(Added to this website on 4/15/10.)
By the latter part of the 19th century, the European powers already were loosely organized to:
(1) maintain the balance of power,
(2) regulate the postal service among European nations,
(3) regulate telegraph service among European nations,
(4) standardize weights and measures,
(5) exchange tariff information,
(6) eliminate slave trade,
(7) prevent the spread of epidemics, and
(8) forward other common interests.
Czar Nicholas II initiated the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 which established
a permanent organization to facilitate the investigation and arbitration of international
disputes, promote disarmament, and codify international law.
The League of Nations
The League of Nations was established to put "teeth" in the Hague system, and was promoted by various peace committees throughout the world. President Woodrow Wilson became the leading official sponsor after failing to mediate peace. He called for "a general association of nations...under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political dependence and territorial integrity to great and small alike."
After the initial draft of the League Covenant in 1919, there was split in the U.S. Senate between those who accepted the Covenant as drafted and those who wanted greater protection of American sovereignty and congressional prerogatives. The Democrats, for the most part, were the "antireservationists" who supported Wilson. The Republicans, for the most part, were the "reservationists". The antireservationists outnumbered the reservationists, but were not able to muster the necessary 2/3 vote - and the covenant was rejected. Nevertheless, the U.S. subsequently participated in the work of the League in economics, social, and disarmament matters, and its efforts to maintain peace.
Presidents Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and Roosevelt urged the Senate to join the League with certain reservations, but the U.S. only went so far as to become a member of the International Labour Organization in 1934.
Among other things, the League provided for the establishment of an international council and for the coordination of the activities of international unions. These provisions could be perceived as threats to U.S. sovereignty.
The harsh treatment of Germany after World War I, eventually led to Hitler's acceptance by
the German people. Although the League managed to be helpful until 1932, Hitler's
rise to power and Japan's aggression in Manchuria were more than the League could handle.
By that time, many of the people in the world had "gone to sleep" and had let their
own military forces weaken in relation to those of the aggressor nations. The League
was discontinued in 1946 after the United Nations was functioning.
The United Nations
The name "United Nations" was suggested by Franklin Delano Roosevelt on January 1, 1942, when 26 allied nations were fighting the Axis Powers.
In late 1944, there were informal conversations between the representatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US). These were followed by informal conversations between representatives of China, the US, and the UK. In 1945 at Yalta, the USSR, the UK, and the US agreed to call a conference of United Nations to draft a charter. They also agreed on a formula for voting in the Security Council.
Meanwhile, a committee of jurists from 44 countries met in Washington, DC., and prepared a draft Statute for the International Court of Justice on the basis of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice.
Representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco on June 26, 1945, and signed the Charter of the United Nations which came into force on October 24, 1945. So, the United Nations actually came into being on October 24, 1945, when its charter had been ratified by China, France, the USSR, the UK, the US, and majority of its other signatory nations. The signatories subscribed to a "common program of purposes and principles" that were embodied in the Atlantic Charter which envisaged a peace affording all peoples security from aggression, freedom to choose their own government, access on equal terms to trade and raw materials of the world, improved labor standards, freedom from fear and want, and freedom of the seas. The nations of the world, the charter asserted, "must come to the abandonment of the use of force." The beginning of the actual U.N. Charter follows.
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.
and for these ends
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
have resolved to combine our efforts to
accomplish these aims.
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of
San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have
agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international
organization to be known as the United Nations.
Membership in the U.N. is open to all peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the Charter, and which, in the opinion of the organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations. States are admitted to the General Assemhly on the recommendation of the Security Council, and members may be suspended or re-instated in the same manner - on the recommendation of the Security Council.
The principle organs of the U.N. are follow.
The General Assembly,
The Security Council,
The Economic and Social Council,
The Trusteeship Council,
The International Council of Justice, and
The Secretariat.
The General Assembly is composed of up to five representatives from each of the members. In 2009, there were 192 member nations. Those in this body vote on recommendations regarding peace and security, admission of new members, elections of members to organs, trusteeship questions, and budgetary matters. A 2/3 majority is needed to pass a recommendation or resolution.
Members of the General Assembly may discuss pertinent matters except for those currently before the Security Council unless otherwise requested to do so by the Security Council. Members of the General Assembly who are not members of the Security Council may be present at Security Council deliberations and may speak, but they may not vote. In 1950, the General Assembly decided that when the Security Council would not do its job due to disagreements among its members, the General Assembly would consider the matter immediately.
Almost everything from all the various organs is eventually funneled into the General Assembly. Almost everything in the General Assembly is accomplished by committees, and there are committees created by committees - which leads to many committees.
The Security Council is composed of 11 members of which five are permanent and six are elected to two-year terms. Originally China, France, the USSR, the UK, and the US were the permanent members. After the USSR was disbanded, Russia was substituted its place. It might be noted that of the five permanent members, two have communist governments, two have socialist governments, and only the United States is democratic republic.
The Security Council supposed to maintain international peace and security. Each member has one vote, and an affirmative vote of seven is needed for a decision. However, of the seven necessary votes, five must be from permanent members. If a permanent member should abstain, it is not considered a negative vote. In practice, on issues where permanent members are opposed to one another, it may be said that each permanent member has the power to veto any decision.
During the Hungarian uprising, although there was eventual condemnation of the USSR for its actions, the U.N. proved impotent in achieving its stated goal. During the Korean War, China and the USSR went against the U.N. to aid the North Korean aggressor. When Russia moved against Ukraine, the U.N. was powerless to stop it. Today, when Russia threatens Georgia, the U.N. is powerless (partly because Obama is a communist who refuses to take appropriate action).
There are numerous problems with the U.N. that indicate that we should resign from that body except for the fact that our veto power may be useful. The U.N. is dominated by nations with governments that, before Obama and the other communists came into power here, were both inferior and opposed to that of the U.S.
The United States pays a large part of the bills of the United Nations, and the money is often misspent or stolen. Corruption in the U.N. is greater even than that in our own government. U.N. headquarters is in New York where its nest of spies can steal our secrets, set up ways to destroy our utilities, and influence important decisions. Better to have the U.N. headquarters in another country than in the United States.
Human rights for at least two members of the Security Council are a joke - as are many other things that are supposed to be part of the Charter. There was a Human Rights Council formed within the U.N. that the U.S. opposed and to which the U.S. would not agree. It had been formed of member nations who would not give their citizens decent human rights. Recently, it was re-formed with new members and the U.S. agreed to its existence.
The U.N. did have an International Monetary Fund which provided credit for nations that were in financial trouble or required loans for other reasons. The U.S. has been a major contributor to this fund, but since the economic crisis, no nation wishes to have the fund working - there is no excess money for it.
In July of 2009, the U.S. signed a U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The thought is a good one, but Obama signed as another means for the U.S. to spend more dollars as he spends us into oblivion. Such agreements with the U.N. are a danger to our autonomy and the rights granted by our Constitution. When we agree to a U.N. document, we agree to manifest its provisions in the United States.
According to the Bloomberg News, the Obama administration voted "aye" late last year (2009) at the United Nations in support of continued talks aimed at regulating firearms around the world. The Obama administration's vote reversed the Bush administration's strong opposition to any arms control treaty that would impact the rights of American gun owners. Gun owners, particularly under a communist president (Obama) and a communist congress (Pelosi, Reid, and their minions) can expect to have their Second Amendment rights curtailed, depending upon what steps are taken by either Congress or the Supreme Court to deny the attempt to take away our rights under the Constitution.
One of the most flagrant examples of U.N. manipulation comes from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) agreement signed blindly by President Truman in 1946. This has led to our children being brainwashed more quickly by communists through UNESCO principles incorporated in our textbooks, and the domination of communists in our educational organizations and teacher's unions. See Education.
John Bolton was the U.S. Representative to the U.N. in 2005 and 2006 and has since started The Fund for American Studies which teaches the history and principles upon which our nation was founded - the important things that our present education system leaves out (in accord with UNESCO). www.TFAS.org. He has this to say about the U.N.
As I am sure you are aware, there are many in the country [the U.S.] urging our government to surrender more and more of our sovereignty to international bodies like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court. (You should know, my happiest moment in public service occurred in 2002 when, as Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, I officially withdrew the United States from the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court!)
To most liberals, the U.N. is the great hope for humanity. In their Utopian Imagination, the U.N. is a place where different countries with different kinds of governments can put factionalism aside, discard tribal loyalties and every day, in every way, "be nice to each other".
But in reality, the U.N. is a place where innocence and idealism are swamped by greed and cynicism. It is a place fat with inefficient bureaucracy and filled with strife and anger. And it is used as a megaphone for the most corrupt and dangerous leaders in the world. More and more the U.N. is used by our enemies to counter-balance American influence in the world - as a way to constrain America.
Take the so-called U.N. Human Rights Council. This is supposed to be a safeguard against human rights abuses around the world. But Castro's Cuba is now a member of the Council. As are China, Russia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. How dare nations like these lecture us about human rights!
The U.N. is certainly incapable of dealing with real international crises such as North Korea's and Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, the genocide in Darfur, and the rise of militant Islam and radical Arab groups who are dedicated to the destruction of Israel and America.
I am not ready to surrender American sovereignty to the United Nations, or to any other world body. And I am certainly not ready to say that we should never use force to protect our freedom and safety of our families.
The U.N. may have begun with great principles in mind, but it has become a means of cheating,
spying, stealing, propagandizing, and aiding in the take-over of the United States.
Rather than allowing us to raise the standards of the other nations of the world, we are being
mugged in the alley of the United Nations by those who know only how to steal from the one
who is attempting to help.
Also see Highlights and Comments on KGB Connections for more on the
role of the U.N. today.
Council on Foreign Relations
There has been a movement for a world government that is promoted by communists, their useful idiots, idealists who think of the themselves as the elite, and other idealists who think of themselves as intellectuals. Virtually none of them have ever had any experience with the conditions of the common people in other nations as compared to those in the United States and have no idea of the value of the U.S. Constitution even in its weakened and maligned state today. The Founding Fathers would have regarded most of them as traitors, simply because they threaten to create something that is above the Constitution.
That having been said, this group has been very dynamic, aggressive, and secretive. Its members believe that they are more intelligent than the rest of us and more capable of ruling every aspect of our lives. Some of them believe that what cannot be achieved under our Constitution can be achieved through treaties and a world government. They do not realize that by selling out the Constitution, they will be stifling our ability to function freely and will ultimately reduce us to the level of the rest of the world. Whereas before we were able to help in bringing the rest of the world up to our level - not by monetary foreign aid, but by teaching and exemplifying the principles of our republic - we will have been hamstrung to the point that the whole world will suffer. But very likely, most of them simply want more power for themselves as well as wealth at the expense of others.
It was in May of 1919 that these "intellectuals", who had helped draft the League of Nations Charter during World War I, met at the Majestic Hotel in Paris. According the information found in John A. Stormer's book, None Dare Call It Treason - 25 Years Later, they were bitterly disappointed because the U.S. Senate and the American people had rejected the concept of a world governing body. In their discussions they conceived an organization which might study and promote a better "understanding" of international affairs.
Bear in mind that much of this will be direct quotes from Stormer's book. Stormer has proven to be prophetic, and it is a shame that more people did not read and comprehend his book in his original version which was copyrighted in 1964. Since few people seem to have the inclination to improve their store of knowledge by reading such material - even though their lives and those of their descendants depend upon their reading it - some of Stormer's work is being placed, in part, here.
The group of "intellectual" idiots included Christian Herter and the brothers, John Foster and Allen Dulles. They came home from Paris and incorporated the Council on Foreign Relations. The influences achieved by Herter and John Foster Dulles later as Secretaries of State under Eisenhower, and Allen Dulles, as head of the powerful and controversial Central Intelligence Agency, is one indication of the power attained by the group.
Extremely selective in its membership, the Council has never been a "mass" organization. However, according to their 1960 membership roster, its 1400 members control the U.S. State Department, many top cabinet posts, the major newspapers, magazines, radio and TV networks, most of the large tax-exempt foundations, a host of other opinion-molding groups and organizations, and the nation's largest companies, including U.S. Steel, AT&T, General Motors, duPont, IBM, etc. [Bear in mind that the close relationship with International Communism creates overlaps between the Council's influence and the strictly communist influence as many agents of the Council are also agents of communism.]
Despite its influence, the CFR is relatively unknown. It has been the subject of one official, although brief, pronouncement by Congress. In 1954, the Special House Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations headed by Congressman Reece said that the CFR's "productions are not objective but are directed overwhelmingly at promoting the globalistic concept." The committee's final report expressed concern that the CFR had become "...in essence an agency of the United States Government...carrying its international bias with it."
How the CFR functions as "an agency of the government" became clear in an eight-part examination of the organization published in 1961. The author, Dan Smoot, a former FBI man and Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover, found that "...since 1944, all candidates for President, both Republican and Democrat have been CFR members, except Truman who became President by "accident". Every Secretary of State since Cordell Hull (except James Byrnes) has been a CFR member. Over 40 CFR members comprised the American delegation to the U.N. Organizing Conference in San Francisco including the following.
Alger Hiss - high place at Harvard Law School, in Department of Agriculture, served on Special Senate Committee investigating the munitions industry, in Department of Justice, in the State Department, Director of Political Affairs, adviser to Roosevelt at the Yalta Conference, Secretary General of the International Assembly which created the U.N., exposed as an agent of Soviet Russia spying on the U.S. and advising Roosevelt;
Nelson Rockefeller - coordinator for inter-American affairs (1940-1944), assistant secretary of state (1944-1945), chairman of Rockefeller Center (1945-1953), undersecretary of health, education, and welfare (1953-1954), special assistant to the president on psychological strategy (1954-1955);
Adlai Stevenson - assistant to the Secretary of the Navy (1941-1944), assistant to the Secretary of State (1945), advisor to the U.N. delegation to the U.N. Conference on International Organization (1945) and much more with U.N., Democratic governor of Illinois (1948 - and most of his policies indicate that he would hate what is going on today in his party), ran for President in (1952 and 1956);
Ralph Bunche - helped to draft the non-self-governing territorial and trusteeship sections incorporated into the United Nations Charter (1944), helped organize the U.N. (1945), director of of the Trusteeship Division of the U.N. Secretariat (1946), chief secretary to the U.N. Palestine Commission (1947), principal director of the U.N. Department of Trusteeship (1948), acting mediator for the Palestine dispute (1948), won Nobel Peace Prize (1950), Professor of Government at Harvard (until 1952), president of the American Political Science Association (1953), U.N. undersecretary (1954);
John Foster Dulles - secretary to the Chinese delegation at the Hague Conference (1907); served with World Trade Board (World War I); counsel to the United States delegation to the Reparations Commission at Versailles; U.N. delegate to the San Francisco Conference (1945); delegate to the U.N. General Assembly (1946, 1947, and 1950); special adviser to the secretary of state at the councils of Foreign Ministers in London (1945), Moscow (1947), and Paris (1949); chief negotiator of the Japanese Peace Treaty (1950), and Secretary of State under Eisenhower. He considered communism a moral evil with which one should not compromise;
Edward Stettinius - influential in his associations with the General Aviation Corporation, the Western Air Express Corporation, North American Aviation, and Transcontinental and Western Air, Inc.; in charge of the National Share-the-Work Movement for the Second Federal Reserve District (1932); liaison officer between the National Recovery Administration (NRA - under F.D. Roosevelt) and the Industrial Advisory Board (1933); vice chairman of the finance committee of the United States Steel Corporation (1934) and chairman of the board of the finance committee (1938); member of the Council of National Defense and was later active in preparations to mobilize American industry (1940); with Office of Production Management (early 1941); lend-lease administrator and special assistant to the president later; undersecretary of state (Nov 1944 to June 1945); representative on the U.N. Security Council (June 1945 to June 1946); and there is much more.
Whenever a CFR member retires from his job or post - or must be replaced - another CFR member takes his place. General L.L. Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, retired and was replaced by General Maxwell Taylor - both CFR members. Allen Dulles became a political liability after the failed Cuban invasion, he was replaced by John McCone - also a CFR man. It appears that one must join the CFR to advance one's career in government or the military.
The influence of the CFR is so great that Smoot, the author of The Invisible Government, calls them by that name. CFR members continue in key government posts regardless of which major political party is in power. As one can see from those noted above, the CFR has members in key government positions, key positions in industry, key positions in the military, and key positions in the United Nations. The Kennedy-Johnson Administrations seem to have been completely controlled by CFR members. The list of a few of over sixty follows.
John F. Kennedy, President
Dean Rusk, Secretary of State
Douglas Dillon, Secretary of Treasury
Arthur Goldberg, Secretary of Labor and Supreme Court Justice
Adlai Stevenson, U.N. Ambassador
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Presidential Assistant
McGeorge Bundy, Presidential Assistant
Dean Acheson, State Department Adviser
William Martin, Federal Reserve Chairman
Chester Bowles, Under-Secretary of State
Averell Harriman, Under-Secretary of State
George McGhee, Under-Secretary of State
George Ball, Under-Secretary of State
Harlan Cleveland, Under-Secretary of State
Brooks Hays, Under-Secretary of State
Roswell Gilpatrick, Assistant Secretary of Defense
Paul Nitze, Assistant Secretary of Defense
Walt Whitman Rostow, State Department Policy Planner
John McCloy, Presidential Disarmament Adviser
Arthur Dean, Chief Disarmament Negotiator
Jerome Wiesner, Presidential Assistant for Science and Technology
Edward R. Murrow, USIA Director
How is this possible without the public knowing more about it? The media is also involved. Among the 1400 CFR members were in 1964,
Henry Luce, Editor in Chief of Time, Life, and Fortune,
David Lawrence, U.S. New and World Report,
the late Philip Graham, publisher of Newsweek and The Washington Post,
Gardner and John Cowles, who publish Look and own several influential newspapers
and broadcasting companies,
Arthur Hays Salzberger, chairman of the board, New York Times,
Mark Ethridge, publisher, Louisville Courier Journal,
syndicated columnists Marquis Childs, James Reston, Ernest K. Lindley,
Walter Lippmann and Hanson Baldwin,
and dozens of other lesser writers, editors, and publishers.
Other key editors and publishers belong to local affiliated CFR "chapters" in 30 key cities in the U.S. (in 1964). Their are many other CFR members in important posts in opinion-making media as well, including William Benton who was then the owner of Encyclopedia Brittanica which may account for the omission of the Alger Hiss role in the founding of the United Nations (the same is true of Encyclopedia Americana).
The CFR has political action groups with its own pressure groups, political support organizations, etc. CFR members hold controlling influence in the American Association for the United Nations, the Foreign Policy Association, the World Affairs Council, the U.S. Committee for the United Nations, the United Federalists, the Atlantic Union, the NATO Citizens Council, and other one-world propaganda organizations. The Council for Economic Development, the Business Advisory Council, and the Advertising Council are similarly controlled.
Since 1945, CFR members have largely controlled the United States government and its foreign policy. In that time, world communism has increased the number of its slaves by 520% so that they now have over a billion (this was written many years ago, so the number is greater now). Communism has received no serious setback in its drive toward world domination (true until the Russian revolution of 1991 - and this was overcome by transformation). Arthur Schlessinger, Jr., adviser to President Kennedy spelled out the no-win policy which the CFR-dominated State Department has been following from 1945 on.
Reduced to its fundamentals, the American problem is to arrange the equilibrium of forces in the world so that, at every given moment of decision, the Soviet General Staff will decide against aggressions that might provoke a general - on the ground that [such aggressions] present too great a risk [for the Soviets]. At the same time, the U.S. must not succumb to demands for an anti-Soviet crusade nor permit reactionaries in the buffer states to precipitate conflicts in defense of their own obsolete prerogatives.
According to Schlessinger, the U.S. should not try to win over communism, free the captive people, or even permit them to try to free themselves. Actually, there is much to say for a policy of containment while causing the paranoid leaders of the USSR to spend more and more on their military. This was the policy when I was in service and President Reagan, years later, reaped the reward and took the credit for what we had done to ultimately allow the Soviets to have a citizen uprising. Although it may seem like it was a "risky program", it did bear fruit and no atomic war occurred.
There was another agenda for this alleged successful policy. Along with the containment, there was redistribution of wealth with America being the distributor. John Foster] Dulles was chairman of the Federal Council of Churches Commission to Study the Bases of Just and Durable Peace. In one report, Dulles recommended ...a world government, strong immediate limitation on national sovereignty, international control of all armies and navies, a universal system of money, world-wide freedom of immigration, progressive elimination of all tariff and quota restrictions on world trade, and a democratically-controlled world bank.
Four years later, Dulles authored another statement for the Federal Council of Churches: Moreover, Communism as an economic program for social reconstruction has points of contact with the social message of Christianity as in its avowed concern for the underprivileged and its insistence on racial equality...neither state socialism nor free enterprise provides a perfect economic system; each can learn from the experience of the other...the free enterprise system has yet to prove it can assure steady production and employment...Soviet socialism has changed much - particularly in placing greater dependence upon the incentive of personal gain.
Dulles ignored the mass murder of 20 million human beings in the first 25 years of Communist control of Russia and the 15 million persons in Soviet slave labor camps. He also ignored the millions who perished in the famine of 1921-1922 due to Soviet rule, and the suppression of religion in the Soviet Union. He did not know that years later, Krushchev would meddle in agriculture to the extent that there were crop failures in which over 9 million tons of grain had to be imported in one year to prevent a severe famine.
Features that the CFR found attractive about communism (and probably still find attractive) can be understood in another of Schlessinger's statements after his return from the Soviet Union: The answer to the Soviet success is as plain as day. It lies in the power of the Soviet Union to focus its national energies. The visitor to Soviet Russia finds it frightening to see what energy a great nation can generate when it allocates its talent and resources according to an intelligent system of priorities.
But why was it necessary for the United States to ship to the Soviet Union $11 billion in lend-lease aid during the World War II, and why can't the Soviets produce sufficient food for their people? (A billion dollars during WWII would be like 500 billion today.) And why have the Soviets used spies to steal our technology so that they can raise their own standard of living and attempt bring their own military up to our standards?
According to John Stormer, if American aid were stopped, the Communist empire would collapse. That was then - when Stormer wrote his book. Today, the legacy of presidents like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama is that we are paupers, and even the Panama Canal has gone to China.
It would be to our benefit to have the CFR either outlawed or well-known as a subversive
organization - and that the loyal portions of our media or others discover whether or not
each candidate in any election has ever been a member of the CFR. Those in the CFR
are fully as dangerous as the communists/socialists and those in the Federal Reserve.
The Problems with World Government
1. One size does not fit all. This was most apparent when I was with a subsidiary company of AT&T. AT&T was headquartered on the east coast of the U.S. and we were on the West Coast. The psychology of the people in these different areas, the very different geography and climate from one coast to the other, and the tendency of AT&T to micromanage all led to conflict, waste, and inefficiency.
2. A governing body for the world would eventually, if not immediately, be placed above the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The U.S. Constitution has proven to be far superior to the those of other nations, even when it has been as negated and maligned as it is today. Should the U.S. Constitution become subservient to that of a world government, we would be pulled downward in civil rights, standard of living, economic stability, and military might - and we would no longer be able to bring the rest of world up to our present standards.
3. A world government can become either a democracy or a dictatorship. Either way, it would not be a republic. A pure democracy is the worst form of dictatorship where the majorities vote to enslave the minorities. A dictatorship is only as good or bad as the dictator. Since the U.S. would be a minority in voting power as compared to the voting power of other nations, U.S. citizens would not be able to choose their own form of government and would become slaves to the other nations.
4. Once started with any kind of law enforcement or mandatory stipulations, a world government would start taking taxes. It would grow stronger until it had become despotic. Such a government should not have a military arm, but we know that it would eventually. There would be more law enforcement, more military, more taxes, and more government that is not necessary. There would be bullying by majorities for minorities to pay an excessive portion of the taxes. In state and county governments today there is that kind of problem. One can bet that there would be a vote to share the wealth which means that the United States would be paying far more than its fair share. (Actually, we already pay far in excess of our fair share, but our paying is voluntary.)
5. There is excessive corruption in the United Nations today and it is a nest of spies as well. We certainly don't need an even stronger type of a coalition.
Those who want world government are usually working on only small parts which they plan to put together later. The Federal Reserve is composed of men who want a means of controlling the money of the world. George Soros and his minions are most likely closely allied to those in the Federal Reserve - or are overlapping with them. Likewise with the Council on Foreign Relations which is composed of men who want a world government under their control. The Communists have always wanted to control the world and so have the Moslems and the Catholics. All of these groups work in concert to attain the goal of world government. It would be a battle for one group to win over the others, but for now they work together without even speaking to one another - like the cells of Al Qaeda. And even Al Qaeda works in concert with the aforementioned in the sense that their first step is to take down the United States.
But all of the above have weaknesses. They can only succeed if they can do most of
their work in shadows, explain their visible actions as other than what they really are,
and keep the citizens igorant of the words in the U.S. Constitution.