All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 3, 1999 - Bill Cooper
01:01:21
Norman Grigg #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thanks for watching! Please subscribe!
Let it move through you, and fill your body with healing fire.
Let it move through you, and fill your body with healing fire.
I'm William Cooper.
the you're listening to the power of the time i'm william
cooper well both of us like that uh... you've got a vehicle
And I hope you understood what it was that you got an earful of.
Some terrifying stuff coming down the pike.
All planned by the New World Order.
Minions of the Communist United Nations.
And they all are communists.
Bill Clinton's a communist.
His wife's a communist.
This country's been taken over by communists.
McCarthy was right.
Senator Joseph McCarthy was right.
That's why they destroyed him.
That's why they made McCarthyism a dirty name.
That's why they're making Patriot and Militia a dirty name.
So that you won't fall into politically incorrect thinking in the New World Order.
You're all going to be re-educated.
Just like I've been telling you for years.
Like I wrote in my book that was published years and years and years and years and years ago.
It's amazing that the John Birch Society has been calling me a lunatic for years, and they've been claiming for years that it's a communist conspiracy being engineered in Moscow.
And I've been telling them, you're all wrong.
Communism just didn't spring up out of the ground.
This comes from the ancient mystery religion of Babylon, practiced underground in the mystery schools, the secret societies, and fraternal orders.
It's the source of the labor unions.
It's the source of socialism.
It's the source of the Communist Party.
It's the source of the Internationale.
It's the source of world revolution.
Its goal is one world totalitarian socialist government which eventually will lead into world communism.
It's all of those things.
Its center is not in Moscow.
It is in New York and London.
Always has been.
Always has been.
The Soviet Union was another in a long line of experiments to see how far they can go and try different methods of governing large masses of people to see what works and what doesn't work.
And to create the illusion that there was some kind of a deep conflict between what they call the West and the Soviet Union.
In reality, there was no conflict at all.
The Soviet Union never had the missiles that we thought they had.
The Soviet Union never even had the capability to manufacture even the most rudimentary basic computer chips.
And without being able to have computers on spacecraft, they could never have gone into space or gone to the moon or anywhere else.
Everything that they ever got, they got from us.
We gave it to them through underground channels.
It's the truth, folks.
And it's all there for anybody who wants to look at it.
Did you ever look at their space shuttle that never flew?
Carbon copy of ours.
Carbon copy of our space shuttle.
The reason it never flew is it didn't have the capability to navigate and do the functions that only computers could allow it to do.
They never had that technology.
Never ever.
Still don't, as a matter of fact.
They're buying it.
Still, you know, buying it from the West, but they don't have the technology.
How many of you caught the part about the Council of Wise Men that will advise the United Nations?
Remember I've been telling you about that for years and years and years and years and years?
Whoever is presented as the front man, whom the world will believe to be the leader, will just be, just like I said, the front man for the Council of Wise Men.
It's all on the website in MAJ 12.
Go to the website, click on MAJ 12 and read it.
The website is williamcooper.net.
Now, it's amazing that I've been telling you this all these years.
The John Birch Society has been telling you that I'm a crazy, whacked-out, lunatic nut.
Don't listen to Bill Cooper.
And certainly don't take action.
See, the John Birch Society will kick you out if you take any other action than writing your congressman.
They don't like that.
They don't like that kind of stuff.
And the man that you heard last night was the senior editor of the New American, which is the magazine for the John Birch Society.
And last night he confirmed with and agreed with and proved and cited documentation and sources for everything that I've already done that with you about for the last twelve years.
So they have eventually come around to my way of thinking.
They have eventually learned that what I've been telling them all along is the truth.
Isn't that amazing how everybody eventually reaches that point Now, tonight we're going to continue, and you're going to hear the rest of his talk, and I've rewound it a little bit so you can hear that bit again about the Council of Wise Men.
I mean, that's very important.
Who do you think they're going to be?
They'll be the men who really rule the world, is who they will be.
They will take the place of what's functioning in the United States in that role, which is the Council of Foreign Relations.
In England, it's the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
And every country has their group that is a branch of this, actually.
So, pay very close attention, folks.
And I hope you took notes last night, and I hope you're taking notes tonight.
And I'll be back, and we'll open the phones when it's finished.
So, listen closely.
A new record was just set in that regard a couple of weeks ago at Mikhail Gorbachev's State of the World Forum in San Francisco.
Mikhail Gorbachev, who, if there were any justice in the world, would have received the same treatment the Mussolini did outside of Milan at the end of World War II, convened this forum for the purpose of inaugurating what he calls the creation of a United Nations Council of Elders.
A group of enlightened souls, like himself, who had assembled from time to time so as to plot our future for us.
Very thoughtful and generous of them, indeed.
Mikhail Gorbachev was introduced to that meeting by Ted Turner.
Ted Turner said that Mikhail Gorbachev's tenure as Chief Commissar of the Gulag State was the most important event in human history, which puts the New Testament in sort of an interesting light, I guess.
But at this meeting, convened by Mikhail Gorbachev, a.k.a.
the Prince of Peace and Savior of the World, from Ted Turner's perspective, one of the final speeches, rather, was given by a New Age philosopher named Sam Keane.
Sam Keane was addressing the question of sustainability.
What he said is that in order to achieve sustainability, Population must be considered the primary problem.
That is to say, people are the primary impediment to sustainability.
And he said that we must reduce the human population by 90%.
90.
9-0.
That was not a misprint.
That was not a mispronunciation.
90%.
9 out of every 10 of us in this room is expendable.
Has anybody else noticed that those who concern themselves about surplus population never consider themselves to be among the surplus?
For some reason, we're an encumbrance, but they're indispensable.
And of course, Sam Keane is an example of exactly that type of philosophy.
Mikhail Gorbachev has become the leading example of what might be called the watermelon Marxist.
Which is to say, he is green on the outside now, but he's deep red in the middle.
And Mikhail Gorbachev, along with Maurice Strong, who was the Secretary General of the United Nations Earth Summit in 1992, is composing an Earth Charter.
Mikhail Gorbachev last year in Hollywood suffered a sudden fit of piety and started talking about the sacred earth.
And he started quoting the wisdom that is the potted, prefabricated, papier-mâché caricature of the wisdom of the Native Americans.
Of course, Mikhail Gorbachev's sudden reverence for indigenous peoples is a curiosity.
He showed no such inclinations when he was wiping them out by the tens of thousands in his dominion.
In his domain, rather.
But Mikhail Gorbachev, last year in Hollywood, talked about an Earth Charter that he would compose, what he called a Ten Commandments for the environment that no one would be allowed to violate.
No one would be allowed to violate.
Two problems, of course, present themselves.
First of all, there is a Ten Commandments.
Mikhail Gorbachev cannot improve upon the original.
Secondly, the original Ten Commandments was not something that would be enforced by prior restraint.
This, once again, is one of the differences that we see between the UN's concepts and the concepts of Western biblical culture.
There is a religious vision that undergirds the United Nations.
Once again, to refer to the conference that was convened here in Washington just a few months ago, the closing speech was delivered by Reverend Joan Brown Campbell, who was the chairman of the National Council of Churches.
Now, she was a pinch hitter.
That speech was originally supposed to be given by Vice President Al Gore, but as the Clinton administration's resident druid was occupied with other duties, they got Reverend Campbell to come in as a pinch hitter, and she conveyed to them Al Gore's respect and his appreciation for the United Nations, and she reflected upon something she had seen in his office.
In his office, she had seen something she referred to as a religious icon.
Now, some of us might know what a religious icon is.
It is a depiction of an individual that is considered sacred.
For instance, a religious icon might be a depiction of Jesus Christ.
This particular icon, Reverend Campbell reminisced, was an orbital photograph of the earth.
This is the religious icon that captures the spirituality of Al Gore, who has written about the pan-religious perspective that we must embrace in order to achieve sustainable development on a world scale.
And the achievement of sustainability, according to Al Gore, must be the central organizing principle of this new society.
It's rooted in a religious perspective.
The UN, of course, pursues sustainability, regards the Earth to be, if you will, sort of a self-sustaining deity whom we must propitiate through the ministrations of a certain elite that is sensitive to the needs of our sacred Earth Goddess Mother.
And the spiritual aspect of the United Nations objectives and agenda sometimes seeps into some of the more candid declarations of some of the people of great influence in the United Nations system.
One such was a man by the name of Robert Mueller, who was a former Assistant Secretary General.
He has said that the UN represents the body of Christ.
That is, his blasphemy, not mine.
Please do not hold it against me for repeating it to you.
And he has suggested that all houses of worship, for instance, the one in which we find ourselves this evening, To display the United Nations flag as a gesture of loyalty and fidelity to this new religious vision.
And he has said that if Christ were to return to earth, his first visit would be to the United Nations to see if his vision of human oneness and brotherhood had come true.
Now, I believe that indeed, when Christ returns, he might make a point of visiting the United Nations, perhaps armed with the same whip he used to evict the money changers in the temple.
Now, another example of this religious vision can be captured in a declaration by Shri Chinmoy, who is the director of the UN Meditation Group.
As I was driving through Washington D.C.
today, I saw that there were a number of placards up advertising an evening of music and meditation featuring Shri Chinmoy.
I was not aware that he was a musician.
In his official capacity, he is the director of the UN Meditation Group, and listen to what he has said about the spiritual aspect of the United Nations.
No human force will ever be able to destroy the United Nations, for the United Nations is not a mere building or a mere idea.
It is not a man-made creation.
The United Nations is the vision light of the Absolute Supreme, which is slowly, steadily, and unerringly illuminating the ignorance the night of our human life.
The divine success and supreme progress of the United Nations is bound to become a reality.
At His choice hour, the Absolute Supreme will ring His own victory bell here on Earth, through the loving and serving heart of the United Nations.
That does not sound to me like a mere discussion group.
And Shri Chinmoy, and people of his religious inclinations, of course, are free to pursue them.
They're free to pursue their religious vision.
They're free to indulge in whatever variety of mysticism, or to worship how, where, or what they may.
That is their sovereign right, given to them by God.
But inasmuch as they seek to use the power of a developing global state to pursue that vision and to conscript our participation in that vision, we are dealing with a real problem.
One which, of course, will impose upon the religious liberty of those of us who subscribe to traditional biblical faith.
I've often considered the United Nations to be the society for the repeal of the Book of Genesis.
And the reason why I say that is because, in every particular, their social agenda defies the order described in the book of Genesis.
Genesis describes how man was created by God, a special creation.
We were created in His image.
We were endowed with rights from God.
We were given stewardship over creation.
We were given dominion over creation to be exercised responsibly and in a fashion in which we would be accountable to God.
God created mankind in two complementary sexes and joined them together in a family, which was meant to perpetuate itself, and the family was instructed to multiply and replenish the earth.
The United Nations, on the other hand, proceeds from the assumption that the earth itself is divine, that man is, at very best, a product of the machinations of an impersonal and indifferent process of evolution, That we have not received rights from God, that our rights are social artifacts to be granted to us by the state.
That mankind was not given dominion over nature, but rather is simply an unassuming part of nature.
That we were not created in two definitive sexes, but rather the undifferentiated mass of humanity can occupy any number of socially constructed gender roles.
That the family itself is a social artifact which can be manipulated and changed at will.
And, of course, the worst thing we can do, from the United Nations' perspective, is to multiply and replenish the earth.
So, in other words, I think that there is a case to be made for the proposition, once again, that the United Nations should be called, in the social realm, the Society for the Repeal of the Book of Genesis.
Those of us who believe in the Book of Genesis, that includes, of course, Christians, as well as Jews and Muslims, have a problem with this.
Because we want to preserve that order, the order in which our liberties can take root and flourish.
However, There is a new religious order which is being created, ostensibly for our benefit.
It's part of this consensus that we will have to accept in this interdependent world.
That consensus is enshrined in a document called the Declaration of the Global Ethic.
Some of you might have heard of this.
It was created by a globalist theologian by the name of Hans Kuhn, who began his work at a 1991 Paris symposium sponsored by the United Nations Educational, Social, and Cultural Organization.
This is what Hans Kuhn has to say about those of us who are so-called fundamentalists.
Quote, any form of church conservatism is to be rejected.
To put it bluntly, no regressive or repressive religion, whether Christian, Islamic, Jewish, or of whatever provenance, has a long-term future.
In other words, history is to create the immediate abolition of so-called regressive or repressive religion, or fundamentalist religion.
What have we learned about liberals in a hurry?
They're not at all shy about giving history a little push.
Now, the Declaration of a Global Ethic was presented to the 1993 Parliament of World Religions in Chicago.
That meeting attracted thousands of religious leaders from around the world, representing every denomination in this country and just about every religious tradition in the world.
One of the chief organizers of that event was a man by the name of Gerald Barney, who was the director of the Millennium Institute.
He is a former Program Director for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
The Rockefeller institutions are not without influence in the world.
I think I do not exaggerate by describing them in those terms.
Mr. Barney has been in the company of some of the most powerful and ambitious people in the world.
He has been privy to some of their otherwise unexpressed thoughts and ambitions.
And in his keynote address to the Parliament of World Religions, Gerald Barney said the following thing, quote, An internationally famous, highly influential author on sustainable development told me bluntly, religion must die.
It is a fundamental cause of virtually all social, economic, and ecological problems, and much of the violence in the world.
So the alternative, according to Mr. Barney, the alternative to the extinction of religion, and of course this would be something that would be assisted by history's servants, of course, The alternative to the extinction of religion would be the creation of a sustainable faith tradition to which we could all subscribe.
And that faith tradition, of course, is outlined in the Declaration of the Global Ethic.
What is truly foreboding about the Declaration of the Global Ethic is that it says, in the text of the document, that acceptance of the global ethic is the minimum standard that must be met in order to be recognized as authentically human.
Now, what have we learned in this century about the common fate of those who are considered to be something other than authentically human?
There are 170 million casualties killed by their own governments that testify of what happens to those who are considered to be something other than authentically human.
From a very early stage of this development, the United Nations was urging people to think the unthinkable with respect to questions of eugenics.
That was a phrase Written by Julian Huxley, who was the founding director general of UNESCO.
UNESCO, the institution that facilitated the creation of the Declaration of a Global Ethic.
Way back in 1948, he said, we're going to have to help people think the unthinkable with respect to eugenics.
Which is to say, population control.
Selective population control.
Control of reproduction by the state, and so forth.
We talked about unaccountable power.
When the unthinkable is wed with unaccountable power, what results is tyranny and democide.
The 170 million casualties a century indicate and illustrate the dangers of what we see in that respect.
Julian Huxley, incidentally, helped create the United Nations' vision of education for a global society.
What would have to take place in order for children to be educated to become world citizens?
According to Julian Huxley, quote, it would mean an extension of education backwards from the nursery school to the nursery itself.
As early as possible, the state, that is to say the global state, would have to start exercising certain types of authority within the home.
Parental authority would have to be subverted or circumvented or abolished outright.
I want to talk just briefly about one part of the message that I convey in my book, Freedom on the Altar, the UN's crusade against God and family.
This title is considered by some to be quite inflammatory.
I certainly hope so.
It was meant to provoke a certain reaction.
It was meant to provoke a certain response.
We've talked a little bit about the crusade against God, as God is understood by those of us who believe in the Bible, those of us who believe in biblical faith.
Let's talk a little bit about the family.
The family was the first human institution.
It was created by God to be the primary human institution.
It was created to serve the function of instilling in children the attributes and attitudes necessary for responsible life as moral agents in freedom.
Because God created us to be free.
The human institution, which we call government, is the agency of coercion.
This is what government does.
Government does not empower.
Government does not motivate.
Government does not enrich.
Government compels or forbids.
Government exercises power.
That is what government is.
Government is force.
Now, government and the family have always been at daggers drawn with each other.
There's always been a rivalry between the state and the family.
That is because the family exercises certain functions that the state always covets.
The state always tends to expand.
And by expanding, it has to start occupying and exercising social functions that the family more properly exercises.
So there's always this rivalry between the state and the family.
Since time immemorial, governments have always sought to disrupt the family or to subvert the family.
And in some radical instances, to destroy the family.
Some of you might be acquainted with Plato's Republic.
Plato was not without his merits, but in his Republic he said the ideal state would be one in which no parent knew his children and no child knew his parents.
The children would be taken away from the parents at an early age and raised to be what the state had decreed that they would be.
This has been more or less the ambition of every state to a greater or lesser extent.
Gratifyingly, the American Constitutional Republic was predicated upon a rather different concept.
That concept was that the state once again had only those roles and only that authority Which had been delegated to it by the sovereign people.
And the family was to be left entirely out of the jurisdiction of the federal government.
The federal government had no role in the family because the Constitution did not give the federal government a role.
Indeed, we believed in what John Locke wrote, which is that God had decreed that the family, the parents, would be responsible for bringing up the children.
That no state could absolve the parents of that responsibility.
And no state could relieve children of their responsibility to the parents.
That is the American concept.
The very opposite of that concept is to be found in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child, coming to us in a warm and fuzzy and appealing package, tied up with a little bow in the form of the UNICEF slogan, Every Child is Our Child.
Our child?
It's in the language of collectivism.
I have not had any children with UNESCO.
I am certainly not responsible for populating the entire world in the company of UNESCO.
In no sense is every child our child.
They're talking about this platonic idea that children would be raised collectively on behalf of the state.
Incidentally, UNICEF has displayed a tendency to do what Aristotle predicted would happen in the platonic regime.
Aristotle said, when the children are raised communally, they're equally neglected by all.
And, of course, we see that happening today in many of the welfare plantations in this country.
In 1987, the Belgian office at UNICEF was involved in a child pornography scandal in which tens of thousands of pictures, pornographic pictures featuring children, many of them of North African descent, were being distributed through the Belgian office at UNICEF through a mailing list which had been compiled on the UNICEF home office computer in Belgium.
Something to think about.
Something else to think about in this respect is the fact that in Canada, The group which most actively and energetically sought the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was the North American Man-Boy Love Association.
It is difficult for the human mind to conceive of the base depravity of that horrifying organization.
The North American Man-Boy Love Association seeks to make licit sexual congress between adults and children as young as age six.
And they believe that the U.N.
Convention on the Rights of the Child is a device they can use to pry children out of the protection of the home and make them fair game for sexual conquest.
Something to think about in that respect.
But the problems associated with the U.N.
Convention are much deeper and rooted in principle.
The U.N.
Convention on the Rights of the Child is meant to enshrine in law the proposition that children are the custodial property of the state and that parents receive Limited jurisdiction over the state's children to raise as the state deems fit.
This is an interpretation, incidentally, which was confirmed to me in March at the U.N.
Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen, Denmark.
In a conversation I had with Dr. Richard Jolly, who at the time was the acting head of UNICEF, he said, of course the state is the primary custodian of the rights of children.
Of course the state has that primary role.
And when I talked with him about the fact that in this country many people consider the U.N.
Convention to be subversive of parental rights, he said, there are only two groups of people in your country who think that way.
They are homeschoolers and people who want to be able to beat their children.
And interestingly enough, he confirmed to me that physical punishment of children, that is to say spanking, is considered a crime under the U.N.
Convention on the Rights of the Child.
England found that out this year, incidentally.
England was censured by a UN committee on the rights of the child because England has not yet forbidden not only physical punishment of children, but verbal chastisement of children by the parents.
The parents don't have the right to discipline the state's children unless the state says they can.
That is the logic of the UN Convention.
Article 9 of that Convention furthermore states That children cannot be separated from their parents by the state unless the state can think of a good reason to do so.
Of course, every state can think of a good reason to do anything it wants to do.
We've learned, of course, in this country that the state is willing to protect its children by attacking them with tanks and poison gas.
Something, once again, to think about.
Article 9 says that the state, once again, can take children away from parents if it can justify doing so in the name of the best interests of the children.
Fortunately at this juncture, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has not yet been ratified.
And for that we have Senator Jesse Helms to thank.
Because he has managed to keep that hideous document bottled up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
But it was signed in February by UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright.
And Dr. Jolly informed me that that signature was to be taken as a binding expression of our government's intention to seek ratification of the UN Convention.
This is something you must prevent at all hazards.
What would happen were we to ratify that convention and implement its tenets in this country?
Well, there are plenty of people in this country who would find their powers vastly enhanced and find the legal rationale and justification for doing some incredibly terrible things to disrupt the autonomy and social integrity of families.
Listen to the wisdom, such as it is, of Dr. Mary Jo Bain, who is the Assistant Secretary of Administration for Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services.
I quote, We really don't know how to raise children.
If we want to talk about equality of opportunity for children, then the fact that children are raised in families means there is no equality.
In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.
Once again, the old Platonic idea, and it is by no means insignificant, That in the 1995 budget of the Clinton administration, when family support programs, which is to say programs which use the power of the state to intervene in the home, were up for appropriation.
To justify all these interventions in the home, the Clinton administration, cited not the Constitution, they cited Plato's Republic.
And I quote, As early as the fourth century B.C., the philosopher Plato stressed the importance of investing in children from an early age.
And they go on to state that in the Republic, Plato talked about all these ways that the
state would intervene in the home.
And they conclude by saying, the first step, as you know, is always what matters most,
particularly when we are dealing with those who are young and tender.
That is the time when they are taking shape and when any impression we choose to make
leaves a permanent mark.
Now if you can, with equanimity, look upon the prospect of the Clinton administration
choosing what mark it will leave upon your children, this makes perfect sense.
But this is a group of people that lower the moral tone of a meeting of the Christian Bloods.
I don't think that they're particularly qualified to leave a mark on children.
Yet, we're going to see the development of certain types of mechanisms to compel parents, once again, to make sure that their children are part of this new consensus.
And one method That might be employed as the idea of licensing parents.
How many of you have heard of the idea of having parents obtain licenses from the government as a condition of being allowed to raise the state's children?
This is a proposal which is a direct emanation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
This is not very well understood in this country.
Back in 1981, A man by the name of Gene Stevens, who is a professor at the University of South Carolina, predicted that by the year 2000, we would see a system of parental licensing in this country, to some certain extent.
This is what he said, I quote, In most cases, certified couples would be allowed to have their own natural children.
In some instances, however, genetic scanning may find that some women and men can produce super babies, but are not well suited to rear them.
These couples will be licensed to breed, but will give up their children to other people licensed to rear them.
It's a prediction made back in 1981.
Just last year, a book was published by Dr. Jack Westman of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Of course, he is an associate of Donna Shalala, who is the head of the Department of Health and Human Services, and she has a copy of his book.
The book is entitled, Licensing Parents, Can We Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect?
And what Dr. Westman says is that because the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
says that the state has primary stewardship over children, the state not only can require
parents to obtain a license, but it must require parents to obtain a license.
And he elaborates upon that concept to some great length.
Incidentally, I was able to ask Dr. Westman about those of us who would object to this
on constitutional grounds.
He said that the constitutional arguments are not as important as the prudential arguments.
In other words, the problem is simply too big to fuss with constitutional immunities.
Once again, the state can take away our rights if the state grants our rights.
Dr. Weston, although he appears to be, in many respects, a fine and considerate man, is wrong-headed and mistaken about his concept of government.
And the result would be a tyrannical program, which would Subvert the rights of parents, and would do nothing to enhance the lives of children.
He is not alone, however, in proposing a system of parental licensure.
Another book has come out, written by a professor named David Lykin from Minnesota.
He talks about licensing parents.
And he has suggested that because we have a problem with crime in this country, we have to license parents.
Because obviously the government's not at fault, it's the parents that are infirm.
He hasn't thought that perhaps we should make it easier for police to apprehend criminals, and easier to convict criminals, and we should have punishments that make sense.
In true collectivist fashion, he says that in order to deal with the problem of crime, we have to abridge the liberties of the law-abiding.
This is something that we see altogether too frequently.
Furthermore, David Likens' program has some aspects which are very reminiscent of the Chinese population control policy.
He has said, for instance, That we should have government officials prowling maternity wards checking for licenses when women go into maternity wards to have children.
If women have children that are unauthorized, those children will be taken away from them and immediately adopted.
And the women who have unauthorized children will be compelled to undergo an implant of Norplant to sterilize them so that they wouldn't have unauthorized children for a period of four or five years.
Where would he begin with this program?
He wouldn't begin in the suburbs.
He wouldn't begin on Beacon Hill.
He wouldn't begin in the mainstream.
He'd begin in the inner cities.
Now, why would he begin in the inner cities?
First of all, because the family has been disrupted in the inner cities in a way which is unprecedented.
The things that have been done in the inner cities of the family have created this baleful synergy.
On the one hand, the families are disrupted.
This causes crime.
Crime causes family disruption.
It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.
And so he thinks, David Lykan does, that perhaps it would be best to start in the inner cities by telling women on welfare that they won't be permitted to have a child.
Of course, the principle, the precedent, would apply to everybody eventually.
And he says, you shouldn't worry about this program.
If you meet the qualifications, you should have no problem getting a license, receiving this great favor from the state of being allowed to have a child, quote unquote, by the all-powerful state.
Remember that name, David Lykan.
L-Y-K-K-E-N.
I guess a third K would have been too obvious.
Now, he is not alone, nor is he unique in terms of applying the parental licensing concept to population control or eugenics-oriented questions.
There is yet another proposal which was made just before last year's Population Control Summit in Cairo.
It was proposed by Sir Roy Calmed, who is a noted British surgeon.
He has said that not only do we need a worldwide parental licensing program in order to retard the growth of the human population, but we should emulate the Chinese model of population control on a worldwide basis.
And this would include, according to Sir Roy Kong, I am not making this up.
As Ring Barbie used to say, you can look it up, it's true.
In addition to all of this, he has proposed the development of an injectable sterilization virus.
Which would be used to cure women of their fertility.
Once again, people are the disease.
That means that tyranny is the cure.
And after publishing his book, it's called Too Many People, once again he considers us to be the surplus.
Sir Roy Kong undertook a tour of Communist China to promote this proposal.
And of course, I'm sure he was received with more gratitude by the Chinese government than he was by the subjects of the Chinese government.
Okay, this is the bad news, and I didn't mean needlessly to harrow up your souls at length without mitigating the effects of this lecture somewhat with some good news.
So by way of concluding this address, I'd like to share with you some good news, and some of the best news comes out of the Michael New story.
Michael New is a very brave young man.
We talked a little bit about his struggle at the commencement of our remarks this evening.
Michael New is inspiring millions of people with his resistance.
The time was overdue for such a principled stand to be taken by a meek and modest 22-year-old man from Texas.
A homeschooled child.
Somebody who was raised in the fear and the admonition of the Lord and not the fear and admonition of the all-powerful state.
He's a tremendous example.
And it turns out that there are some in the military with whom I have spoken who have said they would do the same thing that Michael New has done.
They would take the same stand.
They would no more be willing to wear the U.N.
insignia than they would be willing to wear a hammer and sickle or a swastika.
They would be faithful to their oath.
That is good news.
And his story... His story is resounding with the American public in spite of the best efforts of the opinion cartel.
To keep it out of the newspapers.
In the former Soviet Union, there was something called Samizdai, which is to say unauthorized publicity or unauthorized dissemination of news.
There is an American Samizdai.
Part of that is to be found in the New American Magazine, a publication which I serve as senior editor.
We were one of the few publications to talk about the micro-news story a couple of months ago, before it was recognized as an official story just this week by the wire services and by some of the radio services.
Another example of zombies.is the internet, which drives the opinion and information managers perfectly nuts.
How they hate the internet.
How they hate the fact that people have unfiltered access to what's going on through the internet, through talk radio, through publications like the New American, through C-SPAN.
Information gets out.
When information gets out, the truth can be had.
People can evaluate for themselves as free agents how they should interpret certain developments and how they should react to the plans of this elite that George Lodge talked about to create this global society under their supposedly benevolent stewardship.
Some other good news that I should share with you came at that UN conference in late August and early September.
There is no more devoted proponent of world government than Strobe Talbot, the Deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton administration.
Mr. Talbot aspired to be known as a world citizen.
He received the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award from the World Federalist Association back in 1993 for an essay he had written in 1992 called The Birth of a Global Nation.
It was published in Time Magazine in July of 1992.
Strobe Talbot said that before long we will have a world government and we will all be called world citizens.
He eagerly longs for and anticipates that day.
But there is a problem.
We found out what's going on.
We don't like it.
And this awful plague of so-called isolationism has broken out.
At the United Nations Association Conference in August, Strobe Talbot delivered an address on behalf of the Clinton administration and he announced to some delight That in a way that he had not anticipated just a few short years ago, we are one world.
And of course that has certain connotations when it is said by somebody of Strobe Talbot's inclinations.
They're talking about one world politically and institutionally.
However, there was bad news from his perspective.
He said that in contemporary America, and I'm quoting, the only bigger and juicier target than big government is world government.
People don't like big government.
They certainly don't like world government.
And because of that, and I quote, The bipartisan consensus in support of the U.N.
has frayed badly, announced Talbot.
If we further reduce our payments to the U.N., others will surely follow.
And if Congress pulls the plug on basic U.N.
activities, such as so-called peacekeeping, then the U.N.
might very quickly join the League of Nations on the ash heap of history.
That is the best news I have heard all year.
Our strongest ammunition, of course, is the truth.
And the best way that we can pursue the reestablishment of America's constitutional sovereignty is by making the truth known as widely as possible.
As it happens, most people want to be free.
And it's easier for us to explain to these people why God intended for them to be free than it is for the other side to explain why they must surrender their freedom.
That is an argument that we will win every time.
That is a struggle, if you will, that we will win every time.
As a matter of fact, to borrow a sports metaphor, we'll run up the score if we're playing on a level playing field.
The way to establish that level playing field is to defund the left.
They should no longer have the completely unnecessary and utterly unconstitutional and immoral advantage of being able to tax us in order to subsidize our own demise as a nation.
The key to doing this is to reassert constitutional accountability over the House of Representatives, where the checks are cut, where the laws are created, where taxes are appropriated, where funds are redistributed from our pockets into the pockets of those who want to create this malevolent global regime.
This is something that we can prevent.
We can prevent it by helping people acquaint themselves with what the UN represents and with the principles of American liberty.
Principles of American Liberty provide us with our best immunity against tyranny.
Our best immunity against the type of tyranny that has taken the lives of 170 million people in this horrible century.
It's a horrible century, but it's also a magnificent century in many ways.
Let us take advantage of the resources that we have at our disposal to once again assert our constitutional independence.
Some people who support the United Nations will grudgingly admit And in doing so, they consider themselves to be making a gesture of great magnanimity and generosity that the UN is not a perfect institution.
They will admit that its record is pockmarked with spectacular failures.
They will admit that the institution itself is riddled with corruption.
They will admit that the United Nations doesn't do everything that it was supposed to do.
But we say we don't want the United Nations to do what it was designed to do, which is to become the capstone of a world government.
The UN's advocates will admit Once again, brushing this as the UN is badly in need of
reform.
No, we say that the UN is badly in need of abolition.
And this is something we can bring about with your help.
Thank you very much.
And that's the end of that, folks.
I'm sure you heard the mention of the Council of Wise Men, also called the Council of Elders,
which is the term that he used.
And you might want to notice that in his book The Quickening, in his book The Quickening, Art Bell said that if the world has to have a benevolent dictatorship ruled by a Council of Elders, so be it.
I'm all for it.
That's what he said.
Every time he wears that black shirt with the skull and bones on it, he's laughing at all of you.
Boy, he's having a belly laugh.
This guy's got you all twisted around in knots, spinning in cul-de-sacs, you know, caught in the little eddies by the side of the river while the whole thing is marching right by you and you don't even know it because you're so lost in bullshit, deceptions, fantasy lives, con artists, New Age crap and, well, I could go on and on.
In fact, I've got the whole list of adjectives here that describe what Art Bell's doing that probably would take two or three hours to get through.
I'm going to open the phones now.
520-333-4578.
What do you think about what you heard last night and tonight?
seven eight what do you think about what you heard last night
and tonight five two zero three three three
four five seventy
is the number by the way i went into our little radio shack that we have here
while the uh...
while the speech was on and uh...
wbcq coming in loud and clear just like uh... it was broadcasting right here
And it's about 3,000 miles away from us, I think.
It's just about as far away as you can get up in Maine, and we're down here in Arizona.
Three, three, three, four, five, seven, eight's the number.
What do you think about what you heard last night and tonight from Norman Grigg, who is the Senior Editor of the New American?
Or do you have an opinion?
Hopefully, tomorrow night we're going to have a guest, my good friend Jay Reynolds.
Uh, is gonna be back either tomorrow night or sometime next week.
I hope it's tomorrow night.
Or, and if he can't be, then he'll be on one night next week.
While we, uh, while we, uh, catch you up to date on the, on the Contrail scam.
He's got a whole bunch of, of, uh, new information that, uh, that y'all need to hear about.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Hello.
Hello.
Bill?
No, this is George.
No, this is Bill Cooper, and this is Lou Lyon.
Well, hello, Lou.
How are you?
Great, buddy.
You remember meeting me in San Diego a few years ago?
Yes, I know who you are.
Okay, buddy.
I need some information from you really bad.
Can I call you at a number tomorrow where I can get you off the air?
You can call me at this number anytime, every day.
You got your radio on?
Yes, sir.
Turn it off.
Okay, just a minute.
I will.
You can call me every day between the hours of noon and about five p.m.
my time.
Don't call me on Saturday and Sundays and don't call me at night.
No I won't.
Okay.
I will call you at the hours you said.
I've got some information I need from you really bad.
I know you can give it to me.
Well then don't be so sure.
Well, neither do I. Okay.
I met your wife.
I met your two children.
Well neither do I. I don't always have everything at my fingertips and right now all of my research
and all of my books are packed in boxes in storage lockers.
So if I can help you I will.
Okay. I met your wife. I met your two children. Your little daughter was pretty young. They
are great people.
Oh God, I can't believe what happened to you.
Well, let's not discuss that, okay?
It's not my favorite subject and I just really resent it when people bring it up.
Okay, I'm sorry.
I'm going to be thinking about it all the rest of the evening and you probably ruined my whole night.
Thank you very much.
I hope I didn't.
But anyway, my wife and I both love you and I will call you tomorrow.
Okay.
Thanks for calling.
You know, what do you guys hope to accomplish by calling me up and talking about something that you know damn well, before you even do it, is just going to make me feel miserable?
I don't understand it.
What do you think?
You're doing something really nice or something?
I wouldn't do that to you in a million years.
520-333-4578 is the number.
We should be talking about what you heard last night and tonight in the Norman Grigg speech.
It should have driven most of you right up the wall.
And I know that most of you don't know very much about most of what you heard unless you've been listening to this broadcast since 1992 or you attended a lot of the lectures that I was giving over the years.
Because there really wasn't anybody else in this country who knew a damn thing about what was being passed in the UN resolutions, or understood it, or could put it together, or anything else.
Everybody is always usually running around chasing their tail in things like Treasury Gate.
Remember that one?
Remember how I exposed it as a fraud, and 90% of all of you attacked me for it?
Remember that?
Well, who was right?
Good evening, you're on the air.
Yeah, it's some scary stuff.
You were right.
Especially where they want to whip that Chinese one child per family on people and take the kids away from people.
Man, it's some scary stuff.
Yeah, it is.
Terrifying, actually.
Their vision of a utopian world is It's only a utopia for the Council of Elders.
It's not a utopia for anybody else.
You have to live actually and truthfully as a slave.
Okay.
It's been in my book for years.
I've been talking about it for years, yeah.
Okay, I hadn't heard you mention it.
Of course, I haven't heard every broadcast though, but I just found a little demo on the internet.
It's a little story by John Coleman about those two on the internet today.
It's pretty much the same thing you've been saying ever since 94.
With this fellow we're talking about last night and tonight, too.
It's like three for three from you and this Coleman.
Well, except for one thing.
Coleman claims the Committee of 300 rules the world.
They don't.
That's just another group of consensus makers.
Okay.
But they don't rule the world.
Okay.
Well, I value your opinion.
Well, you're a great teacher.
You can find the world government located, the head of world government located in three places.
London, Washington D.C., and the United Nations in New York.
You won't find it anywhere else.
Okay.
Well, thanks a lot, Bill.
You're welcome.
Enjoy your show.
But you will find that all these groups, folks, are used to create a consensus that moves us all closer to world government all the time.
That's their job.
I mean, they promote to the public that all of these ideas are good ones.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Yeah, Lou.
It's me.
Bill, it's me again.
Lou.
Good night, Lou.
5-2-0-3-3-3-4-5-7-8 is the number.
And we're talking about what you heard last night and tonight in Norman Griggs' talk.
Looks like most of you are dumbfounded.
The phone is not ringing.
You must be sitting there with your jaw dropped down to your lap or something.
Just absolutely blown away.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Yes, Bill.
Hey, don't do this again.
You know, I hate... What's the matter?
Good night, folks.
I'm not putting up with this crap.
I don't have to.
This is absolutely insane.
Where did these people come from?
Why do they think they can get away with this crap on my broadcast?
Hmm?
You know, if it makes you all angry, that's fine.
You weren't calling anyway, so that means you're either You're either stupefied, which is the normal case, or you're just not interested.
When you get some nut out there that wants to play stupid games, there's no sense in even continuing.
Good night, folks.
God bless you.
get out of your stupor so that we can have some kind of a decent broadcast
tomorrow night if we open the phone.
I've been dreaming of green red roses, too
I've been in blue And, Blue Lions, don't bother calling me tomorrow.
I don't even want to hear from you after this crap you pulled tonight.
Period.
What a wonderful world we live in.
I see skies of blue, and clouds of white, the bright blessed day, the dark sacred night, and I think to myself, What a wonderful world
The colors of the rainbow So pretty in color
A heart full of faith, of people going by.
I'd be ready to take you there, stay in our land.
They're really saying I love you.
I have made a promise.
I watch them grow.
They're like my children.
And I've never known.
And I think to myself.
What a wonderful world. Yeah, I think to myself, what a wonderful world.
You're listening to 101.
you Well folks, we will return you to all oldies most of the time when I hit the carousel.
The big carousel has died.
But now I return you to all oldies most of the time.
Well folks, we will return you to all oldies most of the time when I hit the carousel.
The big carousel has died, which means we have a 5 CD carousel that's operating the
station.
Which means that about every three or four hours I have to reload the thing.
And when I do it, it takes about a minute.
And of course, you know, when I do a broadcast like this, I have to put in the broadcast CDs.
So now I have to take them out and put in the ones that you're all going to be listening to tonight.
How about a little Gene Vinson and some Jerry Lee Lewis and some good old lowrider music for the lowriders and some American graffiti and the top rock and roll hits from Billboard in 1956.
That's what's coming up right now on all oldies most of the time.
So enjoy, folks.
Here they are for your listening enjoyment for the evening.
You know that gypsy with the gold cap too.
She's got a pad on thirty-fourth and nine.
Selling little bottles of love potion number nine.
I told her that I was a flop with chicks.
I've been this way since 1956.
She looked at my palm and she made a magic sign.
She said, what you need is love potion number nine.
She bent down and turned around and gave me a wink.
She said, I'm gonna mix it up right here in the sink.
It smelled like peppercorn and looked like Indian ink.
I held my nose, I closed my eyes.
A perfect day gone.
I didn't know it was a day or night.
I started kissing everything in sight.
But when I kissed the top half, there was more than mine.
It broke my little heart.
Love, love potion number nine.
I didn't know it was a day or night.
I started kissing everything in sight.
But when I kissed a cop at 34th and Vine, he broke my little heart.
Love, love potion number nine.
Love potion number nine.
Love potion of the night Love potion of the night
Go to the library, go to the law library, wherever you need me
me.
Go to the law library.
You made me cry when you said goodbye.
Is that a shame?
I still feel that rain.
Is that a shame?
You're the one to blame.
You broke my heart when you said we'll part ways again.
I still feel that rage.
You're the one to blame.
Oh well, goodbye.
Although, I'll cry.
▲
Export Selection