Some Observations from Elias Alias, editor
Emerging from the worded wisdom comprising the written text of the Constitution, the government of the united States of America was born. As the creature of the States in compact, it was referred to as the “General Government”. The union of the States itself, in terms of the written word and will of the People, subsequently became an entity on the world stage, and we call it “America”.
America is a sovereign nation-State Republic inside of which functions the Democratic principle, i.e., “voting”.
The General government’s authority derives its legitimacy from the bosom of the People in their respective sovereign nation-State Republics, referred to in abbreviated vernacular as “the States”. The People won their sovereignty in war, defeating England, and bestowed some of their hard-won sovereignty through their respective States to, first, create the Articles of Confederation and then shortly afterward to, secondly, create the General government. We The People constitute the source of empowerment for the General government. We The People each gave a bit of our personal sovereignty to our respective States, thus empowering, authorizing, and legitimizing the Constitutions of our respective States, creating in that way the States themselves.
Then the States each gave of themselves a portion of their sovereignty, which they got from We The People, that it might empower that newly-created General government for mutual advantage.
Many killed for it. Many died for it. But even as it is today, the majority of the people at that time did neither. A minority of British loyalists and Tories opposed our Revolution, while only a minority of the Colonists fought for our Revolution. Most Colonists abstained from the actual fighting and, with the self-centered sense-based preoccupation of their familial contexts and the challenges of survival, merely continued their daily routines as best they could. In that view of the experience of our own history, Americans can see that successful revolution does not require a majority.
Eighteenth Century man’s view of war included the assumption that from any war must emerge a victor and a vanquished. When they united to throw off British governance the Colonies defeated one of the most powerful military mechanisms of their day. In so doing they established America’s sovereignty as a nation. They ultimately bequeathed that sovereignty to us through a written Constitution.
Therefore, as Americans we each share in a national sovereignty. Our sovereignty as America has survived for over twenty-three decades, despite a War Between The States, two mechanized World Wars, and a trans-generational Cold War which spawned a half-century spate of winner-less, futile, and costly United Nations wars across the last half of the twentieth century, from Korea in 1950 to present-day warfare in Afghanistan.
But despite that, we as Americans are still here, are still singing about Old Glory, are still keeping a somewhat opaque candle glowing in a dimming room, still breathing air as “America”. To put it mildly the world knows we’re here and thinks we’re “real”. America. “One Nation Under God, Indivisible….” And, Sovereign.
The challenge is how to keep our sovereignty – how to retain American sovereignty in a world blindly morphing into global governance.
Powerful forces exist, and are quite busy in a networking infrastructure comprised of men who manage the globe’s economic theater, who seek to control the policies of nation-States, and who fancy themselves somewhat divinely commissioned to save mankind from himself, at whatever the cost. The direction is toward an oligarchic collectivism undergirding a facist merger of the Corporate Dynasty with a one-world Government, based on amassed “laws” (mere codes and statutes) which were written to (allegedly) facilitate international trade and political ontology. It is backed by the assets of all of the nation-States on the roster of the United Nations. Those assets include national militaries, Intelligence communities, indigenous social institutions, and the corporate industries which supply militaries with the goods to do what militaries do.
The globalist collectivist oligarchy has ridden inside our Country’s government on trade agreements, treaties, and pacts. They come as economic methods, political methods, sociological methods, and ecclesiastical methods – and they all make demands for compromising our Constitution.
Right square in its path stands the United States Constitution. That is, in part, why our Constitution, along with our sovereignty as a nation-State Republic, is under siege.
THE UNITED NATIONS (UN)
The United Nations (UN) is sitting right here on U.S. soil in New York City, on land donated to the UN by the Rockefeller family. The United Nations would appreciate a little voluntary relinquishment of America’s sovereignty. It is even pushing for it.
For one thing, the UN wants the (alleged) authority which was conjured up and imagined by collectivist oligarchs to be vested in the World Court to supersede the authority in our U.S. Constitution. In other words, in the eyes of the United Nations, if the World Court were to decide that our Constitution’s Second Amendment stood in the way of world crime reduction, the ‘superior authority’ of the World Court fully expects to over-ride our Second Amendment and use the U.S. government’s systems of force (enforcement power) to effect the collection of private firearms across America. Men exist who would like to see that happen. They are as busy as an insidious colony of termites eating away the foundation of civilization, social order, and liberty, while at the same time selling their foolish and futile philosophy in the very name of civilization, social order, and liberty. The one-world government bunch are a sad lot, and are now dangerous to American sovereignty.
That is one example of an attack on American sovereignty, and its current face is that of the UN’s Small Arms Treaty. How the World Court might think it proper and plausible to abuse America’s sovereignty is indicative of the UN’s objective, which is to establish a higher sovereignty through a world government, under which all nation-States, including America, must surrender some of their sovereignty in recognition of the projected higher external authority.
The people who seek that one-world government through the United Nations are doing exactly what the American Colonists did through the establishment of their several States. Americans who wish to remain Americans should not allow that to happen, of course. We can already see what extending our personal sovereignty into governmental entities has wrought, as our own centralized government in WDC is now hell-bent on regulating everything under the sun within each State in our Union – in total disregard for the fact that the States created the General government and placed limits on its granted authorities and duties.
Were we as Americans to thusly empower the United Nations by offering up American sovereignty to that world governing body and in so doing become subservient to the opinions of nearly two hundred nation-states at the UN, we should only expect the one-world government to follow suit. It is in the very nature of “government” to do this. “To govern” is the purpose of government, which is why the Founders placed limits on the General government’s powers. Our founders knew the intrinsic character of “governance”, and sought to protect us from the very government they created with their hope to serve our best interests and liberty and freedom as individuals.
So let us think carefully about this. The Colonies did unite the several States to form the “United States of America”. Remember — at the time of the American Revolution there were thirteen British Colonies here, and their subsequent union of States, through their compact (the Constitution), engendered the sovereignty of their respective people into an extension for granting authority and legitimacy to a representative government. That is how it was done, as attested by the silent but glaring fact of what we do not see at the bottom of the Constitution – that is, there exists no signature by anyone from, or by any delegate representing, the Federal (General) government. (More on that in the “State Sovereignty title.)
Today, the UN wishes to play the role of a General government of the world, and its “Colonies” are the nearly two hundred nation-states on their membership roster. The hierarchy of authority is the same pattern for the UN’s control over the world’s nation-States as that pattern of our General government’s control over the Colonies, the several States.
We can see today how our own General government ignores its limitations which are clearly and specifically enumerated and granted at Article 1, Section 8. The massive scandals of May, 2013, show clearly how corruptible centralized power may become once it converts its people to “citizens” and then converts said citizens to “subjects”. Unless checked inherently, all governments tend to do this. The States have been in many offensive and intrusive ways bullied out of their due sovereignty, and most States have forgotten their right to the acts of nullification and interposition. Half the country thinks that the War Between The States locked the several States into the compact under all conditions. And in the midst of that argument the entire reality of the sovereignty of the individual is forgotten or overlooked or just ignored. The States now fear the General government in Washington D.C. more than they respect their own citizens, to whom they owe primary fealty.
Our General government itself is signed onto the roster of nation-state membership in the United Nations, which would love to see Americans disarmed and existing under yet a third governing body, that it might more readily shape this nation into a more compliant resource to be shared by every other nation-State on earth, fairly and equally of course.
That has much to do with why national sovereignty is prerequisite to the experience of freedom of the individual to own and manage his life without interference from his government. The “consent of the governed” must always be in play. Questioning “authority” is a mandatory.
I will temporarily close this article, for the moment, with an admonition for all reading here to spend some time investigating another United Nations mischief called Agenda-21.
Much more on that will soon appear here at our national website, but for openers avid readers and inquiring minds may wish to build their respective understandings of Agenda-21 by reading at Michael Shaw’s wonderful website, “Freedom Advocates”.
Elias Alias, editor