Henry Kissinger and the Coming Obama Nation: Do We Have a Chance at a Global Paradise?


Henry Kissinger looks forward to a new world order that may spring from the confluence of all the major international disputes, and crises of this moment, and the leadership of President Obama.  According to Kissinger, and frankly Rohm Emanuel, the incoming Chief of Staff for Obama, each crisis holds in its hands the possibility of a new and improved status quo given a creative and future leaning vision by the leaders involved.  That’s a diplomatic way of saying that when your economy is in the toilet you may be forced to learn how to make a better economy.  When the reserve currency is destroyed and when fossil fuel costs become prohibitive than that’s the golden opportunity to launch a truly fair currency and to develop the next generation of fuels to run our world. 

Our grandparents used to say the every dark cloud has its silver lining but I don’t think they were talking about the establishment of a world currency, the wholesale abandonment of our national sovereignty nor the casting off of the market economy to say nothing of democracy.  I’m sure Dr. Kissinger would argue that he’s simply talking about closer international ties and a more interdependent world that finds it can no longer afford or no longer desires war.  That’s what Henry would say….   To us….  But what he says in the annual Bildeberg meeting we’ll never know because it’s only for the elite not pawns like us. (We might not understand)

Kissinger readily admits the need for us to lead the efforts toward trans-nationalism because he presumably believes that quaint ideas of the past like the nation state have become antiquated obstacles to human evolution and effective governance.  In this attitude he would be mirroring elements of the United States Supreme Court who have openly admitted to, and now cite, precedents from other nations instead of interpreting the stale and dated constitution.  We’ve seen unprecedented international cooperation and the concertized actions of many of the world’s most important central banks in an attempt to manage the global economic crisis.  We’ve seen worldwide calls for the United States to act with a multilateral spirit that’s found a big proponent in the person of Barak Obama. He’ll doubtless be giving us a kinder, gentler, foreign policy that refuses to engage the bad guys because no one elected the US the world’s policeman.  We’re routinely buffeted by “green” organizations battling “manmade global warming” that will destroy the planet unless a massive transnational effort is made to stop it.  We don’t need Henry Kissinger to tell us the world has become smaller and more interdependent because the outsourcing of too many of our jobs, even whole industries, makes the case most eloquently as only a declining standard of living can.  Kissinger forgot to tell us that Globalism wont elevate the workforce of China and India and other emerging nations to a level we used to enjoy it will lower our standard of living to a rough equivalence to what India and China now experience.  Globalism means our heyday is over.

So why do the likes of Zbig Brazinski and Henry Kissinger agree that globalism is such a good idea?  If the fruits of globalism means adopting a paternalist socialist state, ever in economic stagnation, telling a perpetually docile and dependant population of humans how to run every aspect of their lives and to have faith in government elites instead of superstitions, myths, religion and God, than is this truly better than what we had? Our we less capable of ruling ourselves than an elite who have recently considered fining cows for passing gas and thus advancing global warming?  New York wants to place heavy taxes on soda pop because it makes people fat!  Speaking objectively: is it more rational to believe the authors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the elite lawmaker demanding a cow flatulence tax, or in the Bible that suggests that a good name, and living within your means, and telling the truth and loving your neighbor, is more important than giving a man a mortgage you know he can’t afford? Jesus never said to go forth and create government healthcare, pensions and free birth control for the poor; he challenged each and every one of us to serve the poor and thus demonstrate the love he has for everyone. Our Christian duty has no clause in it saying we should outsource our Christian love to government because the power of a caring Christian offering a hand up to a poor person is far more powerful than tripling the welfare budget of the most benevolent government on earth!  

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights says that we were given our human rights by God: not Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barak Obama.  Certainly our rights don’t derive from the UN charter on human rights no matter what Zbig, Henry, and President Sarkozy of France might say.  All this strange optimism coming from the world elites, as though the coming of Barak Obama heralds a new step in world government, if not human evolution, seems also to fly in the face of history.  When the post world war one German government came apart it did indeed inaugurate lots of social change like the Nazi’s and brown shirts as well as a booming economy.  I guess the Germans just missed the opportunity, or was it that they didn’t recognize,  the seemingly positive changes accruing with the adoption of fascism might not seem so great given a little historical perspective.  It begs the question that if the Germans of post World War I had known that their economic solutions would result in World War II and the deaths of millions would they have rejected the Nazi’s?  Or would they have ended their economic suffering by throwing out their beliefs in themselves and their religious and ethical scruples. How much are we willing to throw away in order to keep the economy alive? 

A more globalist economy, a more globalist currency and trade regulations, a more globalist approach toward settling disputes among nations does seem appealing but it means that we surrender more of our human rights as Americans and that we reject much of our governments authority as we embrace what?  The International Monetary Fund?  The World Bank?  The United Nations?  As we look at the considerable corruption in Illinois Politics can we remember that the corruption at the United Nations makes Chicago Politics look like Romper Room.  The UN is not about government of by and for the people it’s by the elites of each government making deals with the elites of other governments and believing that the people of the world would be served by such a system. A more globalist economy means the people making the decisions would be fundamentally unaccountable to anyone because they would be so far removed from the people.  Henry Kissinger might argue that they need that distance to solve global problems like global warming but what does that mean for the nation Henry used to represent as Secretary of State?  I think I know what it means.  I think it means we trade our standard of living for China and India and kiss our heritage of being the master of our government goodbye in the name of a politically correct and corrupt world government.

Here are some clips from a wonderfull article in World Net Daily and the URL: http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85442

According to Henry Kissinger, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former secretary of state under President Nixon, conflicts across the globe and an international respect for Barack Obama have created the perfect setting for establishment of “a New World Order.”

“The president-elect is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously,” Kissinger responded. “You have India, Pakistan; you have the jihadist movement. So he can’t really say there is one problem, that it’s the most important one. But he can give new impetus to American foreign policy partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world. His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.”

Kissinger’s ties to government and international powers – as well as his use of the phrase – have made him suspect in the eyes of many who are wary of what “new world order” might actually mean.

“There is a need for a new world order,” Kissinger told PBS interviewer Charlie Rose last year, “I think that at the end of this administration, with all its turmoil, and at the beginning of the next, we might actually witness the creation of a new order – because people looking in the abyss, even in the Islamic world, have to conclude that at some point, ordered expectations must return under a different system.”

As WND reported, Kissinger was also part of last year’s super-secret Bilderberg Group, an organization of powerful international elites, including government, business, academic and journalistic representatives, that has convened annually since 1954.

According to sources that have penetrated the high-security meetings, the Bilderberg meetings emphasize a globalist agenda and promote the idea that the notion of national sovereignty is antiquated and regressive.

CNBC’s Haines concluded the Kissinger interview by asking, “Are you confident about the people President-elect Obama has chosen to surround him?”

Kissinger replied, “He has appointed an extraordinarily able group of people in both the international and financial fields.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s