Monday, December 5, 2011

Clinton's call for a World Army


By Charles A. Morse
web posted September 11, 2000

President William J. Clinton, in the final miserable decrepit weeks of his loathsome Administration, and in a gesture with a whiff of an aspiration to be emperor of the world, declared his support, at UN headquarters, for the establishment of a world army. He justified his call for a mercenary army without a nation by asserting that "[m]ost wars now occur within borders and are caused principally by ethnic and religious differences." The implications are obvious.

These Aseopean euphemisms are, in fact, the setting of the stage for military attack, by a world army loyal to no religion or nation, on those whose espousal of religious or national sentiments are too vociferous. The demonization of religion and national allegiance will be ratcheted up in the near future. The path will be cleared for the occult, pagan, pantheistic religion that is the amoral, godless religion of the UN.

Clinton also stated that "national sovereignty and territorial integrity should take a back seat to keeping the peace." We have seen what the UN means by "keeping the peace" with their history of UN wars in Korea, Vietnam, and elsewhere, conducted under Chapter 8, "Regional Arrangements." These strange, inconclusive wars, more numerous than at any time in world history, have been nothing more than wars of attrition and bloodletting. These wars have served to weaken national sovereignties by sowing violence and discord thus opening nations up for world order solutions to world order created problems.

The UN has, at the same time, been silent concerning the democide in the Soviet Union and Communist China where scores of millions have been murdered. The communist dominated UN apparently considers democide, which is planned programs of mass murder by a nation of its own people, as a form of social engineering necessary for clearing out "reactionaries" opposed to their political agenda. In this way, left-wing Communist regimes such as the Soviet Union, China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia, have been able to create their peaceful socialist paradises. Would this be what the UN means by "peace"?

At the same time, the "Charter for Global Democracy," being debated at the UN, calls for the abolition of the Security Council. This constitutes, simply put, the most serious threat to our sovereignty and sovereignty of all nations, since Hitler attempted to implement what the Nazi's called the "New World Order." The world order clique at the UN, with their billionaire sugar-daddies and power-lusting stooges, strategically situated in every nation in the world, have learned from the mistakes of their soul-mate, Adolf Hitler. Rather than showing up with blitzkriegs, stuka-bombers, and SS brigades, they take a more subtle approach. They will implement the new world order through legislation dressed in sophistic language and presented at opportune moments. The mask will eventually slip off.

Clinton stated "Whether it is diplomacy, sanctions, or collective force, we must find ways to protect people as well as borders. There are times when the international community must take a side – not merely stand between sides." If the "international community" was sincere in finding a way to "protect people," they would lead in an effort to train citizens at risk of genocide or democide in the use of firearms. An armed citizenry is the best way to insure internal peace and democratic government. Armed citizens assert individual sovereignty and can't be easily controlled.

When the UN calls for "protecting people" what they really mean is a military occupation by "peacekeepers" or the world army they advocate. The idea of fostering individual sovereignty, individual defense, free market capitalism, and constitutional government, concepts that have proven to protect people, is the exact opposite of the UN agenda for world domination.

Clinton stated "Those who believe we can either do without the UN, or impose our will on it, have not learned from history and do not understand the future." We, and the rest of the world, could do without the UN quite nicely. A UN that is a genuinely neutral office that serves to enhance sovereignty and provide a goodwill meeting ground for nations to peaceably resolve conflict would be beneficial. What we have, instead, is a cabal of utopian communists, of differing shades of red, whose agenda is to supplant sovereignty with one world government, and, to paraphrase historian Harry Elmer Barnes, "perpetual war for perpetual peace." We can learn from history if we're willing to open our eyes and minds and we can determine the future by rejecting the would be world conquerors.

Chuck Morse is a syndicated talk show host on the American Freedom Network and a contributing writer to Enter Stage Right and Ether Zone.

No comments: