The following is a transcript from the Pro America Report.
Welcome, welcome, welcome. Ed Martin here on the Pro America Report. We have a very interesting show. We’ll talk with Noah, Noah Dingley, some big news Noah has. I held off last week, he was back from his vacation, He actually got, well, he got engaged. We’ll hear about it. It’s exciting! Noah Dingley, our great producer. So that’ll be a break away from our usual conversations on politics.
Otherwise, we’ll talk with John Schlafly, and I will tell you, and this is going to be what you need to know, too. We’re going to talk about something called the New World Order. And some of you have heard that phrase used in the period of time around Covid and then lots of things that were happening with Wuhan Lab and the World Health Organization and others. But I’m going to tell you about some other things. And we’ll visit about that. We’ll talk with John Schlafly, who’s got a great perspective, and the late Phyllis Schlafly, his mother, who wrote on that subject quite a bit. All of that is coming up in a moment.
First, please remember, visit proamericareport.com, proamericareport.com. Over there you’ll see lots of these great interviews. We’re coming up next week, I think, I’ve got a couple more authors, book authors. It’s a big deal for these authors to get their books out. I know the feeling when you write a book and you finally get it published and when we can interview them and promote the books and get people talking about it, it’s a big deal. So go over there. There’s some great authors to be interviewed. All right.
What you need to know. In 1991, George H. W. Bush used the phrase New World Order, and he talked about how the old Cold War was over and the Cold War was over and everyone was adjusting. And at that time, in 1991, there was lots of shifting. There’s no Soviet Union. Some of the different nations were starting up outside of the Soviet bloc. Other things are happening. And so you have this occurring. And he used that phrase.
Then he used it again and he used it a number of times. And over time, it became clear that this was a movement of folks, of people trying to foster a movement that was globalist in nature. That’s what we’ll say, like that, that had globalism at its heart. And so you saw he spoke on that subject. He used the phrase again and again. His policies, of course he went out of office pretty quickly. But Bill Clinton was pretty Liberal on this. What happened around that time was the late Phyllis Schlafly began to dig into what was the fairly dramatic shifting of American priorities from America’s interest to this sort of globalist, global participation.
One of the famous examples that I know, which people don’t even realize was Bill Clinton’s team announced that they were going to harmonize America’s patent system with the world, which meant that our patent system, which is the envy of the world, which is one of the great tools that has made America’s prosperity and success what it is, because our patent system says that the person who invents something has the right, property right, to use their invention for a period of time. That changed the world.
If you read, so… and Clinton wanted to harmonize that with the Europeans who were trying to say, well, the actual property right is not yours as the inventor. It’s kind of got to be granted. And that was the old argument in the old days. You didn’t have a right to a patent unless the King gave it to you or the Queen gave it to you, or the sovereign. And our system was you’re the sovereign, so you have the right to that. So that was a shift. And the phrase I just used is key. Because
Phyllis Schlafly started to identify that it was the sovereignty of the American nation that was being diminished in favor of some sort of global vision. And so you had multilateral trade deals. You had NAFTA come through. You had agreements between multiple nations on climate change, for example, or predating that on some of the environmental issues. Over and over, you had a movement to have an international criminal court where an international criminal court would have sovereignty over the acts of citizens of multiple nations.
Now, again, there is already some ways that you could be in treaties and all that you can be held accountable, but only based on the sovereignty of each nation. So the point here is this was a movement. 9/11 happens, George H. W. Bush’s New World Order phrase comes through, and George W. Bush says, we have to galvanize, we’re the nation, we’re the people that can lead the sort of civilizing movement that I think we all recognize was not as effective as promised. Forget about judging everybody who lied about weapons of mass destruction or anything else. There was a fear of what had happened to us that led us to invade and occupy and all those kinds of things decades later that we’ve grown from.
In lurches Trump, is the first person that has a different idea. He’s almost stereotypically, almost kind of like in a New York stereotype, he’s about himself and America first. Himself and America first. America’s interests first. He’s not going to do multilateral trade deals. He’s not going to do Russia, excuse me, Chinese hoax, which is climate change, the Paris Agreement, where we give tons of money and sovereignty and China does nothing. He’s not going to do any of that stuff. He’s not going to fight every fight. He’s not going to call every bad guy a bad guy. He’s going to try to do what he’s always done, which is make deals and do things. Was he perfect? Probably not. But was it directionally right? Yeah.
The biggest thing he did in terms of this world order was he made America energy independent, because once we’re not dependent on the world for oil and gas, we can do a lot more and others can do a lot less. So here’s where we are today. And during the Obama years, you watched a whole set of policies. Victoria Newland, who’s in the Ukrainian mess. She’s one of the leaders in the current Biden government. She was under Obama, Susan Rice, Antony Blinken, and all these folks, Joe Biden, and their vision was Hillary Clinton.
We are part of this incredible movement. And I don’t know whether, I don’t think Obama, I have to check, used the phrase New World Order, but certainly that was the vision. The vision was that we can build up these institutions, Paris Climate Accord, the UN, the World Health Organization, we’ll build them all up and they’ll be these globalist things, we’ll be better at managing the world than the world is because we’re better than everyone. This is what these people think.
It’s not, by the way, just Americans. There’s lots of foreigners in there that are also the intelligentsia that tell us what to do. That’s what we’re facing. That’s the tension that’s going on right now. The tension is not between, in fact, who said this on the program last week? It’s between centralization and decentralization. It’s between gathering power, more and more power, by a certain set of elite and more people having power. But right now, what we’re seeing played out. Think about who’s on the side of opposing the Russians.
And again, clearly Russia acted first, right? I see that. And there’s loss of life and all that. But who’s on the side of saying we must now tame Russia? Who’s on that side? The EU, the UN, George Soros, the World Health Organization, Joe Biden, his team, all these people whose vision for the world I don’t exactly trust. Now, I do see others on the side of opposing Putin and Russia that I have respect for. I mean, you watch Hungary, Orbán, and Poland, but I tend to think that that’s more historical because of their relationship to the Soviets than it is actual right now.
And Meanwhile, in the world, the entity that has the greatest influence on changing the world right now economically is China. Whether you like that or not, they are because they’re ruthless, because they have command, control, economy generally. And so we’re in a situation where we’re watching a confrontation and we are being fed a truth from the narrative machine. Big tech, big media, big government, telling us that one side is in a movie. Excuse me, tell me, the whole thing is an action adventure movie. And one side is the White Knights. One side is the ones that are about the truth. And they’re going up against the dark side.
And after five or six years of being misled by the media, it’s hard to feel like you’re getting to the truth. Again, I don’t know enough of the truth. I try to watch Twitter. I try to watch for videos. I try to cut through everything but the more times you watch something, more often than not you watch something and you find out later it was altered or was cut or was edited. And then finish with this – what you need to know.
If this is a battle over the New World Order and if it’s confusing to people about who’s doing what and how it’s going, just pause and understand one side in this has one of the largest nuclear arsenals in history. Russia either has the largest or the second largest to us. Probably second largest in terms of technology, but that’s what… We’re not facing off in 1812 or facing off with Mexico 150 years ago. We’re not disagreeing about a border and having to shoot it out. We’re talking about nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and nuclear arsenals.
But I just point you to this. I don’t think enough people are saying what are the forces that are demanding that this is the way things go? What are the forces that are saying that NATO has this role to play forever and ever? Americans are wedded to NATO? To take care of all these things? Again, I’m not sure it’s not… I’m not sure it’s time to exit NATO, but I don’t know why we’re not having the discussion especially when they don’t pay their own fair share.
It’s an extraordinary moment. All right, we got to take a break. We’ll talk with John Schlafly in a moment. And later Noah says, a lighter segment, we’ll visit with him about his marriage and all the other facts, all the other stories. He’s got great insight. We’ll take a break. We’ll be right back. Ed Martin here on the Pro America Report. Back in a moment.