Look at what has happened to America since our _federal_ government was converted into a centralized absolutism. The central government in Washington arrogated to itself the unconst.i.tutional power and responsibility of regulating the relationships between private employers and their employees, enacting laws which established "collective bargaining" as "national policy," and which, to that end, gave international unions a virtual monopoly over large segments of the labor market.
It follows that a minor labor dispute between two unions on the waterfront of New York is no longer a concern only of the people and police in that neighborhood. A handful of union members who have no grievance whatever against their employers but who are in a jurisdictional struggle with another union, can shut down the greatest railroad systems in the world, throw thousands out of work, and paralyze vital transportation for business firms and millions of citizens all over the nation.
Harry Bridges on the West Coast can order a political demonstration having nothing to do with "labor" matters, and paralyze the economy of half the nation.
Imagine what it will be like if we join a world government. Then a dock strike in London will cripple, not just the British Isles but the whole world.
Now, the central government in Washington sends troops into local communities to enforce, at bayonet point, the illegal edicts of a Washington judicial oligarchy concerning the operation of local schools.
If we join world government, the edict and the troops will come (depending on what nations are in the international union, of course) from India and j.a.pan and the Congo.
There was a time when Americans, learning of suffering and want in a distant land, could respond to their Christian promptings and native kindliness by making voluntary contributions for relief to their fellow human beings abroad. Our central government"s foreign aid programs have already taken much of that freedom away from American citizens--taxing them so heavily for what government wants to give away, that private citizens can"t spend their own money the way they would like to.
What will it be like if we join a world government that embraces the real have-not nations of the earth? The impoverished subcontinent of India, because of population, would have more representatives in the international parliament than we would have. They, with the support of representatives from Latin America and Africa, could easily vote to lay a tax on "surplus" incomes for the benefit of all illiterate and hungry people everywhere; and outvoted Americans would be the only people in the world with incomes high enough to meet the international definition of "surplus."
We read with horror of Soviet slaughter in Hungary when the Soviets suppress a local rebellion against their partial world-government. What kind of horror would we feel after we join a world government and see troops from Europe and Africa and the Middle East machinegunning people on the streets of United States cities in order to suppress a rebellion of young Americans who somehow heard about the magnificent const.i.tutional system and glorious freedom their fathers used to have and who are trying to make a public demonstration of protest against the international tyranny being imposed upon them?
A genuine world government might eliminate the armed conflict (between nations) which we now call war; but it would cause an endless series of b.l.o.o.d.y uprisings and b.l.o.o.d.y suppressions, and would cause more human misery than total war itself.
In 1936, the Communist International formally presented its three-stage plan for achieving world government--_Stage 1:_ socialize the economies of all nations, particularly the Western "capitalistic democracies"
(most particularly, the United States); _Stage 2:_ bring about federal unions of various groupings of these socialized nations; _Stage 3:_ amalgamate all of the federal unions into one world-wide union of socialist states. The following pa.s.sage is from the official program of the 1936 Communist International:
"...dictatorship can be established only by a victory of socialism in different countries or groups of countries, after which the proletariat republics would unite on federal lines with those already in existence, and this system of federal unions would expand ... at length forming the World Union of Socialist Soviet Republics."
In 1939 (three years after this communist program was outlined) Clarence K. Streit (a Rhodes scholar who was foreign correspondent for _The New York Times_, covering League of Nations activities from 1929-1939) wrote _Union Now_, a book advocating a gradual approach through regional unions to final world union--an approach identical with that of the communists, except that Streit did not say his scheme was intended to achieve world dictatorship, and did not characterize the end result of his scheme as a "World Union of Socialist Soviet Republics."
In 1940, Clarence K. Streit (together with Percival F. Brundage, later a Director of the Budget for Eisenhower; and Melvin Ryder, publisher of the _Army Times_) formed Federal Union, Inc., to work for the goals outlined in Streit"s book, _Union Now_, published the year before.
In 1941, Streit published another book: _Union Now With Britain_. He claims that the union he advocated would be a step toward "formation of free world government." But the arguments of his book make it very clear that in joining a union with other nations, the United States would not bring to the union old American const.i.tutional concepts of free-enterprise and individual freedom under limited government, but would rather amalgamate with the socialistic-communistic systems that exist in the other nations which became members of the union.
The following pa.s.sages are from page 192 of Streit"s _Union Now With Britain_:
"Democrats cannot ... quarrel with Soviet Russia or any other nation because of its economic collectivism, for democracy itself introduced the idea of collective machinery into politics. It is a profound mistake to identify democracy and Union necessarily or entirely with either capitalist or socialist society, with either the method of individual or collective enterprise. There is room for both of these methods in democracy....
"Democracy not only allows mankind to choose freely between capitalism and collectivism, but it includes marxist governments, parties and press...."
When the year 1941 ended, America was in World War II; and all American advocates of world-peace-through-world-law-and-world-government jubilantly struck while the iron was hot--using the hysteria and confusion of the early days of our involvement in the great catastrophe as a means of pushing us into one or another of the schemes for union with other nations.
Clarence Streit states it this way, in his most recent book (_Freedom"s Frontier Atlantic Union Now_, 1961):
"j.a.pan Pearl Harbored us into the war we had sought to avoid by disunion.... Now, we Americans had the white heat of war to help leaders form the nuclear Atlantic Union."
On January 5, 1942 (when we had been at war less than a month), Clarence Streit"s Federal Union, Inc., bought advertising s.p.a.ce in major newspapers for a pet.i.tion urging Congress to adopt a joint resolution favoring immediate union of the United States with several specified foreign nations. Such people as Harold L. Ickes (Roosevelt cabinet officer), Owen J. Roberts (Supreme Court Justice), and John Foster Dulles (later Eisenhower"s Secretary of State) signed this newspaper ad pet.i.tioning Congress to drag America into world government. In fact, these notables (especially John Foster Dulles) had actually written the Joint Resolution which Federal Union wanted Congress to adopt.
The world government resolution (urged upon Congress in January, 1942) provided among other things that in the federal union of nations to be formed, the "union" government would have the right: (1) to impose a common citizenship; (2) to tax citizens directly; (3) to make and enforce all laws; (4) to coin and borrow money; (5) to have a monopoly on all armed forces; and (6) to _admit new members_.
The following is from a Federal Union, Inc., ad published in _The Washington Evening Star_, January 5, 1942, urging upon the people and Congress of America an immediate plunge into world government:
"....Resolved:
"That the President of the United States submit to Congress a program for forming a powerful union of free peoples to win the war, the peace, the future;
"That this program unite our people, on the broad lines of our Const.i.tution, with the people of Canada, the United Kingdom, Eire, Australia, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa, together with such other free peoples, both in the Old World and the New as may be found ready and able to unite on this federal basis....
"We gain from the fact that all the Soviet republics are already united in one government, as are also all the Chinese-speaking people, once so divided. Surely, we and they must agree that union now of the democracies wherever possible is equally to the general advantage....
"Let us begin now a world United States....
"The surest way to shorten and to win this war is also the surest way to guarantee to ourselves, and our friends and foes, that this war will end in a union of the free. The surest way to do all this is for us to start that union now."
World Fellowship, Inc., was also busy putting pressure on Congress in January, 1942. World Fellowship, Inc., is one of the oldest world government organizations. It was founded in 1918 as the "League of Neighbors."
In 1924, the League of Neighbors united with the Union of East and West (which had been founded in India). In 1933, this combined organization reorganized and changed its name to World Fellowship of Faiths. In late 1941, it changed its name again and incorporated--and has operated since that time as World Fellowship, Inc.
Dr. Willard Uphaus, a notorious communist-fronter, has been Executive Director of World Fellowship, Inc., since February, 1953. Here is a Joint Resolution which World Fellowship, Inc., urged Congress to adopt on or before January 30, 1942--as a _birthday present_ to President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
"Now, therefore, be it
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress a.s.sembled, That the Congress of the United States of America does hereby solemnly declare that all peoples of the earth should now be united in a commonwealth of nations to be known as the United Nations of the World, and to that end it hereby gives to the President of the United States of America all the needed authority and powers of every kind and description, without limitations of any kind that are necessary in his sole and absolute discretion to set up and create the Federation of the World, a world peace government under the t.i.tle of the "United Nations of the World," including its const.i.tution and personnel and all other matters needed or appertaining thereto to the end that all nations of the world may by voluntary action become a part thereof under the same terms and conditions.
"There is hereby authorised to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of 100 million dollars or so much thereof as may be necessary, to be expended by the President in his sole and absolute discretion, to effectuate the purposes of this joint resolution, and in addition, the sum of 1 billion dollars for the immediate use of the United Nations of the World under its const.i.tution as set up and created by the President of the United States of America as provided in this joint resolution...."
Congress rejected the world-government resolutions urged upon it in 1942 by Federal Union, Inc., and by World Fellowship, Inc.
But the formation of the United Nations in 1945 was a tremendous step in the direction these two organizations were travelling. The "world peace"
aspects of the United Nations were emphasized to enlist support of the American public. Few Americans noticed that the UN Charter really creates a worldwide social, cultural, economic, educational, and political alliance--and commits each member nation to a program of total socialism for itself and to the support of total socialism for all other nations.
The United Nations is, to be sure, a weaker alliance than world government advocates want; but the UN was the starting point and framework for world government.
The ma.s.sive UN propaganda during the first few years after the formation of the UN (1945) was so effective in brainwashing the American people, that the United World Federalists, beginning with the State a.s.sembly of California, managed to get 27 state legislatures to pa.s.s resolutions demanding that Congress call a Const.i.tutional Convention for the purpose of amending our Const.i.tution in order to "expedite and insure"
partic.i.p.ation of the United States in a world government. When the American people found out what was going on, all of these "resolutions"
were repealed--most of them before the end of 1950.
But 1949 was a great year for American world government advocates.
On April 4, 1949, Dean Acheson"s "brainchild," the North Atlantic Treaty, was ratified by the United States. President Truman signed the proclamation putting NATO in force on August 24, 1949. Most Americans were happy with this organization. It was supposedly a military alliance to protect the free world against communism. But few Americans bothered to read the brief, 14-article treaty. If they had, Article 2 would have sounded rather strange and out of place in a military alliance. Here is Article 2 of the NATO Treaty: