He writes in great detail about all that’s wrong in the World today when politicians take on the roles of “being above the law and attempt to destroy Democracy” in the Free World.
His in-depth research and writings are done in “layman’s language” so it can be understood and reasonably digested for future thoughts. Unlike the United Nations and their “partners” who are deliberately obtuse and confusing so that the people of the World will never know what their psycho-babble even means. Henry Lamb removes that cloak of deceit and allows one to see through the fog of the war on humans!
Report of the Commission on Global Governance(ISBN 0-19-827998-1; Published by Oxford University Press, 1995)
A Summary Analysis by Henry Lamb
(First published in eco-logic, January/February, 1996)
The Commission on Global Governance has released its recommendations in preparation for a World Conference on Global Governance, scheduled for 1998, at which official world governance treaties are expected to be adopted for implementation by the year 2000. Among those recommendations are specific proposals to expand the authority of the United Nations to provide:
A standing UN army;
An Economic Security Council;
UN authority over the global commons;
An end to the veto power of permanent members of the Security Council;
A new parliamentary body of “civil society” representatives (NGOs);
A new “Petitions Council”;
A new Court of Criminal Justice; (Accomplished in July, 1998 in Rome)
Binding verdicts of the International Court of Justice;
Expanded authority for the Secretary General.
These proposals reflect the work of dozens of different agencies and commissions over several years, but are now being advanced by the Commission on Global Governance in its report entitled Our Global Neighborhood (Oxford University Press, 1995, ISBN 0-19-827998-3, 410pp).
The Commission consists of 28 individuals, carefully selected because of their prominence, influence, and their ability to effect the implementation of the recommendations. The Commission is not an official body of the United Nations. It was, however, endorsed by the UN Secretary General and funded through two trust funds of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), nine national governments, and several foundations, including the MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation.
The Commission believes that world events, since the creation of the United Nations in 1945, combined with advances in technology, the information revolution, and the now-global awareness of impending environmental catastrophe, create a climate in which the people of the world will recognize the need for, and the benefits of, global governance.
Global governance, according to the report, “does not imply world government or world federalism.” Although the difference between “world government” and “global governance” has been compared to the difference between “rape” and “date-rape,” the system of governance described in the report is a new system. There is no historic model for the system here proposed, nor is there any method by which the governed may decide whether or not they wish to be governed by such a system.
Global governance is a procedure toward defined objectives that employs a variety of methods, none of which give the governed an opportunity to vote “yes” or “no” for the outcome. Decisions taken by administrative bodies, or by bodies of appointed delegates, or by “accredited” civil society organizations, are already implementing many of the recommendations just published by the Commission.
The Foundation for Global Governance
The foundation for global governance is the belief that the world is now ready to accept a “global civic ethic” based on “a set of core values that can unite people of all cultural, political, religious, or philosophical backgrounds.” This belief is reinforced by another belief: “that governance should be underpinned by democracy at all levels and ultimately by the rule of enforceable law.”
The report says: “We believe that all humanity could uphold the core values of respect for life, liberty, justice and equity, mutual respect, caring, and integrity.” In the fine print, these lofty values lose much of their appeal. Respect for life, for example, is not limited to human life. “Respect for life” actually means equal respect for all life. The Global Biodiversity Assessment (Section 9), prepared under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme, describes in great detail the biocentric view that “humans are one strand in nature’s web,” consistent with the biocentric view that all life has equal intrinsic value. Some segments of humanity may balk at extending to trees, bugs, and grizzly bears the same respect for life that is extended to human beings.
“Next to life, liberty is what people value most,” the report says. It also says: “The impulse to possess turf is a powerful one for all species; yet it is one that people must overcome.” It also says: “global rules of custom constrain the freedom of sovereign states,” and “sensitivity over the relationship between international responsibility and national sovereignty [is a] considerable obstacle to the leadership at the international level,” and “Although states are sovereign, they are not free individually to do whatever they want.”
Maurice Strong, a member of the Commission, and a likely candidate for the position of Secretary General, said in an essay entitled Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation: “It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation.”
READ MORE HERE: (PDF format 146 pages)
Here’s another report on Agenda 21 by Henry Lamb:
April 29, 2012
For more than 20 years, now, the most powerful word in advertising has been “sustainable.” This term sells everything from toilet paper to spark plugs. This same term is even more powerful when applied to public policies such as: “sustainable” energy; transportation; agriculture; development; housing, and almost every other policy considered by government. When the term “sustainable” is used to sell a product, the product will be more expensive and less efficient than it has to be. When the term “sustainable” is used to sell a public policy, the policy will not only be more expensive and less efficient, it will be controlled by the government, and it will ultimately fail.
Before 1990, the term “sustainable” was rarely heard. Today, the term saturates all media every day. Everyone knows the term; few people know what sustainable development is, or the effect it is having on communities, or the ultimate goal of its proponents, or how it gets into public policy.
Agenda 21 is a document adopted by 179 nations at the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. Its 40 chapters contain specific recommendations, which, when adopted and implemented by governments, will result in sustainable development, according to its proponents. Since 1993, the federal government has been promoting and funding the implementation of Agenda 21 recommendations throughout the country.
The Obama administration has picked up where the Clinton administration left off, advancing the implementation of Agenda 21. The U.S. State Department has been preparing to support the U.N.’s effort to convert the non-binding Agenda 21, into a legally binding Covenant on Environment and Development, enforceable by the International Criminal Court. There will be a flurry of activity leading up to, and after the Rio+20 conference scheduled for June. The U.S. State Department began leading this campaign last year. Read about their involvement and promotion here, and here.