The late Henry Lamb and Tom DeWeese have been working tirelessly for decades to unravel the thorny and terrifying tentacles of U.N.'s Agenda 21, a soft law signed in 1992 by 178 countries. But the idea of a one world government/order has been around since the turn of the 20th century. It suffices to look at the back of a dollar bill to see the evidence. Featured prominently under the Masonic Pyramid are the Latin words, , the New World Order.
A series of rather transparent and "progressive" events solidified the path to U.N.'s Agenda 21 and one-world governance:
Henry Lamb wrote, in 2010, that "Government control of land use is a fundamental principle of global governance." The 40-chapter U.N. Agenda 21 document, although never ratified by Congress, limits the behavior and freedoms of individuals and firms, involving every facet of human life. It makes suggestions and recommendations that are adapted into law at the state and local levels through comprehensive land use plans which are voted on and included by the board of supervisors into local zoning codes
Citizens do not understand U.N. Agenda 21's damaging ramifications to their private property, to their ability to make a living, to use their land, grow food in their gardens, sell their fresh produce freely, engage in agriculture, sell their land, and pass it on to future generations. Local land owners do not have the opportunity to provide their input into the decision-making process; they are at the mercy of "visioning committees" and the board of supervisors, often plants or paid subscribers to the one world government idea.
A younger Nancy Pelosi introduced a bill to follow the 1992 Rio Earth Summit to conform to U.N.'s Agenda 21, its local sustainable community practices, and to follow international law.
The one world governance will control and dictate:
Christina Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, delivered a speech to the World Affairs Council of Northern California, touting that the "world has reinvented itself" and in order to be prosperous and efficient, we must live in Mega cities.
Business Insider wrote about the plan floating at Davos 2015 to spend $90 trillion to redesign all cities so that people no longer need cars. Coffin-sized living quarters will be stacked by the millions in these Mega cities while the residents attempt to grow food on roofs and terraces and capture rain for all their daily needs. Figueres said, "you will enjoy unlimited interaction and global cooperation," while buildings will capture as much water needed."
She listed the benefits of living in such Mega cities as avoiding the catastrophic rise in temperatures (even though the Polar Vortex dumped record amounts of snow and froze half the globe, even Cairo got snow last year), increased food security (from growing food on rooftops and terraces? The world's grain storage can only last for two days in case of a world-wide catastrophe), increased energy security (from solar panels on the roof and windmills on the roof?), increased water security (from collecting rainwater?), transportation security using electric cars with charge stations (where is the electricity coming from to charge the said cars? Fossil fuels?), low carbon model that contributes to job creation, job security, and happiness (where are all the much-touted green jobs?), and safeguard natural resources for future generations (what future generations, before or after mass starvation?).
In Mega Cities Figueres sees a "transformed world, each building would produce all electricity that it needs, capture water as needed, produce food on the roof and the terrace."
Meanwhile most human activity that define our western civilization would be deemed unsustainable: private property, suburban living, fossil fuels, consumerism, farming, irrigation, commercial agriculture, logging, pesticide use, herbicide use, grazing of livestock, paved roads, golf courses, ski lodges, dams, reservoirs, fences, power lines, and the family unit.
U.N. has developed an environmental constitution for the world called the . The September 22, 2010 version has 79 articles described in great detail in 242 pages. It takes Sustainable Development principles described in U.N. Agenda 21 and transforms them into global law which supersedes all constitutions, including the U.S. Constitution. All signatory nations would become centrally planned, socialist countries in which all decisions would be made within the framework of Sustainable Development.
Having the Holy Father, Pope Francis, involved in the climate change industry gives the one world government total control and a very powerful façade, particularly when His Holiness will address Congress in a very unprecedented move for the clergy to get involved in global politics and the U.S. and global economy instead of ministering to the souls of Catholics around the world. Theologian Leonardo Boff is quick to point out the "Similarities between the Encyclical Laudato Si, 'On Care for our Common Home,' and the Earth Charter, 'Earth, Our Home.'
The United States and its NATO allies treat information as a weapon designed to shape people's perceptions across the globe and are ready to use any tool in their arsenals to silence those, who are critical of Washington and its friends, veteran war correspondent Don North warned.
The US calls an activity, which involves combining psychological warfare, propaganda and public relations, "strategic communications," the journalist explained in an opinion piece titled "US/NATO Embrace Psy-ops and Info-War."
The highly controversial document essentially equates some journalists to al-Qaeda terrorists and maintains that they "could be subject to indefinite incarceration, military tribunals and extrajudicial execution," the journalist explained.
In the last seven years, "the concept of 'strategic communication' – managing the perceptions of the world's public – has grown more and more expansive and the crackdown on the flow of information unprecedented. More than any of his predecessors, President Barack Obama has authorized harsh legal action against government 'leakers' who have exposed inconvenient truths about US foreign policy and intelligence practices," North noted.
The federal judge who threw Christian clerk Kim Davis in jail previously “oversaw a legal settlement that included anti-harassment sessions” for students in Boyd County, Kentucky, The New York Times reports. In fact, the judge, David Bunning, had denied free speech rights to those students.
The so-called “anti-harassment sessions” in the Boyd County case were actually designed to instruct students “to withhold Christian viewpoints about homosexual behavior,” the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), the legal group representing the students, reported.
Bunning’s ruling against the students, a direct ban on free speech, was overturned on appeal.
The Times admitted this fact only later in the story, noting that Bunning’s ruling forcing students into the “anti-harassment sessions” was “overruled by an appellate court.”
The fact that he “was overruled by an appellate case” demonstrates how wrong his ruling was.
It is this out-of-control judge who is at the center of the Kim Davis case. Ironically, the media are reporting that Bunning is a Christian. If so, he has no fundamental understanding of how Christians helped create this nation, and are entitled to the rights and liberties guaranteed to them under the Constitution.
The Times’ handling of this case reflects how the actions of Davis have also been distorted by most of the media. The Times said Bunning sent Davis to jail for “refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.” In fact, she had simply exercised her religious rights and liberties in refusing to sign the gay marriage licenses.
Her attorneys at Liberty Counsel noted, “Davis only asked that the Kentucky marriage license forms be changed so her name would not appear on them.” This simple request was deemed to be “contempt” and she was thrown in jail.
What we see in the case of Judge Bunning, under pressure from the gay lobby, is a pattern of discrimination against Christians, a pattern we also see in the coverage of the cases in which he has ruled. The media have refused to respect the rights of free speech and freedom of religion that Americans are supposed to have under the Constitution.
Heather Clark of the Christian News Network first noted that Bunning, appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush, had, in the Boyd County case, “ordered Kentucky students to be re-educated about homosexuality despite their objections.”
In the case, she noted, a number of students objected to being forced to watch a video that asserted that it is wrong to oppose homosexuality and that a person’s sexuality cannot be changed. Clark reported, “They discovered that they could not opt-out of the training without being penalized, and contacted the legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) for assistance.”
Numerous experts have pointed out that, under the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court cannot make law. The Supreme Court’s “power to offer opinion does not equal the power to make law,” notes the Tenth Amendment Center. Generally speaking, experts say, the Supreme Court can overturn laws and executive actions but it cannot enforce its rulings. The power to make law is given to the representatives of the people in the national and state legislatures.
Huckabee said, “Kim is asking the perfect question: ‘Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?’ The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law. They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law allowing for same sex marriage, Kim does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples.”