December 23, 2009
Sometimes, I get so caught up in being opposed to something I fail to remind myself as to WHY I’m opposed to it. Yesterday I found myself – in the wake of so much news in the past few months regarding swine flu and the WHO; climate change and Copenhagen; and the manufactured economic crisis and the G20 – wondering if I could articulate to one who is not so politically aware or analytical just why I think Global Governance is such a terrible idea. Here are some of the reasons I knew that I knew, but just hadn’t taken the time to spell out to myself.
1. The loss of the people’s voice. Today in Washington, Americans on all sides of the political spectrum increasingly feel that we have no say in the decisions made by our leaders. Even though we vote, our choices of leaders are unsatisfying, frequently leading us to choose the “lesser of two evils.” John McCain isn’t a true Conservative, and thus left true Conservatives without a candidate. Barack Obama claimed to be a centrist but it turns out that he’s as much in the bag for the bankers as any good Globalist should be. Neither one of these two men – or any of the other candidates in the 2008 election, save one – were good for this country, and many people knew it but felt it their civic duty to vote for SOMEONE. For those of us who are not caught up in the false left-right paradigm, we looked at the candidates and thought, what is going on here, with this cult of personality battling it out against reluctant followers of a false war hero who in no way represents the traditional Republican ideals? We look at our members of Congress and think, what makes you think you can get away with continuing to put lobbyists and special interests ahead of your constituents? Yet they do get away with it because there’s just too much power behind Washington in the form of special interests, a lack of government transparency, and sheer arrogance.
If you think you lack a voice now, wait until we have Global Government. It would necessarily have to be tyrannical. It could not be a Democratic Republic (not that we really have that now) for the simple reason that it would be too difficult for the World leaders to control. We can relatively easily get on a plane or train, or hop in our cars and get ourselves to Washington DC and see our leaders face-to-face now. Our presence – if we wake up and start holding these officials accountable in whatever ways we have left – may once again remind them that they work for us, we don’t work for them or their lobbyist fundraisers. We can still have a march in DC including tens of thousands – like that of the Ron Paul Revolution or the tea party marches – to let them know that we’re watching. In a World Government model, it would be vastly more difficult to organize. We’d have to do it on a global scale and rely on the people of India or Afghanistan or Spain or Zimbabwe to have this march, people who generally are much worse off than we and are worried about how they’re going to feed their families tomorrow than going to a political march. The World leaders will be very comfortable in their ivory towers because they will know that they will be untouchable. So, your voice will be lost simply because of logistics. Regardless of who’s in power, your opposition to decisions made by a world body will be meaningless. If you’re liberal who truly cares about the plight of the hungry (and there aren’t as many of you as you may think), you will have no recourse to destructive policies made under the guise of “environmentalism,” and if you’re a conservative, you will scream at the top of your lungs about spending and no one will care. No one will even hear you. They’ll be too far away and too insulated for your voice to break through the walls.
2. Control. In a World Government model, there would necessarily have to be a technological control grid. The government simply can’t control 6 billion people (if that many are left when they’re done) without some sort of biotech or tracking devices. It will start with convenience, but the real reason will be control. We see this now even in America and Britain with the abundance of “traffic cameras” that automatically send you tickets for violating any one of our thousands of traffic laws. They can’t even control the population of a large metropolis – how will they do it on a global scale? A global government can’t control your “carbon emissions” (since that seems to be what they’ve resorted to), it can’t control your salary, it can’t control your internet activity, it can’t control your money, it can’t control your health unless we are all electronically tracked. Since the trend of global governance is heavily reliant on controlling people in order to achieve some sort of “greater good,” we must be tracked to make things “fair” for all people in the world. Yes – this is a joke. It is socialism at its worst. There are already RFID chips in our passports and our drivers’ licenses, but imagine what else the governors of this World body can use to track us. GPS on our cars, tracking where we go and storing that information just in case they need it later? Chips in our forearms? How else would a global health care system know what we’re putting into our bodies and if it adheres to our government-prescribed diet? How else will the government know if we’re going to our required one hour gym visit? Do I sound paranoid? I shouldn’t – the trend is towards less human-to-human interaction and more human-machine interaction. Think of ATMs, online ordering, and touch-tone menus when you call almost any company. Last time I went to the doctor, she had me put all my information not on a piece of paper, but a wireless entry system that sent my personal, intimate details to God-knows-where.
3. Management. We have the UN now, which is basically a useless organization, luckily for us. Even though member states donate their money to the UN, the leadership of a global government would have to be a financial body capable of compelling member states to pay to a coffer from which they will draw, supposedly to orchestrate the needs of the globe. Re-read that: “orchestrate the needs of the globe.” This is an impossibility. A small government body can’t orchestrate the needs of its small population, let alone the needs of 6 billion people. (This is ignoring the idea that we even need government to orchestrate our needs, which is debatable since most of what government gets involved in gets all screwed up, anyways.) Regardless of where on the political spectrum you lie, think about it on an accessible scale: public schools. Look at the school systems of any large metropolis…say, Chicago. In Chicago, we have hundreds of government workers, including teachers, principals, staff, security, secretaries, financial operators, etc. All of these people are working in tandem, supposedly to meet the needs of the hundreds of thousands of students in the system. Yet we still have failing schools, incredible government waste, teachers failing to get their paychecks, staff at human resources who let their phones ring and ring while they paint their nails, schools without textbooks but cappuccino machines and flat screen televisions in the downtown offices. Why? Because the vision of any large governmental organization that BY LAW must exist will falter because it’s too big. The workers “downtown” (or wherever this world body is based) is completely out of touch with the needs of the people to whom it’s dictating. Some banker in Copenhagen has no idea how I should best educate my child. And if you think that the global body will rely on the member states to communicate to it what those individuals need, again think of CPS. It’s global governance-in-training. It doesn’t work. The money isn’t used appropriately, people slip through the cracks, and we have no control over our own fates.
Lest some of you jump in here and say that it’s hypocritical to think that we will have a government that can’t manage its own money but can track our movements and actions, think of this: We have a government now that can’t run a DMV efficiently, but can track, record, catalog, and use your phone calls and emails against you at any moment, when it decides that you represent a threat to someone. We have a government now that can manipulate voter data in two minutes via hacking, and we have government agencies that can genetically modify our food, thus changing our DNA. The waste and fraud are not about incompetence – they’re about the simple fact that the people committing these acts of fraud and waste because THEY CAN. can storm into the DMV or the Chicago Public Schools’ Human Resources department and scream and I’ll be heard…somewhat. I can’t walk over to Copenhagen and scream. Again, it goes back to the loss of my voice as an individual.
4. The loss of our individual rights at the expense of others’. Think about this: In 2004, France passed a law prohibiting in schools “symbols or clothes through which students conspicuously display their religious affiliation.” In Switzerland, the building of new minarets is illegal. In America, we have new hate crime legislation that allows the federal government to re-try you if it’s unsatisfied with a not-guilty verdict in a hate crimes case, thus destroying our protections against double-jeopardy. There are now certain groups of people against whom crimes are more heinous than others. In all of these cases, the rights of the individual are completely wiped away because of group identity.
Diversity is an important aspect to living in a country such as America and a world such as ours. However, at what point to your individual rights to believe what you want, say what you want, and behave in a manner in which you want become less important than hurting someone else’s feelings? Imagine this on a global scale. Our bill of rights – which our founders wrote so as to keep the individual’s rights protected from government infringement – will be destroyed at the expense of “diversity.” It ceases to become diversity when only certain opinions are allowed. Imagine if suddenly – around the world – Muslim women who chose to wear the hijab were not allowed to do so. Imagine if suddenly – around the world – the construction of new Presbyterian churches was illegal. What would happen to diversity at the expense of diversity?
What does this have to do with World government? Conformity. The destruction of the individual and his or her desires, needs, dreams, personalities will be complete. Again, necessarily World government will have to streamline and level the world population, curbing our speech, beliefs, and actions. We’re easier to control then.
These are just some of the problems with World government. There are more – many more. Consider this a call to action – perhaps to add your own ideas, but more simply to become aware that this is our fate unless you wake up to the realities of what’s going on around you. The trend is towards global governance; it is almost upon us. According to the new EU president Herman van Rompuy, 2009 was the first year of World governance. Despite what I want, I agree with him. It happened seemingly without warning, but in truth people have been screaming about this for decades. They’re crazy, though; the “conspiracy theorists’ who are derided on television by the accepted talking heads tell us so, and many people believe them.
World government will be inevitable unless people start taking action in whatever way they need to in order to avoid it. We must take back the power that we’ve been letting go of gradually since this country’s founding. We must wake up. For those of you who voted for him, Barack Obama is NOT the savior of this country – you must see that by now. He’s committed to using the farce of climate change and destroying the United States financially in order to bring about Global governance, regardless if it’s what’s best for you, the individual