Re-Declaration Of Independence
By Peter and Helen Evans (07/05/03)
As we approach our 227th birthday as a nation, it is appropriate to consider the streams of history which, in their confluence, contributed to the occasion we celebrate on "Independence Day."
A well-respected minister and teacher watched in helpless frustration as ruling elites gradually evicted, by force or by treachery, his fellow clergymen from their parishes. Over the sometimes violent protests of the parishioners, popular preachers were replaced by others, more amenable to the 'progressive reforms' of the so-called 'moderates.' Such was their 'popularity,' the new preachers often had to be escorted to their churches by armed guards. Over a period of a few years, he saw his people's religious liberty being crushed, "for their own good," by a new order, imposed from above.
In the twentieth century, Communism, Fascism and Nazism all began by claiming to be 'popular, progressive' movements, that would lead the people to heaven on earth. All ended by degrading, imprisoning and murdering millions of people who resisted the 'salvation' being forced on them "for their own good."
As we enter the twenty-first century, the threats to our liberty have become more subtle, but no less dangerous. The search for power by the self-anointed elites, who claim to know better than we do what's good for us, has taken them beyond mere national governments to the rarified realm of trans-national, 'non-governmental' organizations.
Despite the name, their ambition is definitely to govern, to wield power on the world stage, to enact 'progressive reforms', to educate us, to direct us, "for our own good" whether we will or no. But their disingenuous status as 'non-governmental' relieves them of the heavy responsibility of actually being accountable to the people they seek to influence or in whose affairs they claim to be expert and, thus, to 'represent.' Combined with a "non-profit" designation, the power-hungry group is also relieved of paying taxes, further diminishing its accountability, and further insulating itself from the consequences of its actions.
In the United States, domestic NGOs are kept tolerably honest and at least indirectly accountable by virtue of being kept on fairly short regulatory leashes, but, in the Third World, they're spreading like AIDS. For example, there are 100,000 NGOs in Indonesia alone, another 75,000 in the Philippines. These organizations naturally interconnect at the trans-national hub of the planet, the United Nations. Whatever one may think of the democratic validity of many of the 185 member nations, what are we to make of the literally thousands of U.N. accredited 'advisory' or 'consultative' NGOs?
The many committees and councils of the U.N. combine with the multitude of NGOs as a mutual-admiration society, trading back and forth in the imaginary currency of "legitimacy." Every time one branch consults another the "legitimacy" of both is enhanced. The un-disguised intention behind this process is to gather and focus as much "legitimacy" as possible in the United Nations. Then, the naked Emperor of the New World Order will go forth, clad in the dazzling robes of "legitimacy." If no one points a finger and laughs, then legitimacy will be transmuted into real power, and projects like the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Accord will be imposed on the world "for our own good." When the non-governmental governments rule the world, we can kiss our national sovereignty and individual liberties, "Good B'ye!"
The "well-respected minister" of the opening story, was Rev. John Witherspoon of Scotland. In 1766, at the age of 46, he accepted the presidency of what is now Princeton University. He took to his new colonial home with zeal, and through his personal teaching, influenced many of the Founding Fathers, a large number of public officials, military leaders, college presidents, judges, state governors and one President and a vice-president. He was a strong influence against the establishment of a state religion, having seen, first hand, the sort of tyranny that can bring about. About religious liberty and political liberty, he said, "Tyranny over the one dooms the other." He was a signatory of the Declaration of Independence and deserves to be better remembered.
We may be tempted to think that the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War somehow 'guaranteed' us life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, once and for all time. Not so. As our brief reflection on the rising threat of unaccountable world government indicates, the challenges to our liberty are perennial, and so must be our struggle to maintain it. As the anniversary of the Declaration rolls around again, let us take inspiration from the example of those, like John Witherspoon, who have gone before and re-declare our independence from the old tyrannies and prepare to fight them in their new disguises.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Peter and Helen Evans
