| Some people think that President Bill Clinton is only interested in power and women. That's not true. He has a very definite and specific global agenda. Bill Clinton made a major address to the United Nations General Assembly in September 1997. He spoke with gusto about what he called "this new global era" and "the emerging international system." Then he used an amazing metaphor: he said he is taking America into a "web of institutions and arrangements" to set "the international ground rules for the 21st century." He identified the treaties that will take us into this web: the World Trade Organization, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the NATO Expansion Treaty, and the Global Warming Treaty. Clinton said that "the forces of global integration are a great tide, inexorably wearing away the established order of things." Then he described our troops lost in a crash of a UN helicopter in Bosnia as "citizens of the world." Those men signed up to serve in the American armed forces. Who made them "citizens of the world"? The following month, Bill Clinton went to Argentina, where he said: I'm trying to promote a "reorganization of the world" into a "global system." He said he wants "to build a global system" by merging "integrated economies and integrated democracies." The American people do not want our economy integrated with corrupt, bankrupt regimes where people work for wages of 25 or 50 cents an hour. We do not want to integrate our U.S. democracy with countries built on totalitarianism and terror, without any constitutional rights. Americans absolutely do not want to be integrated into a global system. When Bill Clinton became President, he surrounded himself with people who seek to reorganize America into a global system. His chief foreign policy adviser is Strobe Talbott, who was Clinton's Rhodes scholar roommate and fellow draft dodger. Talbott wrote in Time Magazine that "national sovereignty wasn't such a great idea." He rejoiced in the coming "birth of the Global Nation" where "nationhood as we know it will be obsolete, all states will recognize a single, global authority." Bill Clinton knows that, if he proposed world government, the American people would reject it out of hand. So he is trying to tie us into world government incrementally, one step at a time. It's like the story about the frog. If you drop him in boiling water, he will jump right out. But if you put him in cold water and then bring the pot to a boil, you will have cooked frog. Bill Clinton, Strobe Talbott, and Madeleine Albright are moving us incrementally into a network of global organizations, each of which will exercise control over Americans in a different area: (1) human behavior, (2) our economic life, (3) our private property, and (4) our armed services. The mechanisms to accomplish this global network are treaties, international conferences, executive orders, executive-branch power over federal agencies, and assignment of our armed services. Two treaties that were written to regulate human behavior were rejected by Presidents Reagan and Bush, but have become pet projects of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright. The United Nations Treaty on the Rights of the Child would set up a broad array of children's rights against their parents. The treaty would give children the right to "rest and leisure." Does that mean that, when you tell Billy to clean up his room and carry out the garbage, he can say, "I have my UN right to rest and leisure"? Does this treaty mean that, when you tell Sally to turn off the television and do her homework, she can say, "Oh, no, I have my UN right to get information from the media of my choice"? Article 43 sets up a Committee on the Rights of the Child consisting of ten "experts" to monitor compliance. Do you want UN "experts" monitoring the way you raise your children? The United Nations Treaty on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women purports to govern political, economic, social, cultural, and civil areas, plus "customs and practices," "social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women." This treaty would require us to follow UN dictates about "family education" and feminist dictates about revision of textbooks. Clinton called a news conference to announce that he is "embarrassed" that the U.S. has never ratified this UN treaty. This is the same man who is not embarrassed by Paula or Monica. However, the Clinton Administration is trying to implement this unratified treaty anyway through the UN World Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995. Hillary Clinton was the star speaker and Madeleine Albright was the chairman of the U.S. delegation. Soon after the feminists returned from China in 1995, Madeleine Albright spelled out the goals in a document called "Bring Beijing Home." That is a plan to implement the pro-abortion feminist agenda through a federal entity composed of high-level representatives from 30 federal agencies, writing on White House letterhead. A third treaty to regulate human behavior is the International Criminal Court Treaty adopted this year in Rome. This court will have power to try individuals, including Americans, in foreign courts where there is no due process or trial by jury. Even though the United States didn't sign or ratify this treaty, it's a direct threat to all our service personnel stationed overseas. The most important of the Clinton's treaties designed to regulate our nation's economic life is the Global Warming Treaty agreed to by Al Gore in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. This treaty would bind the United States to reduce our energy emissions to 7% below our 1990 levels. Energy is the basis of our high standard of living. Such a reduction would cost us a million jobs and massive disruptions in the American economy. These drastic cutbacks would be enforced by big tax increases on gasoline, home fuel, and electricity. Meanwhile, China, India, Mexico, and 100 other developing nations would have no limitations at all. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that U.S. fossil-fuel-burning plants would move out of the United States to countries where there are no such restrictions. And, of course, that's the purpose: to distribute our wealth to the Third World. This devastating reduction in our standard of living would take place on the basis of "global warming" predictions that are no more reliable than the weatherman's guess of how much snow will fall in the next 30 years. The only warming that is taking place comes out of the mouths of the politicians, such as Clinton's State of the Union Message, which is why we call this the Hot Air Treaty. Another treaty designed to control our economic life, the Law of the Sea Treaty was emphatically rejected by President Reagan in the 1980s. This is a scheme to force American businesses to sink billions of investment dollars down on the ocean floor, and then turn the seabed's riches over to a global commission. All decisions would be made by Third World countries, which contributed nothing to the tremendous investment necessary to bring those riches to the surface. The treaties designed to take over the management of large areas of American land and drastically reduce our property rights usually masquerade under the pretense of protecting the environment. The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio produced the Biodiversity Treaty, which planned to set aside buffer zones and corridors connecting habitat areas where human use by Americans would be severely restricted. It would subject U.S. property owners to international review and regulation. President Bush refused to sign the Biodiversity Treaty. However, Al Gore persuaded Bill Clinton to sign it, and they tried to ram it through the Senate in 1994. The good news is that, due to the action of alert patriots, the Senate rejected it. The bad news is that the Clinton Administration is implementing it anyway in three ways, claiming that we must "fulfill existing international obligations." But we don't have any international obligations because the Senate never ratified. First, the Clinton Administration has already put 47 large areas of land, called "Biosphere Reserves," under control of the UN and prohibited development in these areas. The area involved is larger than the state of Colorado. Second, Clinton issued an Executive Order called the American Heritage Rivers Initiative under which he took over 10 rivers this year, putting hundreds of thousands of acres along the banks of the rivers under control of federal regulators with full authority. This Rivers project is a direct threat to our private property rights guaranteed in the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th Amendments. Third, Clinton is also trying to implement the unratified Biodiversity Treaty through the President's Council on Sustainable Development. It is busy developing curriculum for the schools. The World Heritage Treaty of 1972 granted special powers to the corrupt UN agency called UNESCO to designate selected American treasures as World Heritage sites and develop regulations and policies concerning their use. The United States doesn't even belong to UNESCO because Ronald Reagan pulled us out of it. Nevertheless, 20 World Heritage Sites have already been claimed and marked by UNESCO, including Yosemite National Park, Yellowstone National Park, the Grand Canyon, and even the Statue of Liberty and Independence Hall. I visited Independence Hall and saw the big bronze UNESCO plaque impudently asserting that this sacred site -- where the Declaration of Independence was signed and our Constitution was written -- belongs to "the common inheritance of all mankind." Other UN conferences have been thinking up other ways to coopt American wealth for global purposes. The 1995 UN World Summit for Social Development, held in Copenhagen, Denmark, discussed imposing a global tax to give the UN its own flow of money independent of Congressional appropriations. The UN wants a global tax on all international financial transactions, international airline tickets, aviation freight, cruises, aviation fuel, communications satellites, and international postal items. Clinton is planning on submitting an ABM Expansion Treaty, which would lock us forever into the policy of never building the Strategic Defense Initiative that Ronald Reagan advocated and which is so necessary to protect our people from missile attacks. Communist China has 13 ICBMs targeted on U.S. cities today, and who knows what North Korea, Iraq and Iran will do. The Clinton Administration is also pursuing its global goals by putting our national security, including our armed services, under global control so that the United States will be locked into a perpetual interventionist policy under which American servicemen and women will be sent to faraway places to fight never-ending foreign wars disguised as "peacekeeping" operations. In May 1994, Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive, PDD 25, the most unconstitutional transfer of power in American history. In PDD 25, Clinton asserted his authority "to place U.S. forces under the operational control of a foreign commander" and under the United Nations rules of engagement. In 1995, the Clinton Administration ordered American troops to go on a so-called "peacekeeping" expedition to Macedonia wearing the United Nations uniform. When Army Specialist Michael New protested that this order was illegal because it conflicted with his oath to the U.S. Constitution, he was court-martialed. His conviction was a watershed event on the way to transferring control over our armed services to global command. When American soldiers were killed over Iraq, Vice President Al Gore told their widows and orphans that "they died in the service of the United Nations." That wasn't a slip of the tongue; his words reveal the Clinton Administration's plan to use our armed forces as UN mercenaries all over the world at the whim of UN bureaucrats. We do not want American service personnel serving in UN uniforms under UN or NATO commanders. The Ronald Reagan vision of military strategy was firmly grounded in the principle of "peace through strength," that is, America should have more weapons than any possible enemy so that no bad guys would dare to attack us. It worked -- Reagan ended the Cold War without firing a shot! The Clinton policy is just the opposite; Clinton wants to be involved in foreign conflicts. Time Magazine described Madeleine Albright as having a "passion for American activism." Colin Powell wrote in his autobiography that, when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Madeleine Albright told him, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?" Clinton persuaded the Senate this year to ratify the NATO Expansion Treaty. It commits America to defend borders in Eastern Europe that people have been fighting over for hundreds of years. Bosnia is the perfect example of the future the Clinton globalists have in store for us. Clinton has no exit strategy for Bosnia because he has no plans ever to exit. Clinton's goal is permanent intervention in foreign conflicts, using Bosnia as the model and NATO as the mechanism to preempt Congress. Why? Because Clinton and his advisers all believe in U.S. interventionism in foreign, particularly European, conflicts as a permanent feature of U.S. policy. If you want to know more about Clinton's global goals, you should see Eagle Forum's remarkable new video called "Global Governance: The Quiet War Against American Independence." I hope this video will help us to find leaders who will stand up for the independence and sovereignty of the United States of America. Global treaties and conferences are a direct threat to every American citizen. They are an assault on our right to raise and educate our children as we see fit. They are an attack on our energy consumption, our private property, and our national treasures. They are an attack on our pocketbooks because, if the UN ever gets taxing power, there is no limit to how much power and money it can grab. They are an attack on our standard of living because their goal is to steal American wealth and transfer it to the rest of the world. Global treaties and conferences are an assault on the soul and sovereignty of America because they mean that young American men and women will be sent around the world, again and again, on phony "peacekeeping" expeditions. Clinton is determined to keep America on an interventionist course despite the opposition of the American people. It's called "global leadership," which means that our armed services will serve as global policemen and global social workers, while the U.S. taxpayers will play global sugar daddy. The Senate should reject all UN treaties out of hand. Every single one would reduce our rights, freedom and sovereignty. That goes for treaties on the child, women, an international court, the sea, trade, biodiversity, global warming, and heritage sites. Americans are not willing to be ruled by Bill Clinton's global web, or by Strobe Talbott's "global nation," or by any United Nations treaties or conferences. We all know that the Kingdom of God will prevail some day. But there is no evidence that, when the Lord says "seek first the Kingdom of God," he's really telling us to look for it in the United Nations. Our Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution are the fountainhead of the freedom and prosperity Americans enjoy. We Americans have a constitutional republic so unique, so precious, so successful that it would be total folly to put our necks in a yoke with any other nation. St. Paul warns us (II Cor 6.14): "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?" The principles of life, liberty and property must not be joined with the principles of genocide, totalitarianism, socialism, and religious persecution. We cannot trust agreements or treaties with infidels. The remarkable group of men who founded the United States of America talked about our Constitution as a miracle. They believed that God's hand was on us, leading us to victory in the war that established our independence and helping them to set up a framework of government under which freedom, religion and prosperity could flourish. God's people must not allow ourselves to become yoked with unbelievers. This rule applies to nations as well as individuals. Our great American principles of life, liberty and property must not be compromised by being put under foreign bureaucracies where the majority of nations reject God, self-government, and commit the most grievous persecution of all religions. George Washington warned us in his Farewell Address: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." It's time to heed his warning and to adopt his words at the original Constitutional Convention: "Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the event is in the hands of God." | 
Washington (dbTechno) - According to reports, new satellite photos have revealed Iran’s secret long-range ballistic missile launch site. It has been suspected for quite some time that Iran has been developing these missiles, which will be able to hit far-reaching targets throughout Europe.
Google will have to turn over every record of every video watched by YouTube users, including users' names and IP addresses, to Viacom, which is suing Google for allowing clips of its copyright videos to appear on YouTube, a judge ruled Wednesday.
Are they like the photos of the “Weapons of mass destruction” seen in IRAQ before the invasion 5 years ago?
pathetic array of scary buzz words, not journalism.
What’s wrong if Iran makes long distance ballistic missiles? when Iran’s enemies are always threatening it with many different threat it should have the deterrent abilities including nuclear arsenal. personally I am against any nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. but at the same time we cannot have a world in which certain powers would dominate the world with their military superiority. In order for an equilibrium we need Iran and other nations to have the capabilities to successfully defend themselves from continuos foreign threat.
Siramoni, you aparently are an iranian.
nuclear weapons aren’t tactical, they aren’t used to defend, they are only for attacking large areas. large areas typically occupied by civilians. if your going to attack a military establishment a nuclear missile is overkill. the surrounding area would be decimated. this move isn’t a move to provide self protection, this is a scare tactic.
this is a move to scare people into trusting them. kinda like hitler and the appeasement plan. allowing them to continue developing nuclear power (the easiest and most cost effective, main source of weapons grade nuclear material.
this is in no way in the best interests of anyone.
First of all. If it was acknowledged before as being the location of a previous missile launch, the how is it a secret?
Secondly. What is to say there is actually a long-range ballistic missile program and not just a space program as the Iranians say? Is there any concrete evidence to support this speculation(as that is all it is)?
Where and when did North Korea come into the equation? Besides ‘chatter’ is there any evidence to support this?
A poor attempt at journalism, no backing up of any claims, just spreading the same rumours of others.
Who wrote this anyway?
cork, dont be simple.
America has many many nuclear weapons. Should we take this as a sign they will attack us all tomorrow?
Same can be said for many other nations.
I agree with JohnDoe. This is probably just another atempt of the US government to make Iran look like the bad guy.
Iraq was done the same way. The weapons of mass destruction were never found, but gave the govenment a reason to invade.
This is all it is. The US Government is looking for a reason to enter Iran.