Imagine that a group of respected people from various Countries got together recently at some National Summit meeting (let’s say, in Philadelphia) for the explicit purpose of modifying their previous UN treaties and agreements with each other. At the outset of the Summit, it was declared that no one was allowed to talk about the Summit outside the meeting. They met for four months, in a closed Summit hall, in complete secrecy. But instead of doing what they said they were going to do and modify previous agreements, they cleverly decided to create a completely new Treaty of the United Countries, seeking to establish a single world government comprised of legislatures, judges, and even a president of the world.
The people who met at the Summit decided that in order for this new United Countries Treaty to come into being, that 9/13ths of the Countries would need to sign it. But instead of requiring signatures from the various legislatures, it just asked for signatures from special Country Summits. At the end of the Philadelphia Summit, even though not everyone at the Summit agreed on the wording or ideas in the Treaty, they stated that the attendees “having written the Treaty decided unanimously to send it to the Countries for approval.” Heh heh, get it? They decided unanimously to send it. Clever. Thinking this would confuse ratifiers into believing the Treaty was unanimously agreed to. The wording of their new Treaty began with the phrase, “We the people of the Unified Countries…” But shouldn’t it have read, “We the countries of the Unified Countries?”
The people in favor of the new Treaty decided to take the name “Nationalists” for themselves and for everyone who agreed with this new world government, even though “Globalists” might have been a more accurate name. They called anyone that disagreed with them “Anti-Nationalists.” (Clever!) After their Summit, three of the key authors of the Treaty wrote Op-Eds in the New York Times under pseudonyms so that no one knew they were the Treaty’s authors. Clever! Their goal was to convince the Countries to agree to the Treaty. The 85 articles they wrote came to be called, “The Nationalist” or “The Nationalist Papers.”
In them they said that this new “National Government” was needed to combat a common threat. They didn’t specify the threat exactly, but perhaps it was a global environmental threat or astroid collision or lone-wolf terrorists or threat of alien invasion. Whatever it was, this threat was a CRISIS! The Countries must act immediately to ratify the Treaty. Some even begged that time need not be taken to debate the Treaty in detail, just agree to it and trust the respected people of the Summit that it is the right thing to do for the Countries.
Some of the articles in the Treaty stated that they would need to impose taxes to fund a defense against the threat. A militant force would be assembled to fight the threat. Land for a headquarters of 10 square miles would have to be established. There was a clause that said that the new National Government could enact laws that were “necessary and proper” for executing their powers. Another one said that the new Congress would have the power to “promote the general welfare” of the United Countries.
Some things not explicitly stated in the Treaty would happen anyway: People would be employed to collect the taxes. A World police would come about to enforce the collection of taxes. After some time, agencies would eventually rise such as the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), World Security Agency (WSA), The World Guard, External Revenue Service (ERS), World Reconnaissance Office (WRO), National Emergency Management Association (NEMA), Department of World Education, Department of World Energy, et cetera…
Eventually, this new National Government would grow so large as to make the governments of the individual Countries somewhat meaningless. If a Country’s police did not enforce by the new “National” laws, the NBI would be brought in to sweep down and arrest the offenders.
As time went on, the people would eventually forget that the Treaty was supposed to restrict the size of the National Government.
The Anti-Nationalists lost their argument, and the people of the World lost their liberty.
The following is a letter, written by one of the Summit attendees, an anti-nationalist, to his country’s ratifying convention:
I am honored to enclose, pursuant to my commission, the Treaty proposed by the National Summit.
I did not agree with the system and I will submit my objections to the honorable legislature.
It was painful for me, on a subject of such global importance, to disagree with the respected members who signed the Treaty. But I believed that the World’s liberties were not secured by the new system and that it was my duty to oppose it.
Here are my main objections to the plan:
- The people are not adequately represented.
- They have no security for the right of an election.
- Some powers of the legislative branch are ambiguous, and others are indefinite and dangerous.
- The executive branch is blended with, and will have an undue influence over, the legislature.
- The judicial branch will be oppressive
- Regulations of the highest importance can be formed by the President, with the advice of two-thirds of a quorum of the Senate
- The system does not have the security of a Bill of Rights.
These are objections do not apply to just a specific locality, they apply equally to all of the countries.
Since the Summit’s purpose was for “the sole and express purpose of revising existing agreements, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures, the alterations and provisions that will render the National Treaty adequate to the needs of government and the preservation of the Union of countries,” I did not imagine that these powers extended to the formation of the proposed plan. But the Summit had a different opinion, so I reluctantly accepted it, being fully convinced that in order to preserve the Union, an efficient government was absolutely necessary, and that it would be difficult to make proper amendments to the existing agreements.
The proposed system has few, if any, national features. Instead, it is a system of global government. Nevertheless, in many respects, I think it has great merit, and, by proper amendments, could be adapted to the “needs of government and preservation of liberty.”
The question on this plan involves others of the highest importance:
- Will the UN be closed down?
- Will the national governments be changed so much that they will effectively be dissolved?
- In lieu of the UN and national governments, will the proposed global Treaty be substituted in their place without any amendment?
Never, perhaps, were a people called upon to decide a question of greater magnitude. If the citizens of the world adopt the plan as it now stands, their liberties may be lost. But if they reject it altogether, anarchy might result. It is clear, therefore, that their decision should not be made hurriedly. The subject should be well understood. Otherwise, they might have to refuse to support the government after having hastily accepted it.
Regardless of whether they are for or against the Treaty, if discussions about it remain moderate, they will provide a great deal of information and the result will be a happy one.
Some may urge that we have total confidence in the Summit. But no matter how respectable the members may be who signed the Treaty, only a free people are the proper guardians of their rights and liberties. The greatest men can make mistakes, and their mistakes are sometimes the largest.
Other people might assume that the Treaty can be safely adopted because of the provisions it contains to amend it. But can’t this better be done before it is ratified than after it? Should free people really adopt a form of government knowing that it needs amendment?
Some others might think that if the people do not adopt the plan, that they will not unite in another plan. But surely, while they still have the power to amend it, they do not need to completely reject it.
I have been delayed here longer than I expected, but will leave here in a day or two for America. When I arrive, I will submit the basis for my objections (if required by the legislature).
I will only add that, since the welfare of the Union requires a better Treaty than the UN Treaty, I believe it is my duty as a citizen of America to support whatever is finally adopted, sincerely hoping that it will secure the liberty and happiness of the world.
***September 17, 2012 will be the 225th anniversary of just such an event happening…***