CFR DOCS Reveal Plan to Limit U.S. sovereignty
Document shows Council on Foreign Relations plan to limit U.S. sovereignty
“And I saw, and behold a white horse;
and he that sat on him had a bow;
and a crown was given unto him:
and he went forth conquering, and
On Sunday a news report published at the Examiner indicated that there are heightened suspicions that the U.S. government is essentially being held hostage by a powerful global consortium of politicians, government bureaucrats, large banking moguls, university professors, and members of the mainstream media.
That powerful global consortium was identified by a trusted source as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), although no de facto proof could be offered to support the claim other than a mountain of circumstantial evidence.
Today this reporter received information from 2008 that was not made available to the public indicating that the CFR has a written plan to advance "global governance," placing restrictions on the national sovereignty of the United States and other nations and implementing broad international laws that govern the internal affairs of the countries of the world in areas such as homeland security, climate change, terrorism, and economic policy.
The document in question is titled, "International Institutions and Global Governance Program, World Order in the 21st Century."
A key paragraph in the document is as follows:
Re-conceptualizing “sovereignty” in an age of globalization. The post-Cold War era has posed challenges to traditional concepts of state sovereignty, in at least four respects. First, some failing and post-conflict states have become wards of the international community, submitting to a form of UN “neo-trusteeship.” Second, some countries by their conduct have lost their immunity from intervention, as part of an emerging doctrine of “contingent sovereignty.” Third, nearly all states – including the United States – have voluntarily forfeited some historic freedom of action to 12 manage transnational threats and exploit international opportunities. Finally, some countries, particularly in the EU, have chosen to “pool” their sovereignty in return for economic, social, and political benefits. The program could provide a valuable intellectual contribution by tracing the scope and implications of these transformations.
The paragraph cited above contains some highly troubling realities that have developed within the last century which have led to the assumption on the part of the CFR that in today's world it is acceptable that politicians have voluntarily forfeited their nations' national sovereignty and in doing so have given up some of their historic freedom.
Such actions of forfeiting freedom and sovereignty have occurred more often than not by signing onto global treaties originating at the United Nations. And in the case of the United States, these actions have directly violated the historic principles that were long assumed to be central to U.S. Constitution.
CFR, however, proposes even more violations of sovereignty and forfeiture of freedom by mandating treaties under the auspices of the United Nations that would govern how nations respond to "global warming," internal and external threats of violence, and the stabilization of the economy, among other issues.
In terms of practicality, these broad principles would mandate, for example, that nations submit to international carbon emissions standards that would directly limit the types of automobiles citizens drive and the types of industries that are allowed. Coal, for example, would be disallowed.
With regard to the use of military force to defend the nation's security, actions would need to be made "multilaterally" rather than "unilaterally," meaning that before the United States could deploy its military it would need the consent of other member nations who would decide if such actions were necessary. And in the case of internal threats of violence, nations that hold sacred the right of its citizens to keep and bear arms, such as the United States, would have to rethink and reconfigure its laws so that more restrictions would be placed on personal freedoms in the name of national and global security.
Firearms rights activists say that this would mean strict gun control and gun bans.
Many political observers have noted that the U.N. "small arms treaty" is a direct outgrowth of the concept of multilateral cooperation in which a nation and its citizens must be willing to forfeit some of their sovereignty and freedom.
These concepts and initiatives did not originate with the United Nations, however. The United Nations is merely the vehicle by which these concepts and initiatives are implemented. The source for these concepts and and initiatives is CFR, a private nonprofit entity that is unelected by citizens anywhere but which wields enormous power and influence over politicians and the policies they implement in their respective governments.
The proof that CFR is pushing toward the roll back of national sovereignty is found all over the pages of the document provided above. And CFR is perhaps the only entity in the world with the power and clout to hold a nation and its politicians hostage, forcing treasonous violations of the rule of law and the centrality of constitutional authority.