From chapter 18: Our Last Best Hope
An inside look at an example of a United Nations operation. This was written in the early sixties, but this is still their method of operation.
This is the meaning of a republic; a limited government. This is what we Americans once had until the socialists, Communists and other collectivists turned back the clock to the ideas that dominated the political systems of the Dark Ages. Many Americans today, thinking that collectivist ideas are new, argue that we must place more and more power into the hands of the Federal Government so that it will be strong enough to cope with the challenges of the modern world. But, as Thomas Jefferson stated in 1801:
I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a
Republican government cannot be strong, that this Government is not strong
enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of a successful
experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm, on the
theoretic and visionary fear that this government, the world's best hope, may,
by possibility, want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on
the contrary, the strongest government on earth.6
As for peace in the world, until all nations follow the concept of limited Government, it is unlikely that universal peace will ever be attained. Unlimited, power-grasping governments will always resort to force if they think they can get away with it. But there is no doubt that there can be peace for America. As long as we maintain our military preparedness, the world's petty despots will leave us alone.7
To make sure that we do not get caught up in the middle of the endless squabbles between the countries of Europe, Asia and Africa, we must put an end to the insane practice of trying to entwine our economic and political affairs with those of the rest of the world.
Let us, then, move the clock forward to that point where we were when this great nation was infused with the only really new political concept the world has seen in thousands of years. Let us throw off these Old World ideas and heed the sage advice of that true "modernist," George Washington, who told his countrymen:
Observe good faith and justice toward all nations.
Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct.
And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? . . . Against the
insidious wiles of foreign influence-- I conjure you to believe me, fellow
citizens-- the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since
history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful
foes of republican government. . . . If we remain one people, under an efficient
government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from
external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the
neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when
belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions on us, will
not likely hazard giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our
interest, guided by justice, shall council. Why forego the advantages of so
peculiar a situation? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of
Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition,
rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
The next time you hear someone speak lightly about sovereignty or national independence, remember that this was the one single accomplishment of the American Revolution. Our present involvement in the United Nations has put us right back where the shooting began in 1775.
The Declaration of Independence states:
When in the course of human events, it becomes
necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected
them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and
equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitles them, a
decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
causes which impel them to the separation. . .
It then lists the causes. It is stunning that this bill of grievances and complaints can be justly applied to the present encroaching tyranny of the United Nations and, to some extent, our own expanding Federal Government. It speaks of a "multitude of new offices" and "swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance" (taxes); it complains about being subject to "a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws" (supremacy of the World Court); it deplores "transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous acres and totally unworthy of the head of a civilized nation" (Katanga).
The men who put their signatures to the bottom of the Declaration of Independence were signing their own potential death warrants. Most of them were prosperous and comfortably situated with every reason to go along with the existing bureaucracy. Besides, what chance did inexperienced farmers have against the British Army, at that time the most invincible fighting force in the whole world? If the colonies had been overpowered, as it appeared more than likely they would be, these men who signed the Declaration would have all been banged or shot as traitors. Yet, without hesitation they stood up for what they believed to be right and declared: ". . . and for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
In signing the Declaration of Independence, John Adams turned to his colleagues and spoke these words:
If it be the pleasure of Heaven that my country shall
require the poor offering of my life, the victim shall be ready. But while I do
live, let me have a country, or at least the hope of a country-- and that a free
country. But whatever may be our fate, be assured . . . this declaration will
stand. It may cost treasure, and it may cost blood; but it will stand, and it
will richly compensate for both. . . . And live or die, survive or perish, I am
for the declaration. It is my living sentiment, and, by the blessing of God, it
shall be my dying sentiment: independence now, and independence
Can it be that modem Americans are not equal to their ancestors? Are we not willing, if necessary, to make sacrifices in the cause of freedom? Is it more important to enjoy the temporary comforts of the "good life," the security of a non-controversial social status, than to pass on to our children the cherished liberty we ourselves inherited? As Patrick Henry would have replied, "Forbid it, Almighty God!"
As you read these final words, you must come to a decision as to your own reply to these questions. Each man and woman will soon be called upon for his answer. The rapidity of world events will no longer permit us to remain aloof and unaffected by them. Disinterest will no longer purchase a ticket for escape. Tyranny demands unqualified allegiance: We are either for it or against it. There is no middle around.
Which will it be, America?
To read the book "The Fearful Master by G. Edward Griffin, please click HERE.http://www.peacekey.com/1-1-a/UN_Web/1_UN_Book/The_Fearful_Master_Contents.htm
Please read this book.
Alger Hiss was the US representative at the convention to draw up the United Nations. He was convicted as a communist spy after this came into being. The CIA has unclassified their info (or a good portion of it) and is available HERE.