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.

Globalist elites meet again this month in Davos, Switzerland

January 23, 2024

You may have heard a good bit lately about what’s going on in Davos, Switzerland. It is the annual winter conference of the World Economic Forum (WEF). For many, perhaps most people, the WEF is just a name without definition.

So here, from Britannica online, is some background: “World Economic Forum, international organization that convenes an annual winter conference, traditionally in Davos, Switz., for the discussion of global commerce, economic development, political concerns, and important social issues. Some of the world’s most prominent business leaders, politicians, policy makers, scholars, philanthropists, trade unionists, and representatives of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) attend the meetings. Headquarters are in Cologny, near Geneva.”

This annual get-together ran five days, from January 15 through 19, under the theme “Rebuilding Trust.” Topics for discussion fell under three headings: global, industry and economic.

Taking part in the WEF were more than 300 public figures, which included over 60 heads of state and government, plus there was representation from key regions of the world. 

Leading the conference was Klaus Schwab, who is the founder and executive chairman of the organization. Schwab founded a meeting of European corporate leaders interested in making their businesses competitive with American firms way back in 1971. In his day job, Schwab is “a German scholar of business policy and a professor at the University of Geneva.”

The name “World Economic Forum” became effective in 1987, reflecting “the importance of global economic and political issues, including poverty, environmental problems, and international conflict, which it immediately began working to resolve,” the Britannica article tells us.

However, like what happened with the United Nations, the actions of the WEF are not always in the best interest of everyone in the world that it hopes to rule one day.

On that topic, Britannica had this to say. Despite some successes, “the WEF was heavily criticized in the late 1990s by antiglobalization activists, who accused the organization of disenfranchising poorer countries through an excessive promotion of global capitalism. 

“The American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington labeled the group ‘a watering hole for the elite’ and coined the term ‘Davos Man,’ a pejorative reference to the WEF member, whom he believed possessed an erroneous sense of international identity. Protests over the group’s activities continued into the early 21st century, and the group responded by extending forum invitations to NGOs and developing countries and introduced the Open Forum Davos (2003), a free public forum held in parallel with the WEF.”

Sometimes American presidents attend, and sometimes not. President Joe Biden did not attend this year, and former President Donald Trump did not attend this year. Barack Obama, George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush all skipped Davos during their presidencies.

However, some administrative and Congressional personnel did attend. Democrats who attended this year include: Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Labor Secretary Marty Walsh, climate chief John Kerry, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan, Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, New Jersey Rep. Mikie Sherrill, and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker.

Republicans that attended include: Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, and Florida Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar. Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona also attended.

One other person from the U.S. to attend and speak to the group was 

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts. Talking about the next U.S. administration, he said: “I will be candid and say the agenda that every single member of the administration needs to have is to compile a list of everything that has ever been proposed at the World Economic Forum and object to all of them wholesale,” he said. “Anyone not prepared to do that and take away this power of the unelected bureaucrats and give it back to the American people is unprepared to be part of the next conservative administration.”

Dealing with specifics of what the WEF does that is so disagreeable, he said 

that it promotes illegal immigration as a positive for our country, and that it does not present a public safety threat in large American cities. He argued against the prevailing idea of the WEF that climate change is catastrophic. 

The WEF’s soft attitude toward China brought this comment from Roberts. “China, the No. 1 adversary not just to the United States, but to free people on planet Earth. Not only do we at Davos not say that, we give the Chinese Communist Party a platform.” 

To a group of global elitists who firmly believe they are capable of deciding for all of the rest of us what the entire world must do to sustain the Earth, these and the other wonderful ideas they conjure up may seem beneficial. But as Roberts pointed out, some of them are just plain dangerous for the United States.

And, we should take note that the WEF’s ideas closely match those of the Biden administration.

The United States has for nearly 250 years had a government design where the people of the country determine its course. That has worked very well. And despite the current efforts to undermine that unique design, it is still the best ever. We must not surrender to a global elite.

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.

Potpourri: Environmentalism, Obamacare and high school seniors

United Nations environmental figure reveals new goal

Its enemies dislike capitalism in great part because it is based, generally, upon people doing what they want when they want to, and the United States, even with this current infection of liberalism/progressivism, stands as a grand tribute to the blessings of capitalism. For some 150 years the United States’ capitalist economy has achieved what other nations and economic models dreamed of and promised, but never came close to.

Monarchs, dictators and other leaders dislike capitalist liberties, preferring to limit the freedom of their subjects. They are much easier to control that way. But that control produces harmful limitations.

Environmentalism is a great enemy of capitalism, not because of its ultimate goal so much as its irrational methodology, which has done so much damage to our nation.

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made an interesting admission, at a news conference last week in Brussels. She said that the goal of her convention is not to save the world from ecological calamity. That goal is instead to destroy capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said, as reported by Investors Business Daily.

Bloomberg News, reporting on comments made by Ms. Figueres in an interview, wrote that China, in contrast to the U.S., is able to implement policies “because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles” other countries have. Or in other words, “Damn those freedom-loving capitalists!”

Environmentalists hope that a new international treaty will be approved at the climate change conference in Paris later this year. Environmental goals will be much easier to achieve if all nations sign on to the U.N. plan and agree to beat their citizen-subjects into submission, no matter how much unnecessary pain and suffering that entails.

It should be clear why the United Nations wants to kill capitalism, since that is the source of America’s ability to resist that power-hungry organization’s efforts to become a world government.

The U.S. needs to abandon the United Nations.

Obamacare co-ops going broke

Writing for The Daily Signal online, Melissa Quinn reported that after receiving $2.5 billion from the federal government, most of the 23 nonprofit insurance companies created under the Affordable Care Act are going broke. If they have to shut their doors, taxpayers will be responsible for an average of roughly $108 million for each of them.

The Daily Signal reported that leading insurance rating firm A.M. Best found that all but one of the co-ops experienced operating losses through September 2014. “A.M. Best is concerned about the financial viability of several of these plans,” the report states. The exception is Maine Community Health Options, which received $132.3 million from the government.

State requires students to pass citizenship test to graduate

Here’s an idea that deserves to be copied by the other 49 states and the District of Columbia. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed a law into effect last week that requires high school students to pass the same test immigrants must pass to become citizens in order to graduate, the first such law.

“Why is such a requirement thought to be necessary?” you may ask. Is there a rationale for why existing Americans should know less about their country than immigrants wanting to become Americans?

Consider that a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center in 2011 found that “just 15 percent of Americans could correctly identify the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, while 27 percent knew Randy Jackson was a judge on “American Idol.” Only 13 percent knew the U.S. Constitution was signed in 1787. And just 38 percent were able to name all three branches of government.”

To pass, students would have to correctly answer just 60 of 100 questions. Here are some examples:

·      How many amendments does the U.S. Constitution have?

·      If both the President and the Vice President can no longer serve, who becomes President?

·      Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government?

                  To provide schooling and education

                  To issue driver's licenses

                  To make treaties

                  To build roads

·      Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the states. What is one power of the states?

·      Who was president during World War I?

The sponsoring organization, Civics Education Initiative, hopes all 50 states will be mandating the test by the 230th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution on Sept. 17, 2017.

Now the government wants to control the Internet

The Internet is one of the most successful modern creations, but whenever something is successful, the control freaks in Washington get all excited.

Under a scheme referred to as “Net Neutrality,” the Internet will be declared a “public utility” and the FCC then gets to decide what Internet service providers can charge and how they operate. Less freedom; higher costs: What’s to like about this? Let your Congressional Representative and Senators know you oppose Net Neutrality before the vote scheduled for February 26.