UN Treaty Deception

For America to survive and prosper as a free and independent republic, she must have help to overcome massive deception. UN Treaties have always been the subject of such deception. In this report, we look at the deceptions visited on Americans by supporters as well as by soft “opponents” of the Law of the Sea Treaty.

A few months ago, the Obama administration launched a new push for Senate ratification of the long-stalled treaty. The Obama push has been aided by Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and an obviously Insider-orchestrated campaign.

Early on, Senator Kerry announced he would defer consideration of the unpopular LOST by the full Senate until a lame duck session following the November elections — a devious tactic. Lame ducks have often been used to stampede unpopular internationalist schemes through Congress when retired, retiring, and returning congressmen are less sensitive to the voters.

However, since Kerry began a series of Senate hearings allowing a variety of seemingly uncoordinated voices to urge support for the treaty, 34 GOP senators have joined Senator Jim DeMint (R – S.C.) in announcing their opposition to the UN treaty (via an open letter to Senator Harry Reid). If these 34 hold firmthen the Senate could not muster the two-thirds vote required to approve the treaty.

When the GOP opposition reached the 34-vote threshold, Kerry spokeswoman Jodi Seth responded:

“No letter or whip count changes the fact that rock-ribbed Republican businesses and the military and every living Republican Secretary of State say that this needs to happen, and that’s why it’s a matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’ for the Law of the Sea.”

Unfortunately, unless opposition to this internationalist scheme becomes more than defense, Seth is right. Following Napoleon’s maxim that the purely defensive is doomed to defeat, the opposition will ultimately succumb to determined Insider pressure and deception.

Short History of the Treaty

“Negotiations” for the United Nation’s Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) were completed in 1982. By 1993, a sufficient number of nations had accepted the treaty for it to go into effect a year later. As one result, the International Seabed Authority was established in 1994. (Also in 1994, prompted by U.S. objections, some changes to the treaty were approved by some of the signatories.) To date, 162 countries plus the European Community have bought into the Convention.

Despite the Convention’s acceptance by so many countries, U.S. proponents have never mustered sufficient support in the Senate.

Stepped-up Orchestration of Support 

A new wave of Insider orchestration has been evident in the latest drive to convince senators to ratify the treaty. Favorable testimony by administration officials as well as politicized military chiefs was to be expected.

However, the Democratic push was aided by a May 31st op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. All five living GOP former secretaries of state, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker III, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice, declared that it was “Time to Join the Law of the Sea Treaty.”

More significant than their common GOP affiliation is the fact that each in turn had headed up the pre-eminent CFR-controlled department of the federal government, and all except CFR veteran Henry Kissinger are current members of the CFR. Their endorsement of this internationalist power grab is reminiscent of the prominent public advocacy of NAFTA by CFR-heavyweight Kissinger and former CFR chairman David Rockefeller during the months leading up to congressional approval.

But a new twist to the renewed LOST drive was added — a push to convince the public and Congress that “business interests” were anxious to see the U.S. ratify the treaty and that substantial American jobs were at stake.

An age-old tactic of revolutionaries is to create the illusion of mass support to pressure legislators, making it difficult for them to oppose these “popular” demands. And that is what we are likely dealing with here — “illusion.” The Insiders have long worked to organize top echelons of the corporate world to represent the “business community.”

In a preface to the 1987 Patterns of Corporate Philanthropy: Public Affairs Giving and the Forbes 100, future Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld refuted the myth that big-business is conservative: “Seven out of ten public affairs dollars from the top 25 corporate contributors support establishment liberal — and some support even outright radical — causes.”

Two of the more vocal supporters of the treaty at the hearings were Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam and U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas J. Donohue. Note, however, that both Verizon and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are corporate members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Moreover, the Establishment media united in suggesting that the American “business community” was desperately calling for the treaty as a means to protect American investment in tapping ocean resources.

However, in a 2006 paper exposing the flaws in the treaty, law professor Jeremy Rabkin opined: “It remains a fair question whether a complex U.N. regulatory bureaucracy—especially one that counts international wealth redistribution as one of its functions—is a reassuring presence for investors.”

Any UN treaty is bad!

Perhaps the greatest deception of all with respect to LOST is the United Nations itself. The UN is not a democracy of free nations, but a steppingstone to a world government power grab by internationalists who effectively control the UN. Rejecting this internationalist milestone is an essential step toward preserving our Republic.

Accordingly, no treaty that enhances the authority of the UN is acceptable. And politicians who merely claim to be “uneasy” about a UN treaty, see reasons for “caution,” or are continuing to “study” it cannot lead us to safety.

The internationalist power grab with this particular treaty, and several specific reasons why it should be opposed have been amply identified in the past, which is why the treaty has never made it through the senate. For example, in 2004, J. William Middendorf, former secretary of the Navy during the Nixon-Ford administrations, testified that ratification of the treaty would constitute “a potential turning point for the U.S. in the history of international relations.”

Middendorf further warned that the treaty would be “a step in the direction of international taxing authority” and posed “unnecessary risks to national security.” The step toward “international taxing authority” should alarm Americans. One of the huge steps internationalists envision for expanding the authority of the UN is to provide it with its own independent revenue stream, so it will not be dependent on the good will of member nations.

Beware of False Friends 

In June, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in opposition to the treaty. He also penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal entitled “Why the UN Shouldn’t Own the Seas” (WSJ 6-12-12). Although Rumsfeld identified several good reasons why the treaty should be rejected, conservatives should be wary of embracing Rumsfeld as their champion.

In 1969, President Nixon selected Donald Rumsfeld to head up the scandal-ridden Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) — the federal “poverty” agency. During his campaign, Nixon had typically promised to abolish the OEO. But, according to the Washington Post (6-13-69): “Donald Rumsfeld, far from presiding over the liquidation of the Office of Economic Opportunity, has moved in his first 18 days on the job to revive it as the dominant innovative force on most aspects of domestic policy.”

Three decades later, when President George W. Bush selected Donald Rumsfeld as his secretary of defense, former Reagan-aide Jude Wanniski expressed his delight over the choice in a World Net Daily article (1-3-2001):

“The young Rumsfeld became one of the Young Turks of 1965, determined to reform the party. The group included Jerry Ford, Melvin Laird and other ‘moderates.’… They only would be a little more conservative than the liberal Democrats of the LBJ era, who were committed to Big Government to solve all economic and social ills…. They would give the people what the people seemed to want, i.e., a well-managed Big Government.”

Although Rumsfeld’s tenure as an explicit CFR member would be limited (1974-1980), during his second stint as secretary of defense (under President George W. Bush) he would have as his deputy secretary CFR-veteran Paul Wolfowitz. In 2005, Wolfowitz left his defense post to head up the UN-affiliated World Bank.

Perhaps Dick Cheney provides an even better warning regarding the Rumsfeld influence. Cheney tied his early career to Rumsfeld during the Nixon administration. Cheney subsequently posed as a “conservative” congressman from Wyoming, while accepting CFR membership and, in 1988, would serve on the CFR’s Board of Directors.

Conservatives need to become more sophisticated at recognizing Establishment-boosted conservative leaders (like a William F. Buckley, Jr.). They also need to understand the deceptive Insider tactic of controlling the opposition, when opposition to revolutionary plans is to be expected.

The Establishment did not let the Rumsfeld opposition to LOST go unanswered. In a subsequent Wall Street Journal op-ed, “Conservatives and the Law of the Sea Time Warp,”op-ed, John Norton Moore took polite exception:

“The former defense secretary seemed to be in a time warp, harking back to his mission of 30 years ago during the Reagan presidency, completely dismissing the treaty’s 1994 renegotiation….

“All of the Reagan conditions for Part XI were met in a 1994 renegotiation. President Clinton submitted the treaty to the Senate, acknowledging that it met all U.S. objectives….

“The treaty, favorably reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2004 and 2007, was on President Bush’s priority list but has never been put to a vote. It is now once again before the Senate, with overwhelming support from military and business leaders, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Financial Services Roundtable….

“Mr. Rumsfeld’s mission for President Reagan was a service to the nation. His time-warp testimony, however, does a disservice to a remarkable treaty that expands U.S. sovereign rights, powerfully serves U.S. needs for the Navy and the Coast Guard, and provides American industry with the security necessary to generate jobs and growth.

Mr. Moore … served in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations, including serving as U.S. ambassador for the Law of the Sea.

What readers of the Journal’s op-ed were not told, however, was that John Norton Moore was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Recommended action:

• Read and share Masters of Deception: The Rise of the Council on Foreign Relations by G. Vance Smith and Tom Gow.

• Write your two U.S. senators in opposition to the UN’s “Law of the Sea” power grab. See our website News posting for a list of senators who have announced their opposition to LOST.

IMF Still Working to Become World’s Central Bank

IMF calls for dollar alternative” —, 2-20-2011

FFS:  The planning for the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund originated within a subgroup of the Council on Foreign Relations’ (CFR) War and Peace Studies Project during 1941-1942, with the final plan established at the international Bretton Woods conference in 1944. The IMF was ostensibly created to help stabilize currencies at the end of World War II and to control international exchange rates. However, it was intended from the beginning to evolve, at an opportune time, into a world central bank, issuing an international currency. At the Bretton Woods conference, Federal Reserve Board governor Mariner Eccles observed: “An international currency is synonymous with international government.”

World financial ministers have sought to use the 2009 global financial crisis to strengthen both the IMF and World Bank, in the guise of reform. In the above CNNMoney report, note the proposal by CFR heavyweight (and Trilateralist) C. Fred Bergsten, founder and director of the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics. (The Peterson Institute is a globalist think-tank named after the former Chairman of the CFR, who replaced David Rockefeller in 1985.) Also, note the comments by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the 10th Managing Director of the IMF and member of France’s Socialist Party.

The Global Warming Hoax

The “Science” 

“The global warming alarm is dressed up as science, but it is not science. It’s propaganda.” — Professor Paul Reiter, Pasteur Institute, Paris, member of the UN’s IPCC. Ref.:The Great Global Warming Swindle.

“There is no direct evidence which links 20th Century global warming to anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gases.”— Professor Nir Shaviv, Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Ref.:The Great Global Warming Swindle.

“We’ve just been told lies.That’s what it comes down to.” — Nigel Calder, former editor, New Scientist.Ref.:The Great Global Warming Swindle.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a 2007 television documentary produced in the UK by WAGTV (a DVD of the program can be ordered from their store at A companion website for the DVD,, also presents many of the scientific arguments.

The Scientific “Consensus”

Another lie is that the world’s climate experts, even those on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), agree that the evidence now supports the theory of man-made global warming.

“And to build the number up to 2500 [IPCC officials] have to start taking reviewers and government people and so on — anyone who ever came close to them. And none of them are asked to agree. Many of them disagree.” Professor Richard Lindzen, M.I.T. and member of the IPCC.Ref.: The Great Global Warming Swindle.

“The final conclusions [of the UN’s IPCC reports] are politically driven.”— Professor Philip Stott, University of London.Ref.:The Great Global Warming Swindle.


Why are the opinions of leading scientists who offer a contrary view suppressed?

Even more important, why are we being lied to and how is deception on such a grand scale possible?

As just one example, according to Wikipedia, Al Gore’s Academy Award winning global warming “documentary” An Inconvenient Truth grossed $49 million at box offices worldwide. The official website for An Inconvenient, claims:

“Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.”

We cannot expect to prosper as a free nation when few political leaders are willing to challenge this swindle and in fact most are content to reinforce it.

So where does the passion in support of the man-made global warming hoax originate? Freedom First Society believes that the best explanation for the widespread propaganda is that the “crisis” hoax supports an immense power grab.

High level internationalist Insiders have selected the global warming scare as one pretext to help them drive forward their revolutionary “new world order.” In particular, they seek to persuade independent nations to submit to world government, cleverly controlled by an elite few from behind the scenes.

An early window to that agenda was provided in a classified 1962 study, entitled A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations. It’s author, M.I.T. professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield, was a member of the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and had recently served with the State Department’s disarmament staff.

The Bloomfield study suggested that world government could be obtained without the threat of Communism if there was “a crisis, a war, or a brink-of-war situation so grave or commonly menacing that deeply-rooted attitudes and practices are sufficiently shaken to open the possibility of a revolution in world political arrangements.”

The Bloomfield study was completed in 1962, but its conclusions have persisted as a fundamental foundation of Insider strategy. When the Berlin Wall started to come down on November 9, 1989, signaling the orchestrated “demise” of Communism, the Insiders wasted no time in heralding new enemies.

Immediately, George Kennan, touted as one of the Establishment “wisemen,” would write in a column for the 11-12-1989 Washington Post, “[T]he great enemy is not the Soviet Union but the rapid deterioration of our planet as a supporting structure for civilized life.”

In the months ahead, many others would echo Kennan’s concerns. In a March 27, 1990 op-ed for the New York Times, CFR member Michael Oppenheimer, a scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, wrote: “Global warming, ozone depletion, deforestation and overpopulation are the four horsemen of a looming 21st century apocalypse. As the cold war recedes, the environment is becoming the No. 1 international security concern.”

The following year, Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider included this admission against interest in The First Global Revolution, A Report by the [Internationalist] Council of the Club of Rome:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All of these dangers are caused by human intervention…. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

Not surprisingly, honest climate scientists rarely have a deep understanding of the big-picture “politics” driving the “global warming” scare. An exception was the late Dixy Lee Ray. In her 1993 Environmental Overkill — Whatever Happened to Common Sense?, the former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission wrote:

“More and more it is becoming clear that those who support the so-called ‘New World Order’ or World Government under the United Nations have adopted global environmentalism as a basis for the dissolution of independent nations and the international realignment of power.”

Top Insiders have certainly sought to create new international authority to address their alleged crisis. One of books guiding elitists in 1991 was Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology. Signaling his support for the book’s message, David Rockefeller, former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and founder of the Trilateral Commisssion, wrote the foreword.

In that book, the joint authors (Jim MacNeil of Canada, Peter Winsemius of Holland, and Taizo Yakushiji of Japan), argued for “a new global partnership expressed in a revitalized international system in which an Earth Council, perhaps the Security Council with a broader mandate, maintains the interlocked environmental and economic security of the planet.”

Follow the Money

Of course, these Insiders depended on other strategies to turn their “crisis” into public policy. One of these was the tried and true tactic of “revolutionary parliamentarianism” also known as “pressure from above and pressure from below.”

With this strategy, revolutionaries at the top orchestrate the appearance of a widespread “consensus.” Their allies in legislative bodies can then use this external pressure to justify revolutionary measures. An excellent example of this generated pressure was the UN’s 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro. Although elites at the Council on Foreign Relations pretty much had the conclusions worked out in advance, the Earth Summit was staged to give this agenda the appearance of planetary democracy at work and to hype the “consensus” to the world.

As an example of how this phony democracy — “the world” in action — was hyped, the authors of Beyond Interdependence wrote: “The Earth Summit will likely be the last chance for the world, in this century at least, to seriously address and arrest the accelerating environmental threats to economic development, national security, and human survival.”

Few Americans encountering media reports of the Earth Summit would have guessed the extent to which vocal leaders and groups at the Summit were beholden to Insider funding. For example, Lester Brown founded his Worldwide Institute in 1974 with funding from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. According to the Worldwide Institute annual reports, “the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Winthrop Rockefeller Trust provide core funding for the State of the World series. “The State of the World report was widely cited as authority for predictions of impending planetary doom by those attending the Earth Summit.

Many examples of the extensive funding of the environmental “movement” by Establishment foundations can be cited. A few of these include: Ford Foundation grants to the Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council and the World Resources Institute; MacArthur Foundation grants to the Center for International Environmental Law, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the World Resources Institute; Mott Foundation funding for the Center for International Environmental Law, the Earth Action Network, Friends of the Earth, and the World Resources Institute; and Rockefeller Brothers Fund grants to the Earth Action Alert Network, the Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

These strategies of an internationalist Conspiracy for building its world hegemony are moving rapidly to completion at the dawn of the 21st Century. For the concerned visitor to our website, we highly recommend reading Organize for Victory! This inexpensive ($9.95) paperback provides a more thorough look at the agenda behind the global warming disinformation along with a necessary and realistic solution to stop the underlying revolution that threatens our freedoms.

The Internationalist “Dream” is Not Dead!

An article by Robert Pastor in the July-August 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs may well signal the next steps toward regional integration. In “The Future of North America — Replacing a Bad Neighbor Policy” Pastor purportedly offers advice to the new president who will take office in January. But such articles in the CFR’s Foreign Affairs are often policy leads rather than suggestions. We should keep in mind that CFR members have staffed key positions in both Democratic and Republican administrations for decades.

The summary for Pastor’s article states: “It’s time to integrate further with Canada and Mexico, not separate from them.” So it is difficult to understand how pro-sovereignty advocate Jerome Corsi could allow his very neutral review of Pastor’s article for World Net Daily to be titled: “North American Union: The dream ‘is dead.’” Pastor merely suggested that President Bush’s attempted incarnation of that dream — the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) — would likely be cast aside by the next administration.

There is simply no basis for suggesting that CFR elitists have altered their successfully deceptive strategy of building world government through the creation of supranational regional blocs. These regional blocs are designed to steadily subvert national sovereignty and be easily subordinated to a world government. If a new political thrust with the next administration is the best way to overcome mounting resistance to earlier steps in that direction, it is a mistake to interpret that change as a change in either the objective or the strategy. Let us learn from the long and continuing development of the European Union. While resistance to the deceptive intermediate steps in that development has risen from time-to-time, the internationalists continue to overcome the resistance by disguising the real intent of their power grab (e.g., with promises of increased prosperity).

Responding to the criticism of NAFTA, Pastor argues that it’s time to go beyond NAFTA bashing: “The new president must address the full gamut of North American issues not covered by NAFTA, as well as governance issues arising from the successful enlargement of the market.”

But Pastor is not offering a new vision, merely new finesse for a long-standing objective. NAFTA’s architects have always viewed that agreement as merely a steppingstone toward further integration. For decades the internationalists have talked in terms of “broadening and deepening” the NAFTA agreement. “Broadening” meant an increase in the number of participating countries while “deepening” referred to an expansion in the areas of federal, state, and personal activity in which a regional authority would claim a compelling regulatory interest.

When Congress approved NAFTA in 1993, the agreement represented a milestone for the internationalists. NAFTA established the precedent that areas of U.S. legislation could be subordinated to unelected regional authorities unaccountable to the people of these United States, in violation of our Constitution. The internationalists are not likely to retreat from that milestone, unless compelled by an informed and organized public to do so.

Pastor denies that a 2005 CFR task force, which he co-chaired, had proposed a North American Union, only a North American Community of sovereign nations working more closely together.

But this is typical world-government doublespeak. Pastor advocates steps clearly leading in the direction of political union as is happening in Europe. The internationalists are not stupid. They know that they cannot implement their schemes without disguising their intent. An open admission of the globalist contempt for public opinion and the constraints of the U.S. Constitution can be found in the 2002 “Special Davos [International] Edition” of Newsweek. In “Death of a Founding Myth,” CFR heavyeight Michael Hirsh wrote:

“[T]he 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.”

And so the internationalists often publicly deny, for example, that they are advocating world government, only world governance. Prominent internationalists, such as Zbigniev Brzezinski and Strobe Talbot, would nevertheless attack the concept of national sovereignty as a relic of the past.

Pastor calls for North America’s leaders to “deepen economic integration by negotiating a customs union.” And “[t]o educate a new generation of students to think North American,” Pastor advocates that “each country should begin by supporting a dozen centers for North American studies.”

Not surprisingly, Pastor’s entire essay reflects the collectivist attitude that progress must be driven by government (e.g., government must provide a safety net for those groups hurt in the short-term by “progressive” government policies). Understood, but not stated explicitly, is that international elites must develop and direct these progressive policies.

Reflecting the Insider mindset, Pastor brazenly boasts: “The genius of the Marshall Plan was that the United States used its leverage not for short-term gain but to encourage Europe to unite.” Of course, neither Congress nor the American public, let alone the people of Europe, were told that a united Europe was the object of the U.S. post-war aid.

While holding genuine public opinion in contempt, the internationalists love to claim that public opinion is on their side and that they are driven by that opinion. In that way they hope to undermine public resistance to their schemes. And to that end they cynically manipulate and misrepresent public opinion. Currently, they regularly imply that the Left’s propaganda of concern for the environment and labor standards stems from the people.

Following that pattern, Pastor refers to public opinion surveys in support of his recommendations: “Thirty-eight percent of the people in all three countries identify themselves as ‘North American’ and a majority of these publics would even be in favor of some form of unification if they thought it would improve their standard of living without harming the environment or diminishing their national identities…. A majority of the publics in all three countries would prefer ‘integrated North American policies’ rather than independent national policies on the environment and border security…. ” Really?

Pastor also tells his readers: “One [voice] is the strident and angry voice…. Another voice represents those who welcome integration and are willing to experiment with new forms of partnership. Public opinion surveys suggest that the latter voice represent the majority, even if few leaders speak for them today.”

Pastor’s Track Record

In judging Pastor’s latest essay it is helpful to recall his earlier essay in the January/February 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs entitled “North America’s Second Decade.” Pastor argued that our security fears born of the 9-11 attacks should “serve as a catalyst for deeper integration. That would require new structures to assure mutual security, promote trade, and bring Mexico closer to the First World economies of its neighbors.”

In that earlier essay, Pastor even suggested that “the Department of Homeland Security should expand its mission to include continental security — a shift best achieved by incorporating Mexican and Canadian perspectives and personnel into its design and operation.” [Emphasis added.] Imagine including security personnel from the corrupt Mexican regime that historically has so admired Fidel Castro!

As President Carter’s National Security Advisor on Latin America, Pastor reportedly said to President Daniel Oduber of Costa Rica, “When are we going to get that son of a b**** to the north out of the presidency?” Pastor was referring to pro-Western Nicaraguan President Anastasio Somoza, soon to be replaced by the Sandinista Communists, creating a new security problem in the hemisphere. And prior to his post at the White House, Pastor (Robert McNamara’s son-in-law) had been a member of a working group on Latin America organized by exposed K.G.B. agent Orlando Letelier. So we should be slow to accept Pastor’s leadership regarding national security.

Pastor’s latest essay argues for moving beyond NAFTA rather than renegotiating it: “The alternative approach needs to start with a vision of a North American Community and some institutions — quite different from Europe’s — designed to pursue a bold agenda that includes a customs union, a North American commission, a North American investment fund, and a common team of customs and border guards to man the borders and the continental perimeter.”

Pastor supports Obama’s call for greater participation of “civil society” in the process of preparing plans for the North American continent. Pastor says such participation is needed to address issues such as health, environment, energy, and labor standards.

But the vocal NGOs among so-called “civil society” are funded by and serve the Establishment while providing a useful but phony illusion of an independent popular voice. Many of the issues Pastor claims are on everyone’s mind, such as the environment, are invented “topics of concern” depending wholly on Insider-orchestrated propaganda campaigns. So-called “civil society” can be counted on to feed back (i.e., supply pressure from below) exactly what the Insiders have programmed their “representatives” and the major media to say.

The Insiders continuously pursue this tactic of revolutionary parliamentarianism in response to problems that they have created or exacerbated: Unnoticed, they instigate pressure from below for collectivist solutions to those problems, and then they argue that we must respond to that pressure. In short, what we have here is a big scam.

To overcome that scam, America desperately needs the leadership of an organization with the proper focus, such as Freedom First Society.

Receive Alerts

Get the latest news and updates from Freedom First Society.

This will close in 0 seconds