United Liberty
An interesting commentary entitled “And now for a world government” appears on Gideon Rachman’s blog on the web site of the Financial Times in London. He begins by saying:
“I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the U.S. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.”
World government has actually been the primary purpose of the United Nations from the beginning. A careful reading of the U.N. charter should make this clear. However, characterizing the scenario of world government as a U.N. conspiracy to “take over” the U.S. is a vast oversimplification that many “conspiracy theorists” have often resorted to in trying to make their case. It’s really much subtler than that, as Mr. Rachman points out. All of the scenarios are coming into place that would make increased “global governance” much more likely in the next several years. Congressman Ron Paul, for one, has been suggesting this very possibility as a likely response to the collapse of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, with the possible establishment of a global fiat currency.
There are many people who really, sincerely believe that “global solutions” are essential to solving many of the world’s problems. Such people fail to understand that, first of all, central planning does not work. If we assume that the U.N. really was intended as a means of avoiding wars and promoting peace by bringing people together to talk over their problems, then we can certainly conclude that the U.N. and all of its central planning has been a dismal failure, with the countless, endless wars we’ve seen during the past 60-plus years, many of them fought in the name of “enforcing U.N. resolutions”, not to mention also the unimaginable starvation in third world countries (most notably on the African continent). There is, perhaps, no greater example of the failure of central planning than the 63-year record of the United Nations. Here in the U.S., our central banking system under the Federal Reserve is another example of the failure of central planning, as we see daily with the crisis unfolding before us.
However, there is something even more sinister and insidious about “global governance”, which is that it violates one of the very central concepts of our system of governance here in the U.S. as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, which is that, to secure natural, inalienable rights, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Any sort of global authority will be made up of officials and bureaucrats who were not elected by any of the people over whom they presume authority. Any sort of unelected government with no accountability to the people can be expected to do no less than impose tyranny.
As a free people (even if in name only), we must insist that there is no problem in the world so great as to require the giving up of one ounce of essential liberty, nor giving up that most important principle of just powers derived from the consent of the governed for the purpose of securing inalienable rights. We should jealously and vigorously guard and defend our liberties, seeking to maximize freedom by returning to following the Constitution and the Rule of Law, and respecting the right to life, liberty and property. This in turn leaves the people free to endeavor solving the world’s many problems through individual initiative and creativity, setting good examples for others around the world to emulate, and leaving our nation (and by extension, the world) a better place for all of us to live.
A global central bank created out of this crisis may not use fiat currency as we might expect. The manipulation of the market price of gold has led many, especially GATA, to conclude that there is a gold cartel in control of gold reserves. A global central bank which owns the vast majority of global gold reserves may be able to use “gold swaps” to mediate purchases instead of paper currency.
This article better explains the concept:
http://www.augustreview.com/issues/globalization/trilaterals_cornering_g…
This is all very interesting, especially for bringing up the Trilateral Commission, which has had huge influence over U.S. policy. Worth noting is that Obama’s chief foreign policy advisor is Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the founders of the Trilateral Commission. Of course we know that the use of “gold swaps” would not be the same thing at all as a true gold standard. It appears likely to be a way to prop up existing fiat currency systems with international monopoly control. Ron Paul has mentioned something along these lines as well. Any such attempt at an international currency system, whether an outright fiat currency or some sort of pseudo-gold standard, would be a real threat to liberty and to our Constitutional system.
The chief Godfather behind the scenes has been David Rockefeller the proud globalist and founder of the Trilateral Commision who also had Cheney as a director at his Council on Foreign Relations. The way I see it is that the big oil bankers like JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, BAC, want a New World Order which will use their electronic “money” globally much as credit cards are already used worldwide now. With a technical elite and controlling the money and energy supplies individual countries can be played off for their bottom line and if anyone objects their credit is simply shut off-simple. Arron Russo was friends with Nick Rockefeller until he discovered the truth about them including Nick’s prediction ofa 911 “event” so they could invade Iraq and Afganistan for the oil and Caspian pipeline across the region to supply India’s booming economy with the trillions in gas. May sound like “conspiracy” stuff but it rings true especially as the TAPI pipeline agreement was just signed in April of 2008 and Obama is sending thousands more troops there. Governments are always conspiracies as they don’t produce anything and usually are controlled by the wealthy elite. We’re just the little schmucks who do the dying and toiling while the elite maintain their money and power. JP Morgan and John D. Rockefeller figured out a long time ago if they controlled the money and energy supplies the had us by the balls.
GLOBALISM or re-stated THE REALITIES OF SELECTIVE VISION
RIGHT NOW friend and foe here and overseas, want to subject the US MILITARY personnel to indictment and prosecution by the ICC.
GERMANY AND ITALY have actually already indicted US CIA agents for supposedly capturing radical islamic terriorists.
This is an infringement on our SOVEREIGNTY and a dagger aimed at our US MILITARY.
As a result, they may soon want to charge our troops overseas whom are fighting against terriorism, with trumped up “war crime” charges.
Charges like claiming Americans committed genocide, or claim we committed crimes against humanity. There’s a leftist group in Paris, plus Argentina, Sweden, whom want to charge Rumsfeld for allegedly authorizing torture at Guantanamo bay, and abu Graib prison in Iraq claiming 1984 convention against torture, which FRANCE has used in previous torture cases.
it’s really time to put the UN on notice that the days where the USA would mindlessly supply it with money, men, military equipment and blood without conditions are simply over.
In fact the latest—-the new UN SEC GENERAL has already stipulated he wants NYC police officers to serve in UN peacekeeping mission in places like haiti, kosovo, and liberia.
here is one more reason why
CLINTON IN 2000 gave his blessing to the whole globalist thing on the UN “INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (ICC). The DEMOCRATS all along want to make US citizens SERVANTS TO THE UN AS OUR GOVERNMENT instead of a country governed by WE THE PEOPLE.
Thankfully Bush saw the serious threat this Socialist star chamber posed to our military and he told them to stuff a sock in it. Apparantly at that time the UN was insulted by it. Although the REPUBLICANS tried twice to negotiate immunity for US peacekeepers thru the Sec Council.
Well, the anti-Americans at the UN wouldn’t have any of it and the Abu Graib prison gave Kofi Annan the opening he wanted. The he tried to wrap himself in the human right mantle by claiming it would be unfotunate for someone to press for such an exemption given the prisoner abuse in Iraq.
We all know that if Mr. Amman really cared a thing about human rights he would have protested the revolving membership of certain countries with human rights track records. However, the Sanctimonious UN and Annan are always silent on the topic of human rights; except when it comes to taking cheap shots at the US
What they are really after is for the US to submit to the will of the UN and it’s International criminal court. What they want is for the US to relinquish it’s SOVEREIGNTY relagating WE THE PEOPLE of the US to the status of servants to the UN INSTEAD of being governed by WE THE PEOPLE
THIS would for example entail that any US citizen can be abducted and US servicemen serving in let’s say Pakistan could be apprehended by local Muslim authorities for an offense, real or imagined slammed into the ICC and flown to the Hage, netherlands where they would rot for months waiting for trial and done ENTIRELY without due process. they would get not trial and no confronting of accusers, No protection from double jeopardy and no unanimous verdict for a conviction.
Take a second to THINK about this all of the globalists within and without the USA think the murderous Al Qaida terriorists should have these rights HOWEVER NOT OUR US SOLDIERS.
Even though we can’t guarantee that no American soldier is ever taken prisoner by a foreign state and put before the ICC, we at “least” make sure no US soldier and or civilian meets with this fate.
However, the ICC doesn’t want to recognize the CONSTITUTIONAL rights that we as Americans are guaranteed. GET IT?? They too think our constitution is FLAWED.
Meanwhile the globalists Anti-American ICC supporters criticized Mr. Bush claiming we were “undermining international LAW, the reality, THEY were writing new INTERNATIONAL LAWS TO protect themselves.
Want to know WHAT were the “agreement on the Privileges and immunities of the ICC” ratified with the assent of ONLY 10 NATION—it flat out provides the ICC immunity from “every form of legal process anywhere”.
They stated that the “property, funds, and assets” of the ICC “shall be IMMUNE from search, seizure, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference. And, the ICC and it’s assets they said “are to be exempt from all direct taxes” including local taxes and customs.
Long and short of it——the ICC MEMBERS have declared themselves IMMUNE form “personal arrest or detention, Legal process of every kind and immigration restrictions.
Oh then then lastly, the “salaries, emoluments and allowances” of the judges prosecutor deputy prosecutor and the registras of the ICC ARE EXEMPT from taxaition.
What hypocrites, it seems to run DEEP in the UN, but it indicates the lengths to which globalists will go to undermine National SOVEREIGNTY.
There’s no mistaking it, the ICC SEVERELY undermines our Sovereignty and has over the years placed our troops at great risk.
It CLAIMS complete jurisdiction over every person in the world and it makes no difference to them whether or not that nation has even ratified the treaty.
And, FRANKLY our own constitution may soon be up to the interpretation of 18 foreign -and for the most part hostile-ICC JUDGES.
Long and short of it, the ICC is literally a dagger in the heart of our US SOVEREIGNTY, our freedom and our independence.
DO you want to know what the ACLU thinks about how ‘STUPID’ they view Americans. Here is what Norman THOMAS one of the Founders of the ACLU says QUOTE Americans will never “knowingly” accept Socialism, but under “liberalism” Americans will accept every fragment; and one day wake up in a Socialist Nation and “wonder” how it all happened.
What we need to investigate is how the DEMOCRATS and ACLU think that they can continue to count on Americans being as stupid as the ACLU thinks Americans are.
Prior to elections we repeatedly had to complain to the REPUBLICANS that our posts were stonewalled by sites because no one wanted to know the truth.
to the present the problem exists.
What we as American’s need to do is to LEGALLY and LEGISLATIVELY NOT LEAVE WASH DC alone until everyone of our FREEDOMS are iron clad protected from flag to allegience to seal to all freedoms.
Right now THE COALITION TO FIGHT AGAINST THE ACLU —-whom fights for all the freedoms of WE THE PEOPL will close if they don’t get funding. Want to see how bravely they fight for the public go there and see. If they close, people, wake up there will be NO ONE to protect our FREEDOMS of WE THE PEOPLE.
We need to make sure that the only enemies our troops need to concern themselves with are the Islamic terriorists in their crosshairs not some New world order beauracrat in the Hague.
google OLIVER NORTH AND THE FREEDOM ALLIANCE site and see for yourself what we saw.
Feel free to cut paste and print it’s a beautiful thing one can only type so much.
World government still isn’t quite plausible. The European Union member states have fought for autonomy against further centralization by Brussels. The United Nations is still quite ineffective and incompetent.
On the other hand, we see massive countries like Russia, China, India and the United States working together (though not with every member of that group) in a military capacity. There’s alot of reasons to share resources on a large scale.
I think, if anything, in the future, we’ll see more continental federalism ala the European Union. Maybe someday we’ll even see global federalism.
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
Actually, I think global federalism is exactly the kind of global governance, or world government, that we can expect to see. What has happened in Europe with the establishment of the EU, which developed out of the European Common Market, should give us an idea of what could be done in North America via expansions of so-called “free trade” agreements, which are really “managed trade” and not “free trade” in any real sense. This is what people are talking about when they refer to the “North American Union”, which is the common term used for the SPP. All of us who cherish individual liberty, natural rights, and self government should be very concerned and watchful of these developments, and should resist all proposals that would aim to establish global government in any form, whether global federalism (as with the EU) or otherwise.
To comment a bit further, I would agree that world government isn’t quite plausible, in the sense that I believe it wouldn’t work very well at all, even though a lot of damage to liberty and natural rights would happen through such attempts at it. The UN has indeed been terribly ineffective, for the simple reason that central planning doesn’t work. Not that I would even want the UN to be effective at all.
The working together of massive countries in a military capacity, as you mention, is a very dangerous trend. We must remember that the military is the violent wing of the state. This is why the framers of the Constitution greatly restricted the power of the military, by allowing authorizations of standing armies for only two years at a time, and by requiring a Congressional declaration in order for war to be waged, among others. This is all the more reason to resist military entanglements among nations, of which we have seen tragically way too much in the past century.
Great article! We in America need a paradigm shift. Our original thought as a nation was to legislate in things that we wanted such as freedoms and the right to rule ourselves. No taxation without representation. It worked. Then we legislated in workers rights. It worked. Then we legislated in environmental rights. It worked. Then we legislated in job security by domestic content laws. It worked until it was removed by new free trade legislation. Then all the media outlets told us to change our paradigm for the first time in American history that we should not have our own laws to protect our freedoms, our worker rights, our environment we should compete with people from other countries for those very rights we legislated in. IT WILL NOT WORK! We see it every day with one crisis after another here in the United States of America. Wake up, go vote. Hold your legislators accountable and ask for 2 laws.
1. Domestic content, which was once legislated in the past.
2. Direct loans from the government to people who want to keep there homes, buy new homes, and buy new cars.
Bailouts to foreign corporations like CITI is completely arrogant and repulsive. With absolutely no oversight. Car czars to tell corporations what to build and how to screw the workers out of 100 years of bargaining is against the teachings of the founding members of the constitution.
Deficit spending on infrastructure will not work either. Economic expansion comes from making more with less people, less material and less environmental impact. PERIOD. Shut down factories in the United States of America with robots and highly skilled and paid workers to open them up in China with thousands of workers and no automation and dumping pollution into the sky, earth and water will create global economic DEPRESSION!
So America change your paradigm back to what it originally was which is this. In the United States of America we are free people to legislate in what is best for us, not what is best for China, India, Korea, Corporations or Wall Street(I mean Dubai). We in the United States of America can and will write legislation to stop our jobs from going overseas, will stop foreclosures, will stop deficit spending, will stop Wall Street bailouts. Period. We do not want to compete with the third world and lose all the freedoms we currently enjoy!
2 laws
1 Domestic content
2 0% direct government loans to the people of the United States not bailouts to
wall street(Citi which is Dubai)
If the US truly believed in “government by consent of the governed,” the southern part of the US would be the Confederate States of America today. For about 145 years, the theme of this country has been “government by those with the most firepower.”
The last statement about government by those with the most firepower is really incorrect. Yes the North won but that was 145 years ago. Since then much more has been done to improve the freedoms of everyone. We could have at any time voted to change the impact of the war but we did not. So firepower really did not work. What worked is the fact that it was the right outcome and continues to this day to be the right outcome. The corporations that control everything want us all to continue that fight of 145 years ago and neglect the real fight that continues which is to ensure economic freedom as well as physical freedom.
Mr. Kennedy - you point out, quite correctly, that “There are many people who really, sincerely believe that “global solutions” are essential to solving many of the world’s problems. Such people fail to understand that, first of all, central planning does not work.”
Most of those with whom I work and study global governance issues fully agree with you, including almost all of whom “sincerely believe that ‘global solutions’ are essential.” No one I know who supports the UN or UN reform wants anything to do with a ‘one-world government’ or central planning.
But you also dismiss federalism as a means of countering a move toward central planning while addressing problems which have no respect for borders. No matter what we do, we’ll not be able to stop Chinese pollution from contaminating our shores or stopping terrorists without resorting to either enforcable law or the violence of war. The founders of the U.S., and futher back to Hobbes, Locke and other who influenced them, were aware of these choices. This is why they developed federalism (a strong form of the confederalism developed centuries earlier) to preseve local autonomy on local issues but gave the citizens the ability to appoint or elect delegates to another level of government involving everyone involved.
I must ask, if you oppose central planning (agreed!) but also federalism, would you have opposed and do you oppose the existence of the U.S. Federal Constitution? Given a constitutional ability to elect delegates (good conservatives them all, I presume) to an international parliament as you do to the U.S. Congress, would you? If not, are you opposed to electing member of Congress? Where do you draw the line?
Tony
I support the concept of federalism, as established by the framers of the Constitution. However, I see limits as to how far one can take federalism (at the international level, as opposed to keeping at the national level) without it resulting in the further centralization or concentration of power. On the contrary, I believe that those issues which seem to demand a global solution are actually most effectively dealt with by local action. I believe in the power of free markets (coupled with the full enforcement of natural rights, especially property rights) and people making free choices as a way of solving many of our global problems. On the environment, for example, a much stricter enforcement of property rights, which we would have in a free market that is coupled with the rule of law (which includes enforcement of all natural rights), would result in a much stricter environmental policy. It would be quite different from the status quo, where regulations are essentially written by representatives of favored corporations and enforced by an inefficient but overbearing bureaucracy. This is something that will have to be attempted at the local level to demonstrate how it would work, before it will gain more widespread acceptance. Besides the tendency towards centralization of power, attempts at governing on these issues at the global level tend to lead to decisions which may not work well, may result in loss of liberty and widespread injustice, and would be extremely difficult to undo. It also tends to lead to decision-making by elite groups done mostly in secret, and it is extremely difficult for citizens to become involved in the political process as a way of having a say over what happens. For all these reasons, I reject so-called global governance.
Unfortunately we have strayed very far from what was originally intended in a our federal system, as power has become vastly centralized in Washington. There isn’t the space here to go into all the details and history of how this came about, but suffice it to say that our central banking system, the Federal Reserve, is an excellent illustration of this point, as it has allowed the financing (through monetized debt) of vastly expanded powers of government, at the expense of our natural rights.
The consent of the governed is a major part my point, but the other part of what I’m saying is that central planning simply doesn’t work. It is not possible to reconcile opposition to central planning with a faith in global or international government. You seem to want to have it both ways, claiming not to favor central planning but then arguing for just that on certain issues, expressed through a faith that international government solutions can really solve problems, which they cannot (and have not).
This does not mean, however, that there should be no international law. Treaties, which are provided for under our Constitution, are an appropriate form of international law, to the extent that treaties do not contradict, override or supersede our Constitution. Treaties are important as a means of nations coming into agreement on essential matters. But treaties should not be abused for the purposes of forming external bureaucracies that attempt to be some sort of higher level of government. Treaties really should be seen as contracts between two or more nations. There’s a whole history on the matter of treaties and their relationship with the Constitution (the Bricker Amendment to the Constitution, for instance, was proposed to ensure that treaties could not override the Constitution… the late Sen. Barry Goldwater was a strong supporter of the Bricker Amendment in its various proposals during the 1950s).
My apologies for the rambling nature of this comment… it is late, and my thoughts are flowing in a fairly random fashion.
“On the environment, for example, a much stricter enforcement of property rights, which we would have in a free market that is coupled with the rule of law (which includes enforcement of all natural rights), would result in a much stricter environmental policy.”
Agreed on this, but it seems a bit insufficient to the actual problem. Suppose this approach was observed fully within the United States, to the degree that you would be satisfied. How do we then deal with environmental issues where the cause originates outside our sovereign jurisdiction?
If your view is that every government should do this, how do we enforce that, to protect our ability to use the free market approach? How do we set up the norms and expectations which all governments would observe?
If rather you’d prefer a treaty-based system, one that obviously does not negate the relevant Constitutional provisions, how do we draft the treaty in a way that it continues to be enforceable even when it’s a little inconvenient politically? in Federalist #15, Hamilton noted this was a major cause of problems in Europe, and a strong reason for the federal Union over the confederation.
What I hear you suggesting is a concern that federalism is not scalable to the international level? That’s not a new idea, not one expressed only by conservatives. I’ve heard it from many pro-global governance advocates as well. Usually, it’s due to the assumption that applying federalism globally would simply be scaling up the UN, a deeply flaws confederal system which we know wouldn’t work. It’s ironic how many (lower-case) democrats can’t envision scaling up instead a local town council, state legislature or parliament. Of course, all power comes with ambition and the usual suspects. Again, I usually end up referring them to the Federalist approach (i.e. check ambition against ambition, etc.).
I suspect most are worried that any truly accountable democratic global parliament would not include authoritarian members, or that the West would be “out-voted” by China or India, but again, that’s comparing apples to oranges. In a scaled-up UN, this might be the case, but in a federal system, we’d see conservative Indians caucusing with conservative English and conservative Argentinians, not liberal Indians. Likewise, we’d see libertarian Americans caucusing more often with libertarian Scottish and libertarian Kuwaitis than we would see them agreeing with their fellow Democrat Americans (on some issues, I suppose!)
And, to reiterate, I agree with your concern about the Constitution. As a Federalist, I often disagree, sometimes vocally, with globalist friends about the division of sovereignty between local, state, national and global actors. The point we generally find ourselves back in agreement in on the necessity of an politically independent and accountable judiciary at the global level also, one that avoids the ridiculously politicized World Court model in favor of the ICC approach to qualifications, rules of procedure and impeachment possibilities for its judges. (If you’re immediately put off by the ICC, I encourage you to dig a little deeper into the protections it offers and the standards imposed on its judges and prosecutors.)
Thank you again for engaging in this conversation. I appreciate the opportunity.
Tony
With all the public attention on matters of the environment, energy, and resource depletion, I’ve long maintained that the space community needs to connect space with these issues in a reasonable manner. This is the only way to develop space advocates among those who don’t care about or see any value in traditional space exploration
The goal of United Nation was to addresses the need of the member countries. If there are some uncertainties they are ought to make a global solution for the benefit of every nation. Every country should also realize the importance of having a clean and safe drinking water. Water being the element of life must not be taken for granted. Healths of every constituent are at stake if we will neglect it. H20 for Life has now over 100 participating schools, sending clean water for drinking and sanitation as short term loans for health to Africa as well as South and Central America. It’s a wonderful thing that they are doing, as thousands die from unsanitary water conditions annually. It’s like debt relief for the human race by donating to H20 for Life.
Post new comment