.... imagine that !) .... but certainly not one as you know them today - and he was a populist (something that it is possible to be - without being a Communist)

Wright Patman was the chairman of the United States House Committee on Banking and Currency .... he held hearings into the nature of the Federal Reserve and the shenanigans being practiced on the American people by bankers .... rather revealing hearings (the exhibit charts alone were no doubt worth their weight in gold) .... he was ousted in a revolt by younger members (wonder whose pockets they were in ?)

A study of the hearings would be rather informative, to anyone who wished to understand how an entire populace could be enslaved and yet continue to consider themselves to be "free" .....

A New World Order, in one form or another, has been emerging ever since civilization was invented.

No, not really ..... one could say a "new world order"..... and the above statement would be true ...... because it deals with a generic, non-specific thing ....

However, when you say "New World Order" that is a specific thing ..... it's like the difference in saying "an apple" ..... or saying "the apple" ..... a poor analogy perhaps .... but you get the idea .....

Eventually we'll have a single planetary government and everybody will get along with each other. But that's not likely to happen until a passing Vulcan starship detects our first warp signature and makes First Contact. For only then will we realize that it is our similarities, and not out differences, that truly bond us together.

Well, I'm not a trekkie .... and all the above sounds really interesting and all ..... I'm sure it's all quite fun .... probably akin to watching American Idol and Survivor ..... or fascination with the Hollywood glitterati ..... but rather trivial indeed ...

But I'm really concerned with more practical matters ..... like WHO would have an interest in enslaving myself and my fellow citizens ....

If you are gonna ask that question, it's best to know who the real WHO is .... not just who the lackeys are (GWB, BHO, etc.) ..... otherwise why bother ?

Of course, after that, the New World Order will take on an interstellar scale and we'll be fighting the New Galactic Order of the Borg.

The Borg have already arrived - and you have been assimilated ..... that you aren't aware of it makes little difference - the fact remains - it's largely a done deed at this point.

layoutshooter · Jan 29, 2009

it's not a done deal in my book, I am ready to fight. I believe that I and only I have the right to control me and my destiny. Anyone else is a threat to me. Layoutshooter

RLENT · Jan 29, 2009

layoutshooter said:
it's not a done deal in my book, I am ready to fight.

Joe, the reason I said it's a done deal is that you are already living under oppression ... probably since the day you were born ...... it just takes awhile to recognize it for what it is .....

Eventually, the degree of oppression becomes too great, and at that point men are forced to fight back .....

I believe that I and only I have the right to control me and my destiny.

As do I.

Anyone else is a threat to me.

Not everyone is a threat ... in fact, it's possible that you might have quite a few allies out there ...... perhaps even some in places that you least expect it.

The trick is recognizing them as allies, and not perceiving them as a foe when, in fact, they are not .....

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Winston Churchill

layoutshooter · Jan 29, 2009

You are correct, it can be hard to see an allie. I meant that in the general term only. I know that many don't like what I say or agree. I know that many do. If pushed hard enough I will fight, even at my age. You may be correct on being oppressed most of my life but it has become to the point of un-bearable over the last 15-20 years. I know many who are even more fed up than I am. Layoutshooter

letzrockexpress · Feb 2, 2009

I hate clichet's but as they say "The only thing constant is change" Empires have risen and fallen, Tyrants come into to power and then disappear. I submit that in the days when Charlemagne and Alexander the Great went on their respective tears, few held the belief that "This too shall pass". Hell, even continents drift!