We must not yield to those seeking global governance

May 28, 2024

Some of the countries on Earth are independent. Some are voluntarily members of a group. Others are ruled and totally controlled by another country. America, blessedly, is an independent nation, and has been since 1776.

When our country was organizing after declaring and winning its independence from the British empire, the Founders worked hard and long to design a nation that would be sustainable, successful and somewhat unique.

Their design has proven to be a very good one. “Today, it parallels old empires like Rome and Britain in scope, aesthetics, and influence,” WorldAtlas online notes. “Rome's legal system, infrastructure, and language permeated the known world, much like the USA's cultural exports, English language, and democratic principles. Britain's former naval prowess and colonies echo the USA's global military bases and economic reach. However, the USA differs in its soft power emphasis, using cultural, economic, and political influence more than direct colonial control.”

The WorldAtlas description continues: “Fueled by immigration, innovation, and resources, it emerged as a global power post-WWII. Its strengths lie in its diversified, technologically-advanced economy, military supremacy, and cultural influence. Furthermore, as it occupies a fairly isolated continent, it is currently near-impossible to successfully invade.”

For nearly 250 years the US has been a nation of individual freedom that has made great contributions to life on Earth. Its government has held fairly strong on the ideals upon which it was built, including being an important nation in the interests of the world, using its influence and strength generally for its benefit as well as the common good, and at the same time maintaining and protecting its national independence.

The USA belongs to and participates in many international organizations, offering its knowledge and wisdom to help solve international problems. And it is the wisdom of our unique design that has allowed the US to provide such leadership to the rest of the world.

There are political and ideological factions within the country that actually want to abandon what made America the great, often world-leading nation it became. Their desires and actions have often been in plain sight for many years, and their actions have actually moved the country in small steps toward that goal.

Included in this movement is a path toward one-world government. Organizations like the United Nations, the World Economic Forum and the World Health Organization seek to control some of what many or all nations do, or perhaps to be part of a world government.

An attitude contrary to things the US currently and historically does is alive and well, and factions in the US seem all too eager to change them.

One example of shifting national control to an international agency is the plan supported by the Biden administration to give away American sovereignty by supporting two World Health Organization (WHO) treaties. This has received very little public discussion.

Signing onto these treaties would transfer to the WHO the rights of states to make decisions on public health. However, the federal government does not possess the right to do this under the U.S. Constitution, even if taking this action was a sensible thing to do. And, we must recognize that anything that subverts the nation’s ability to make its own decisions to another nation or international body is foolish in the extreme.

This action is opposed by the Republican Attorneys General in 22 states. In a letter put together by Montana’s Attorney General, Austin Knudsen, the AGs said, “We will resist any attempt to enable the WHO to directly or indirectly set public policy for our citizens.”

This significant threat to our independence and national sovereignty is discussed on ConservativeHQ.com, a site operated by Richard A. Viguerie. It says, “The WHO will discuss drafts of its proposed pandemic agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations at the upcoming World Health Assembly, May 27 to June 1. The proposals aim to give the WHO more authority to prevent, prepare for and respond to pandemics.”

The 22 Attorneys General believe that these amendments would “transform the WHO from an advisory, charitable organization into the world’s governor of public health.”

And ConservativeHQ notes that “[a]t the end of May, President Biden intends to join other nations in supplanting our Constitution and the liberties it guarantees with something called ‘global governance.’”

“Their plan, which has been stealthily negotiated for several years at the World Health Organization, would permit no informed debate – let alone require the approval of the American people through their elected representatives in the United States Senate.”

This is wrong on many levels. It goes against our Constitution, and the idea of an independent constitutional republic that it created.

Because of its unique design the US has amassed great successes over its nearly 250 years of existence. It must not become just one of dozens or hundreds of nations following a path determined for it by others. Many of them hope to see the US lose its independence, and become a nation of sheep doing what they are told by the elite globalists. 

We the people must make the important determinations for our country, and protect the freedoms the Founders so judiciously provided for the people.

Will the United States survive under a world government?

September 26, 2023

A one-world government has been the dream of many people across the globe for a long time. Some think of the United Nations as a world government, but it is not. It is, however, along with many others, favoring one.

This idea is called The Great Reset. This is not a new development. It has been around since at least 1992, and some say 1971 when the World Economic Forum, which was originally founded as the European Management Forum, came into existence.

And its critics say that if The Great Reset takes place, the American form of government of mostly free markets, personal freedoms and a somewhat-limited federal government with open elections will be replaced with a world body that does not support the conservative ideals of the United States, like private ownership of property, individual choice, and free enterprise. Its ballot box will provide only one choice. That system is commonly referred to as “communism.”

Supporters charge that criticisms are conspiracy theories that totally misrepresent the stated goals of The Great Reset. But those criticisms require a good, thoughtful look.

Two well-known people in the world have made public statements about a unique opportunity that recently presented itself.

In June 2020, “the Prince of Wales and the head of the annual Davos summit launched an initiative calling for the pandemic to be seen as a chance for what they called a Great Reset of the global economy,” the BBC network reported. In a video about this, the Prince of Wales — England’s former Prince Charles, and now King Charles — said the following: "We have an incredible opportunity to create entirely new sustainable industries. The time to act is now."

The BBC report then turned to the second well-known person. “The other founder of the initiative is Prof. Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, which organizes an annual summit in a Swiss ski resort for some of the world's wealthiest and most powerful people.”

“He explained the idea behind the Great Reset in an article accompanying the launch: ‘The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future.’”

Now, neither of those statements actually contain details which would scare people away from The Great Reset. For as with all ideas up for sale, it is portrayed in very positive terms. 

But let’s not forget the message of 2010 regarding “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” a process that began with former President Barack Obama that is underway in the Biden administration, and has put the country in a seriously troubled condition.

In an article in Hillsdale College’s “Imprimis” publication — “What Is the Great Reset?” — author Michael Rectenwald, the Chief Academic Officer of the American Scholars organization, offers this description. “The Great Reset aims to usher in a bewildering economic amalgam — Schwab’s stakeholder capitalism — which I have called “corporate socialism” and Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben has called “communist capitalism.” 

“This is the ‘social justice’ aspect of the Great Reset,” Rectenwald wrote. “To comply with that, governments, banks, and asset managers use the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) index to squeeze non-woke corporations and businesses out of the market. The ESG index is essentially a social credit score that is used to drive ownership and control of production away from the non-woke or non-compliant.” 

In short, it will be a system where people and businesses are forced into compliance with a narrow set of “social justice” ideals, without the freedom to explore other ideas. Hence the references by Rectenwald and Agamben to “socialism” and “communism.”

In 2020, Schwab and author Thierry Malleret published a book called COVID-19: The Great Reset. In it, “Schwab and Malleret pit ‘stakeholder capitalism’ against ‘neoliberalism,’ defining the latter as ‘a corpus of ideas and policies . . . favouring competition over solidarity, creative destruction over government intervention, and economic growth over social welfare,’” Rectenwald wrote. 

“In other words,” he explains, “‘neoliberalism’ refers to the free enterprise system. In opposing that system, stakeholder capitalism entails corporate cooperation with the state and vastly increased government intervention in the economy.”

Tom DeWeese, President of the American Policy Center describes our future this way: “The rule of law in our Republic, designed to insure individual rights from intrusive government, is being replaced by an undefined term called social justice, which demands that the concerns of interest groups supersede the inherent rights of the individual.”

“Further, the interests of the United States of America now tend to take a back seat to those of something called the ‘Global Commons.’ National identities and individual religions are being morphed into non-descript and indistinguishable arrangements called global religion. 

“The teaching of history has become an exercise in group-promotion and political correctness,” DeWeese wrote, “with little regard for truth. Science has been reduced to nothing more than a convenient tool to promote political agendas. Self-determination is being replaced with group-think.”

This plan wouldn’t have much effect on some nations, and may be an improvement for some. But for others — most especially the United States of America — The Great Reset as it is described would be a catastrophe.