News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)
Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)
Books
Books
Order
Books
November
12, 2001
Read this newly-posted excerpt from Jon Christian Ryter’s much talked about real-life “endtime thriller” that is unfolding before your very eyes. This book is more frightening than any Stephen King novel...except that it is not fiction. It is truth...developing before your very eyes. By the end of this decade according to UN documents, America will have surrendered its sovereignty and the United States will have become a puppet state in a global nation.
By
Jon Christian Ryter
Copyright 2001 - All Rights Reserved
To distribute this article, please post this web address or hyperlink
(Excerpt from Chapter 19; pgs. 460-470) • The United Nations]
The
United Nations originally drove its claimstake of sovereign authority
where none, from any nation, formerly existed: in the largely invisible
world of internationalism—an empery that did not physically exist,
but has yet somehow still managed to control not only the national policies
but the economic direction of most of the industrialized nations of the
world for well over 100 years. This is the invisible world of the transnationals.
It
has been a slow, tedious journey, fraught with countless pitfalls, detours,
and delays. The objective is in sight. Only one last hurdle needs to be
vaulted: the Constitution of the United States. With that final obstruction
comes a final question: do the globalists go through it or around it?
Two plans of attack are currently being implemented. One is designed to
abolish the Constitution as we know it, the other is designed to circumvent
it. To abolish, or radically alter, the Constitution it is necessary to
call a Constitutional Convention. In the history of the United States,
only one such convention was ever held. If a Constitutional Convention
cannot be called, the Constitution can be suspended under a declaration
of martial law. That, also, happened only once in our history when the
nation was divided over the issue of States rights, and 11 southern States
seceded from the Union. Abraham Lincoln declared martial law and suspended
the Constitution. For a brief, tragic period in our history the citizens
of the United States were not protected by the Bill of Rights. While most
Americans dismiss out of hand the possibility that any state of emergency
could arise in the United States that would necessitate a declaration
of martial law and a suspension of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,
they should understand that all of the mechanisms to do just that have
been quietly, and without fanfare, implemented by the Clinton Administration
over the past six years. All that is required to trigger those mechanisms
is the right, real or perceived, national crisis.
Likewise, most Americans also dismiss out
of hand the idea that its leaders could arbitrarily call for a Constitutional
Convention for the expressed purpose of abolishing the Constitution of
the United States—and be successful in their effort. But then, most
Americans don't realize that it already happened once in their history.
And, if a Constitutional Convention is successfully called, it will very
likely happen again.
Since
the nationalists among us have thus far resisted the globalists' bait—a
State-initiated Constitutional Convention to reverse the Supreme Court's
stance on school prayer or abortion, the globalists did precisely what
their 18th century counterparts did to abolish their first Constitution:
they called for a Conference of the States to set the wheels in motion.
Since
the American people did not snap up either the school prayer issue or
the abortion amendment bait, the Council of State Governments, which Republican
Utah Governor Michael O. Leavitt was elected to head in 1994, prepared
the most tantalizing bait yet: reducing the scope of authority of the
federal government. On the surface, the resolution which was sent to the
governors of all 50 States on December 22, 1994 sounded "conservatively
correct." Even the name, "Restoring Balance in the Federal System,"
had the right conservative tone. So did the names of the high profile
conservative Republican participants urged by Leavitt to lend their support
to the petition: Wisconsin Governor Tommy G. Thompson, North Carolina
Senator Jesse Helms, and Colorado Senator Hank Brown. All of the correct
conservative buzzwords were included.
Nothing
was left to chance.
Conveniently
absent from the resolution, however, was an affirmation that this Conference
of the States would not be used as a springboard to call a Constitutional
Convention. There was also one other red flag: Leavitt, who was elected
governor of Utah in 1993, had been appointed by President Bill Clinton
to serve on the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations—a
UN cell group. Leavitt was a globalist.
On
the surface, there appeared to be nothing improper about the resolution
offered by the Council of State Governments. In fact, if anything, it
identified the problem it sought to address very well. But then, so did
the bait offered by Alexander Hamilton in 1786 to establish the first
privately-owned monopoly of our money.
Although
the Resolution sounded harmless enough at a glance, there were several
problems with it which were very likely the reasons most of the States
chose to ignore the Committee's call for a Conference of the States.
Most of America's governors realized that, contrary to all of the political
rhetoric denying it, the Conference was being organized explicitly for
the purpose of calling a
Constitutional
Convention.
A
Constitutional Convention is called by the States only when a resolve
to abolish, alter or amend the Constitution exists. Since States rights
were greatly diluted as a result of the first Constitutional Convention,
there has been a genuine, overwhelming fear on the part of most Americans
to ever allow a second one to take place. Most of the State's political
leaders clearly understand that the power behind the seat of government
at the national level is not interested in strengthening States rights,
nor does it wish to restore balance to the separation of powers.
As
Lloyd Cutler so aptly put it in his 1980 Foreign Affairs article, the
globalists want to completely change, or simply abolish, the Constitution.
It is just too troublesome, and it offers the common citizen too many
superior rights. [American Government: Readings and Cases, 10th Edition;
Peter Woll © 1900; Scott, Foreman, Little & Brown; pg. 58-59.]
Only by radically restructuring the Constitution can they either eliminate
those otherwise inherent rights, or condition them on the revocable whim
of government—much as they are in those countries that have adopted
the UN's International Covenant on Human Rights to define the "rights"
of their citizens.
In a May 17, 1995 letter to the governors,
Leavitt insisted that the purpose of the Conference was not to destroy
the federal government, nor was it to make the States the dominant player
in the area of national governance. He didn't lie. His statement, in both
respects, was true. It was, however, deceitfully incorrect. Whether it
was Leavitt's plan, or the plan of the globalists, is irrelevant. In reality,
the end result would be the same.
It
was a classic example of "bait and switch."
The
ultimate objective of the globalist is to strengthen, not weaken or destroy,
the federal government's control of its citizens. In the United States
the globalists' dilemma is focused on the remnants of power held by the
States. The Conference was, in point of fact, not designed to destroy
the federal government but to endow it with even greater authority by
either weakening or replacing our existing Constitution with a more up-to-date
21st century global version much like that proposed by Cutler in 1980.
The destruction of our current Constitution, or at the very least the
modification of the Bill of Rights to make our inherent rights conditional,
is necessary for the globalists to achieve their objective.
Therefore,
most assuredly, it was not the purpose of the Conference to make the States
the dominant player in the sphere of national governance—unless an
end-run around the Constitution was needed to meet the globalists' timeline
for world government. Again, Leavitt spoke the truth.
Under
a utopian UN-styled Constitution, which the globalists hope to substitute
for our archaic 1787 version, a new Bill of Rights will be offered that
will appear more like the UN's International Covenant on Human Rights
in which the inherent, inalienable, God-given rights of man have been
transformed into retractable privileges that may be granted or recanted
by the government at will. The differences are best viewed by comparing
the language of our Bill of Rights with that of the Covenant on Human
Rights.
"Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof..." (1st Amendment, the Constitution
of the United States.) Note first, the Founding Fathers placed all of
the restrictions on the government. Of course, somewhere along the road
to the toll bridge to Utopia, the meaning of the 1st Amendment has become
fuzzy, because now all of the restrictions are placed on the citizen who
no longer possesses an inherent right to practice the free exercise of
religion. In fact, the Supreme Court now interprets the exercising of
religious freedom more in the manner of the privileges described in Article
13 of the Covenant on Human Rights: "Freedom to manifest one's
religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations that are prescribed
by law..." For this reason alone any sitting federal judge or
Supreme Court Justice who votes in this manner should be impeached and
removed from the bench. The Justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution
of the United States, not the UN.
The
1st Amendment further guarantees the American citizen the right to free
speech when it declares: "Congress shall make no law...abridging
the freedom of speech...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Article
14 of the Human Rights Covenant deftly abridges those rights while appearing
to grant them: "The right to seek, receive and impart information
and ideas carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and may
therefore be subject to certain penalties, liabilities, and restrictions,
but these shall be only as such as are provided by law."
One
need look no farther than the 1st Amendment to see a clear distinction
between the quality of freedom guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and
that promised by the International Covenant on Human Rights. One applies
to the individual, the other to a collective society.
In our Republican society, each individual has the right to life, liberty
and the "pursuit" of happiness. Happiness is not guaranteed—only
the right to pursue it is. Man, in a republican democracy, is not guaranteed
work, nor is he guaranteed that he will be successful in his economic
endeavors. Nor is he guaranteed income parity with his neighbor. Nor does
he possess an inherent "right" to expect such "equality."
On
the other hand, in the controlled society of the New World Order, equality—in
the form of income parity—will be achieved at the expense of the
American middle class both through oppressive taxation and the transfer
of jobs from the United States to the emerging economies of third world
nations where the opportunity for profit-taking for the industrialists
and those who finance their efforts is much more to their liking.
While
the masters of deceit in the New World Order hide their chicanery behind
the politically-correct garb of humanitarianism, it is important to understand
that the form of socialism fostered by the United Nations has little,
if anything, to do with equality. Equality is the smoke and mirrors rhetoric
that conceals the "bait and switch." It is, quite simply, a
matter of power—the power of an omnipotent world government to control
every facet of life in the global community.
Omnipotence
permeates throughout every fiber of the New World Order from the core
of the United Nations to its growing international and transnational partnerships
around the world. Although world government does not yet exist, the UN
is preparing to assume its role as the caregiver of the nation-states
of the United Nations when national sovereignty collapses—perhaps
as early as this decade.
As
Habitat II convened in Istanbul in June, 1996, Wally N'Dow, Secretary
General of the UN Center for Human Settlement in a press conference declared:
"What we are doing here is building ...the global brain." An
explanation of what he meant was found on page 6 of Discussion Document
#23, presented by the World Assembly of Cities and Local Authorities during
Habitat II. "The UN must help governments at all levels forge and
nurture new and renewed intersectoral alliances of public, private, non-governmental
and community-based organizations to make a positive difference in the
quality of life in human settlements...The need to build alliances with
local authorities and NGOs and to draw upon and empower the mobilization
capacity of community-based organizations and neighborhood groups in order
to address these problems in a holistic way is now increasingly recognized."
Since
1976 the UN has been carefully weaving a global network of "partnerships"
that include transnational corporations, NGOs, individual State governments
within the United States, as well as governments at county and local levels3.
N'Dow, quoted in a May 31, 1996 Habitat
II press release, affirmed that the UN member States "...in a historic
General Assembly decision had not only acknowledged the changing role
of local authorities in governance, but had, for the first time, accorded
them the opportunity to participate in deliberations of Habitat II..."
Suddenly the "unofficial" partnerships between the UN and various
American State and local officials—ostensibly created for the purpose
of sharing concerns and visions for collective humanity—is clothed
with the texture of officiousness.
Lest
he be misunderstood, N'Dow reiterated his understanding of the official
nature of all of the participants, from each of the nations, in attendance
during his opening address to the Conference on June 3 when he said: "...It
is indeed gratifying that governments, the private sector, local authorities,
NGOs, women's coalitions, youth, the entire civil society of many nations,
banded together in mutually supportive partnerships to forge and successfully
advance a very demanding preparatory process..." (Emphasis, author.)
(United Nations Global Business Plan; Linda Liotta © 1996;
Americans For America; pg. 20.)
It
appears quite obvious that then-UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright, who
had characterized the UN as nothing more than "...a business with
185 members on the board," was part of that historic General Assembly
decision, and that an end-run around the Constitution had the tacit
approval of the Clinton Administration—and the Republican Congressional
leadership, which failed to challenge the notion that the UN possessed
some "superior" right to negotiate directly with a State, county
or municipal government.
Since
the Istanbul Conference in June, 1996 Maryland governor Parris Glendening
became the first chief executive of a State to introduce a UN Habitat
II program into a State legislature, circumventing the constitutional
process through which the political agenda of an international body is
recognized. On April 8, 1997 the Maryland legislature passed Senate Bills
388 and 389, giving rise to America's first UN-style public/private partnership.
To
those who have been watching Maryland politics, it came as no surprise
that Glendening would be the first governor to enact a UN-style public/private
partnership law in his State since he was also the first United States
governor to sign an accord with the United Nations—clearly a questionable,
if not unconstitutional end-run around the Constitution of the United
States.
On
August 15, 1995 the World Health Organization issued a press release announcing
that an agreement had been signed between the State of Maryland and WHO
that was aimed at "...improving the health of the world's poor."
"In an unprecedented accord between an international organization
and one of the fifty states of the United States of America, the World
Health Organization [WHO] and the State of Maryland have signed a three-year
agreement to share expertise and experience to improve the health of the
world's poorest nations."
Clearly,
Glendening, as the governor of one of the 50 sovereign States, stepped
outside his constitutional prerogatives by signing what amounted to a
"treaty" with WHO. Yet, no angry protest bellowed from the White
House. The State Department was not outraged, nor did the media question
by what constitutional authority did a State governor sign a binding agreement
with an international organization. Was it ignored by the media because
Glendening's agreement was called an "accord" and not a "treaty"—as
in the Camp David Accord? Was it ignored by the media because the "accord"
ostensibly affected only the State of Maryland? Or, was it ignored by
the media because the plan had the tacit approval of the Clinton Administration?
Granted, the States have been involved at
that level and below with the UN, and with UN programs, for over four
decades. Many Americans proudly recall "trick-or-treating" for
UNICEF as they raised money each fall for the United Nations International
Children's Relief Fund. Americans, particularly American educators, and
through them the children they teach, have been involved in UNESCO programs
since that organization's premature birth in April, 1944—over a year
before the UN itself was chartered.
Americans
have, in other words, been carefully desensitized to the threat of globalism
and world government by UNESCO. While the UN is, and always has been,
a European enterprise, it is viewed by most people in the United States
as American as Chevrolet and apple pie. The media has done its job well.
Even though the United States does not have a single senior level official
in that body, most Americans still view the UN as an American institution
that is responsible for forging the path to peace and global democracy—based
almost entirely on the fact that the UN Building is located in New York
City.
Unlike
most unofficial cooperative ventures between the States and NGOs like
UNICEF, the Maryland/WHO Accord links WHO's Division of Intensified Cooperation
with Countries (ICO) into Maryland's public health database. Promoted
as a partnership to share technical expertise in order to improve the
health all of the citizens of the world, the Maryland/WHO Accord was actually
the initial phase of a global plan to create and manage an international
database that would eventually include every citizen in the soon-coming
global society of the New World Order5.
For that reason, Maryland was selected as
the first State to collaborate with the UN on "information management
system development." In 1996 Maryland became the first State to activate
a government-run computerized medical records database. In accordance
with State law, all patient encounters with health care providers are
compiled into the database. Patients in Maryland health care facilities
do not have the right to deny the State access to that information. A
few months after Maryland enacted the first medical database law in the
nation, Congress passed legislation creating a clearinghouse for medical
records, creating a national computerized medical database into which
the States will feed the data accumulated at the local level.
To
more fully understand and appreciate the significance of the parallels
that exist between Communist collectivism and Maryland's partners in progress,
it is necessary only to look at some of the statements of the policy framers
of Habitat II:
Then
UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali opened Habitat II with a special
message to the World Assemblies of Cities and Local Authorities: "The
Habitat II Conference addresses the future of humankind in a very comprehensive
way. It is bringing together the different strands of development: the
issues of population movement and urbanization, employment generation,
environmental infrastructure and living conditions, participation and
governance, legislation and finance, and sustainable use of resources.
These issues must be considered in light of current trends in globalization,
liberalization and privatization. In short, the Conference is addressing
nothing less than the economic and social survival of millions of people,
in particular, the poor and disadvantaged, in both the developed and undeveloped
nations." (ibid; pg. 13.)
In
response, the World Assemblies of Cities and Local Authorities, a UN-created
NGO, issued their own statement, contained within Discussion Document
#23, page 6: "The UN must help governments at all levels forge
and nurture new and renewed intersectoral alliances of public, private,
non-governmental and community-based organizations to make a positive
difference in the quality of life in human settlements. The recommendations
of Habitat I were largely assigned to national governments for implementation.
The need to build alliances with local authorities and NGOs and to draw
upon and empower the mobilization capacity of community-based organizations
and neighborhood groups in order to address these problems in an holistic
way is now increasingly recognized." (ibid; pg. 19.)
What
problem?
The
problem the national governments failed to solve in 1976: private land
ownership. In 1976 during Habitat I the UN declared that "...[p]rivate
land ownership is a principal instrument of accumulating wealth and therefore
contributes to social in-justice...Public control of land is therefore
indispensable...Public ownership of land is justified in favor of the
common good, rather than to protect the interests of the already privileged."
(UN Conference on Human Settlements; Habitat I; Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada.)
"To
ensure the adequate supply of serviceable land, Governments at the appropriate
levels should...consider fiscal and other measures, as appropriate, to
prevent the hoarding of vacant land for speculative purposes and thus
increase the supply of land shelter." (UN Conference on Human
Settlements; Habitant II; Discussion Document #56e.)
During
a Habitat II press conference N'Dow affirmed that the agenda was centered
on "...a whole revision of laws and institutions which will allow...many,
many poor people to access lands that have been left unoccupied, or owned
by absentia owners. Traditionally, this debate...[advocated]...that the
big holdings...like in America and Africa...be the object of great study
and great scrutiny, so that the poor and the landless will have access
to it."
"To
avoid unbalanced, unhealthy and unsustainable growth of human settlements,
it is necessary to promote land-use patterns that are a precondition for
minimizing transport demands, saving energy and protecting open spaces."
(UN Conference on Human Settlements; Habitant II; Discussion Document
#83.)
Under
Marxism, collectivism is a critical and necessary tool in the successful
transformation of a society into a communist state. Most Americans, largely
because they were told as much by their government, believe that communism
collapsed because it could not compete with capitalism, and that communism
itself was a failed political philosophy. Nothing could be farther from
the truth, particularly since the global government fostered by the UN
is merely an extension of that communist system.
The
report, entitled Renewing the United Nations System, outlined the
procedures needed to create an effective, omnipotent world parliament.
Unlike the current system which simply provides each the national governments
of the world with an international forum to debate geopolitical and social
issues in which each member State has one vote, the proposed world parliament
would be the first giant step towards dissolving national sovereignty—a
step that is essential to the establishment of a world government.
It
is critical for Americans to understand the difference, since clearly,
before such a plan can be implemented it will be preceded by a massive
amount of public relations extolling the virtues of the concept—complete
with all of the politically-correct assurances that the differences between
the current system and the proposed world parliament will be purely cosmetic.
Again,
Americans need to understand that the only thing standing between them
and world government today is the Constitution of the United States. When
it is abolished, the elitists who have been planning world government
since before 1917, will move quickly to weaken, and then eliminate, the
sovereignty of the nation-states. At that time, the nucleus of world power
will be centered in, but not controlled by, the United Nations.
Before
the globalists' plan can proceed much farther, the Constitution has to
go.
Order your copies for Christmas giving today to assure that your friends and family will have them for Christmas
Just
go to
www.jonchristianryter.com
and click on the link, "order books"
or call
1-866-866-0063
ISBN O-87319-049-1
• 551 pages • Hardbound
Comprehensive 38 page index • $29.95 plus s&h
