Is a World Government Next?

I used to be sure it would never happen- after all, there are some great cultural divides between cultures and countries, not to mention the religion aspect- that one’s a biggie. But what is emerging with the ouster of Manuel Zelaya, former President of Honduras, is beginning to change my mind about the possibility of something beginning to stir.

First, some background on the Honduran situation. The ouster of Zelaya was not a coup in the strict sense of the word, as the Honduran military does not control the government, but just assisted in removing the former president, who was trying to pull a Chavez- like “President- for- Life” scheme out of his hat by changing the Honduran Constitution. This was (and is) illegal, so he was removed. The new President is a member of Zelaya’s own party.

Ask yourself, what would we do, if Hussein tried to do illegal, unconstitutional things- wait, that IS happening, isn’t it? But I digress—-

Hussein and Chavez seem to be partnering on a resolution where the UN will re-instate Zelaya- a wrong move on so many levels it is hard to know where to start.

The United Nations on Thursday begins a debate over a new U.N. military doctrine called the “Responsibility to Protect,” which would authorize the world organization to be used as cover to intervene in the sovereign affairs of a nation state, supposedly to protect the people of a country against their own government. The first target could be anti-communist Honduras.

The “Responsibility to Protect,” also known as RtoP or R2P, is mostly the work of the World Federalist Movement, a group dedicated to world government by strengthening the United Nations system. It is the major force behind the “International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect.”

R2P was sold as something to be exercised against regimes practicing genocide against their own people. But the new doctrine is so vague and subject to political manipulation that one can speculate it could be used to justify some form of U.N. intervention in Honduras on the pretext that the people there are somehow being victimized by a popular military-backed regime. In fact, some Hondurans are telling this columnist that they are fearful that U.N. “blue helmets” are right now being prepared to invade their country.
newswithviews.com

Yep, it is looking as if our hemisphere is going “bananas”, as in Banana Republics (not the clothing store)- as power will be consolidated by “partnerships”, managed by the UN in a world where international law is ascendent, and every other country’s liberties and laws are secondary. 

It is difficult to dismiss these concerns as baseless rumors, considering what will be happening at the U.N. The key U.N. official orchestrating the debate, General Assembly President and Lenin Peace Prize recipient Miguel D’Escoto, is the same figure who recently managed passage of a U.N. resolution supporting the return to Honduras of Manuel Zelaya, who was removed by the military on the orders of the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress. Zelaya is a lackey of Venezuelan communist ruler Hugo Chavez, who is using his oil money to buy and influence governments throughout Latin America.

In an ominous development, blogger Jason Poblete, an astute observer of Latin American affairs with excellent sources,reports that “The Obama Administration is considering a United Nations Security Council Resolution against the constitutional government of Honduras.” If true, anticipated U.N. sanctions against Honduras could be followed by the world organization being used as cover for outside forces to invade Honduras and reinstate Zelaya.

The new government in Honduras replaced Zalaya because he was trying to set himself up as president-for-life, Chavez-style. All of this was found to be in violation of Honduran law and the Constitution. Despite what officials of the Obama Administration said in trying to orchestrate media coverage of this crisis, it was not a military coup in any sense. The military doesn’t run Honduras today. In fact, the new president, appointed by Congress, is from Zelaya’s own political party. Zelaya was dismissed because of the simple fact that he tried to violate the law and the Constitution.
newswithviews.com

This “Responsibility to Protect” is just a cheap way to legalize the “change in management” by the UN, and a way for the UN to get a foot in the door for consolidation of power by the few, to the detriment of the many. And it’s not just State powers that seem to have a stake in this quiet struggle, but the Catholic Church seems to have anted up, all while denying that they are in the game at all.

D’Escoto, or as he is called, “Father D’Escoto,” will preside over the U.N. debate, which is expected to run into Friday. Pope Benedict XVI endorsed the “Responsibility to Protect” in an April 2008 speech before the U.N. but has been unclear about how it should be implemented. He has called for dialogue in Honduras.
On the ground in Honduras, an overwhelmingly Catholic Central American country, the Catholic Church has backed the ouster of Zelaya because of the realistic fear that he was a front man for Chavez. In a statement, the Catholic bishops of Honduras declared that Zelaya had been removed from office on the basis of a valid court order.

But not all of the Catholic elements in the country are opposing Zalaya’s return. The Jesuit-run Radio Progreso has been acting as a mouthpiece for Zalaya and his supporters and is the source of the recent report that Zelaya intends to invade the country in cahoots with something called the Peaceful Resistance Front. The Catholic Church in Honduras fears that Zelaya could spark a bloodbath. Such a spectacle could provide the cover for U.N. intervention.
newswithviews.com

It appears that everyone wants a slice of the pie, but the real losers will be the smaller countries in this hemisphere, and indeed, beyond, as you could reasonably expect that Russia might seek to re- instate their control over the satellite countries that surround them, evoking a “Cold War” era look to the revised map.
Likewise, China might decide that Korea, Viet Nam, and even Japan might look good as trophies- who would stop them?

R2P is usually offered as a possible remedy in the case of Darfur, a region of Sudan where people are being massacred by the Islamic regime. But this was never realistic. President Obama promised but has failed to do anything about this. The real source of the problem in Darfur is the communist regime in China, which directly finances the Sudanese regime through oil purchases. Obama won’t confront China because he needs Chinese help to finance his tax, spend and debt policies. 
newswithviews.com

Actually, he won’t confront China, because he can see himself doing much the same with the countries here in our hemisphere, all with this quasi- legal UN “law”, and he looks like he is going to begin with Zelaya and Honduras.

He should let democracy run its course, but he just can’t do that.

Because at his core, Hussein does not believe in democracy.

And that is bad for all of us.

Blake

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

4 Responses to “Is a World Government Next?”

  1. […] Big Dogs House » Blog Archive » Is a World Government Next? […]

  2. The WTO is not a world government…

    • Blake says:

      I never said it is- If you read carefully, you will see I said nothing about the WTO- although I will say that it would be a “world government” enabler.

  3. Blake says:

    If you were to consider the views of most of Barama’s “Czars”, there would possibly be a strong push for world governance, as these are their views, from Carol Browner, to John Holdren, to Van Jones, who is an avowed Communist. there are several other Czars who also share this belief, which will compromise our safety as a Nation, and will lead to a more fractured world, because of prejudices in other parts of the world, as well as religious differences.
    But that doesn’t matter to these people, which is why they are dangerous to our country.