NEW WORLD ORDER – DEATH OF AMERICA

NEW WORLD ORDER — DEATH OF AMERICA

Double click to enlarge or use links below to go to websites.

The map above was copyrighted in 1942 and published in Philadelphia PA. It was likely compiled before Pearl Harbor and a copy was received by the Library of Congress on Feb. 25, 1942 as shown by the stamp. Another stamp suggests it was entered into the map collection on Mar. 31, 1942. I regret I had to sacrifice a bit of quality to reduce loading time here.

Below is the plan outlined at the bottom of the map. I removed it from the map to speed up the display in my original post in blogspot. I’m leaving it here for those who may want to copy the text. It’s a lot easier than trying to pull it off the map. Reading it is essential to understanding the map and what these “elites” have planned for us under the tyranny of them, by them, and for them. [By the way, how did the dregs of society, the very vilest and lowest among us, come to be known as “elite?”]

The section Some Thoughts On The Map follows the plan outline.

The plan:

OUR POLICY SHALL BE THIS:

1. “We, the U.S.A., in cooperation with our allies, for reasons of our national safety and in the interests of international morality, are determined to crush and completely destroy, the military power of the Axis aggressors and their satellites regardless of cost, effort and time necessary to accomplish this task.

2. The old world order of colonial oppression, exploitation of dominions, rival imperialisms and mercenary balance of power diplomacy; of majesties, dictators, privileged minorities, plutocratic monopolists and similar social parasites; the corrupted order responsible for the present world cataclysm, endangering our national safety and peaceful progress, shall never rise again.

3. A New World Moral Order for permanent peace and freedom shall be established at the successful conclusion of the present war.

4. For reasons of history, economic structure, favorable geography and the welfare of mankind, the USA must, altruistically, assume the leadership of the newly established, democratic world order.

5. To reduce the burden and criminal waste of armaments expenditures everywhere in the world, the USA, with the cooperation of Latin- America, the British Commonwealth of Nations, and the USSR shall undertake to guarantee peace to the nations which will be permanently disarmed and demilitarized after the conclusion of the present war.

6. In order to be able, in fulfillment of our obligations, to effectively prevent the possibility of a recurrence of another world cataclysm, the invincibility of the USA as a military, naval and air power, shall be the major prerequisite.

7. For realistic considerations of strategy and our invulnerability, it is imperative that the USA shall obtain relinquishment of controls of their possessions from all foreign Powers in the entire Western Hemisphere, its surrounding waters and strategic island outposts as outlined on accompanying map.

8. For considerations of hemispheric defense and in the spirit and tradition of the new Monroe Doctrine of hemispheric solidarity and the “Good Neighbor” policy, the USA, with the consent of the Latin-American Republics, shall obtain control and protectorate rights of the relinquished territories.

9. To strengthen our position in the Caribbean area which is of obvious importance to hemispheric defense, all possible inducements shall be offered to our neighbors of Central America and the West Indies to facilitate their entrance as equal states of the USA as outlined on map.

10. To fortify the politico-economic unity of the Western Hemisphere, the USA shall ‘promote and assist the unification of South America into a well organized, democratic, federated “United States of South America”.

11. The liberated British, French and Netherlands Guianas shall be reorganized as one state of the U.S.S.A.

12. All Powers shall relinquish their controls of their colonial, mandate and strategic island possessions everywhere in the world.

13. The British Commonwealth of Nations, the second military and naval Power of importance cooperating in a binding compact with the USA as a Power for freedom, shall retain and acquire control of such territories, peace-security bases and strategic island outposts essential for the maintenance of world peace and freedom of the seas as outlined on map.

14. The USSR, the third military Power of importance cooperating with the USA as a Power for freedom and the maintenance of world peace, shall acquire control of the liberated, disorganized adjacent areas and those of Germany-Austria to be reeducated and eventually incorporated as equal republics of the USSR, as approximately outlined on map.

15. A World League of Nationalities with arbitration and supervision powers shall be organized.

16. A World Court with punitive powers of absolute boycott, quarantine blockade and occupation by international police, against lawbreakers of international morality shall be organized.

17. The USA, with the close cooperation of the United States of South America, the British Commonweaith of Nations, the USSR and the World League of Nationalities, shall promote and assist in the unification of the relinquished territories and the areas at present unsoundly divided into well organized, democratic and absolutely demilitarized federated republics as approximately outlined on map.

18. The areas known as Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Switzerland, France, Spain, Portugal, the ls1and of Corsica, and eventually Italy and the islands of Sardinia and Sicily shall be unified as a demilitarized, federated “United States of Europe”.

19. The areas known as Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the Spitsbergen islands shall be unified as a demilitarized, federated “United States ot Scandinavia”.

20. The continent of Africa shall be reorganized and unified as a demilitarized federated “Union of African Republics”.

21. The areas known as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Hejas, Yemen, Aden and Oman, shall be unified as a demilitarized union of “ Arabian Federated Republics.”

22. The areas known as India, including Afghanistan, Baluchistan, Nepal, Bhutan and Burma shall be unified as a demilitarized “Federated Republics of India”.

23. The areas known as China, Inner Mongolia, Tibet, Thailand, Malaya, Indo-China and Korea, shall be unified as a demilitarized, federated “United Republics of China”.

24. The areas known as Greece, Macedonia, Albania, Crete, Dodecanese and adjacent islands in the Aegean Sea shall be unified as a demilitarized “Federated Republic of Greece”.

25. The areas known as Eire and Northern Ireland shall be unified as a demilitarized independent republic of “Eire”.

26. The area of the Holy Land of the ancient Hebrews, at present known as Palestine and Trans-Jordan, and the adjacent requisite regions as outlined on map, for considerations of history and the imperative necessity to alleviate a post-war refugee problem, shall be unified as a demilitarized independent republic of “Hebrewland”.

27. The area known as European Turkey, adjacent to the Dardanelles, sea of Marmora and Bosphorus, for considerations of realistic peace strategy shall be placed under joint control of USSR and Turkey.

28. The area known as Turkey shall be a demilitarized independent republic of “Turkey”.

29. All problems of exchange, transfer and repatriation of populations shall be administered by the World League of Nationalities.

30. The criminal perpetrators and their partners in guilt of this hideous war shall be brought to justice and unforgetable punishment administered.

31. All subjects of Japan and all persons of Japanese origin of doubtful loyalty shall be permanently expelled from the entire Western Hemisphere, USA protectorates and strategic island outposts and their property confiscated for post-war reconstruction needs.

32. All subjects of Germany and Italy and all persons of German and Italian origin known as active supporters of nazi and fascist ideologies shall be treated similarly.

33. German, Italian and Japanese immigration to the Western Hemisphere, its protectorates and island outposts shall be indefinitely stopped.

34. All persons of German origin in East Prussia and the Rhineland shall be transferred to inner Germany and the regions permanently de-Prussianized.

35. All persons of German, Italian and Japanese origin shall be permanently expelled from their now conquered territories and their property confiscated for post-war reconstruction needs.

36. To cleanse the .populations of the defeated Axis aggressors of the intoxication of military chauvinism; to effectuate the removal and destruction of their potential military establishments; to recover the accumulated loot and to re-educate them for their eventual membership in the Family of Nations, the areas of Germany-Austria, Italy and Japan shall be hermetically and indefinitely quarantined and administered by appointed Governors subject to supervision by the World League of Nationalities.

37. All resources, industrial and 1abor capacity of the quarantined areas shall be employed for the post-war restoration and reconstruction needs.

38. To reduce the numerical power of the aggressor nations, as a potential military advantage, a Population Control Policy shall be elaborated and applied in the quarantined areas.

39. In the New World Moral Order which we seek to establish, beside the essential political freedom, the following fundamental economic changes are imperative:

(a) Nationalization of all natural resources and equitable distribution of same to all nations everywhere in the world;

(b) Nationalization of international banking, foreign investments, railroads and power plants – everywhere in the world;

(c) Nationalization of an armaments producing establishments by all remaining military powers;

(d) Federal controll of foreign commerce and shipping;

(e) The establishment of a world common monetary system;

(f) World-wide limitations of interest rates to maximum of two percent.

40. To retain the victory and leadership of our united democratic effort the aim of which is not vengeance or exploitation, but freedom and security to all nations for peaceful progress – the unified “Supreme War Command of the United Nations” at the conclusion of the present war, shall be reorganized and transformed into a permanent “Supreme Military and Economic Council” collaborating with the “World League of Nationalities” in post-war reconstruction and to enforce world peace.

41. The “Supreme Military and Economic Council” shall appoint the Governors to administer the quarantined areas until their eventual parole. For this purposeful beginning we must fight until absolute victory.

Maurice Gomberg

 Some Thoughts On The Map

 This article accompanies and explains the map posted here.

To view the original map, go to the Library of Congress. It is a lot harder to navigate and, at one time you had to have special software to download, but now I think most graphic programs can handle it.

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3200.ct001256

My original source for the copy I had at blogspot was the Univ. of San Diego. It was obvious they’d copied the L of C map, but a little was clipped off. It doesn’t matter because the U. of S.D. Copy has gone down the Memory Hole. Those who like to collect evidence of the conspiracy to reduce the world to serfdom should copy the map here, the one at the L of C, or a copy that has now been posted at: http://endtimepilgrim.org/nwomapbig.jpg

The map is titled “Outline of Post-War New World Map” and calls for the U.S. to take the lead in establishing a “New World Moral Order”. It was copyrighted and published in Philadelphia, Pa. in 1942 by Maurice Gomberg. Most of us who were aware of the map believe it was actually compiled before Pearl Harbor. It was certainly not put together overnight.

Not all of the changes called for have been realized–yet, but many have. There are probably many reasons why not all have been attained. For one, the plans made by this New World “Moral” Order may have changed. What seemed advantageous to them in 1941 or 42 may not have been in 1945 and still may not be today. For another, it was an incredibly ambitious plan and much resistance was probably felt and time was needed in those areas where force of arms was not expedient. The Moslems also seem to have resisted strongly and been a major stumbling block. This is probably the primary motivator of the government/media program to promote fear and hatred of Moslems among the American people.

Of more importance are those areas where they were successful and in others where progress toward their goals continues slowly to this day.

Examine carefully the area of Eastern Europe and you’ll see such places as the Polish SSR, the Czechian SSR, the Rumanian SSR, and so on. The countries, which we were told were ceded to the Soviet Union at Yalta by a “sick” FDR, already had there fates sealed in 1941 or 42, not in Moscow, but in Philadelphia. You will also see some unrealized segments of the plan such as the Finnish SSR and the Iranian SSR. Too, the eastern block has broken away from the Soviet Union, or so it appears. Is the plan falling apart? Not likely. It’s more likely that the planners see a greater advantage in releasing those countries from their former captivity, possibly to eventually become part of the “United States of Europe (EU).” The EU would otherwise be too small to constitute a regional superstate, which seems to be at least an intermediate goal of these “planners.” (At the time I originally wrote this, there was no visible movement toward including those countries in the EU.)

The consolidation of Europe is one of the phases that has been slowly continuing. The first step was the common market. The latest major step was the Euro Dollar. With the countries of Europe sharing a common money supply, it will be difficult to avoid the ultimate end–their sovereignty lost in the European Union. In the meantime, conditioning of the people to accept it will continue. (Again, much of this has been accomplished since I first wrote this.)

Turning to Africa, we see another consolidation–the Union of African Republics. Major stumbling blocks have been removed from the road to this goal — the white governments of Rhodesia and South Africa. Did it seem just a tad inconsistent and hypocritical when our government condemned and embargoed South Africa for “human rights violations” while granting “Most Favored Nation” status to the country that had savagely raped Tibet?–the country whose government is probably the most brutal and oppressive in history? If you thought it hypocritical, I agree with you. If you thought it inconsistent, I would ask, “With what?” If you’ve taken or will take the time to look at Asia, you’ll see that that peaceful but unfortunate land had already been predestined to be part of the United Republics of China. So the actions of our government in relation to Africa and Asia were consistent with the plans published in 1942. While black Americans and “liberals” cheered the “liberation” of the blacks in Rhodesia and South Africa, the way was cleared to enslave the entire continent.

Again, if we look at Asia, we see poor Tibet already merged into China, along with Sinkiang, Inner Mongolia, Korea, Indo China, and Thailand. With the fall of Vietnam, Laos, and North Korea to Chinese Communism, it shouldn’t take much to make them United “Republics”. As we continue to make China the premiere economic, military, and political power in Asia, it will be difficult for South Korea and Thailand to avoid absorption–if that is still the plan.

The Federal Republics of India were a failure, or so it would seem. Moslem Pakistan didn’t go along with the plan and I wonder how Buddist Burma was to be integrated into India. It would have made more sense as part of China. True, the game in Europe for centuries has been to make sure territorial changes after each war placed a sizable minority in new area gained by the victor. That assured grounds for another war. Maybe that was the idea. If Burma (now Myanmar, I think) were joined to India today, and Thailand became part of China, it would provide an excellent opportunity for war along an extended border in a narrow strip of land.

The best I saved for last–the United States of America. Take notice that the entire North American continent, including Greenland, Canada, Mexico, and Central America are part of the United States. Think it can’t happen here? NAFTA? CAFTA? Like the Common Market, NAFTA and CAFTA are the first steps. Is illegal immigration from Mexico unstoppable or is it a means of creating a sort of Fifth Column that might eventually ease the merger with Mexico? If the planners of this New World “Moral” Order do get their way, our sovereignty and our Constitution will be lost forever. (At the time of the writing of this revision, negotiations are already underway between Bush, Martin of Canada, and Fox of Mexico to create a North American Union. The claim is made that this is for trade purposes only and not a political union, but you can bet the political union will follow. Eventually, the rest of North America will be included. As plans for the NAU continue behind the backs of the American people a “Trans-Texas Highway” is also in progress. Called by many the “NAFTA Highway,” it will disect Texas and terminate initially in Kansas City at a Mexican customs building. That building will have the same status as an Embassy. It will be considered Mexican soil. Cargo-tainers will be offloaded from Chinese ships in Mexican ports, by-passing the Longshoremen and our West Coast ports. More jobs for Mexicans at the expense of Americans.)

If you haven’t already done so, be sure to read the outline of the plan above. To cut the map size, I posted a separate file. For those who can connect the dots, it explains a lot of what has been happening in recent years. By the way, the idea of the U.S. as world policeman was not new. Cecil Rhodes dreamed of the U.S. taking over England’s self-appointed role more than a century ago.

I’ve had my blueprint copy of the map for over thirty years. Those of us who had a copy or knew of it are not certain who was behind it, but we made a strong guess that it was the World Federalists. They and other similar organizations have enjoyed substantial support from the international financiers and their tax free foundations. Some have suggested the Carnegie Funds and Foundations are behind it. The financiers seek a world government of, by, and for themselves. The larger and more remote the government is the less control we at the bottom will have as power shifts to the top. Through the control of all natural resources as the outline of the plan shows, the international financiers and the multi-national megacorporations will come to own or control all means of production.

World Government is propagandized as a great boon to mankind, but the humanity will be sucked from us as the entire human race is reduced to serfdom or slavery—to the status of cattle.

Advertisements

WORLD ORDER THROUGH OVER A CENTURY

World Order Through Over A Century

There may be some who think George H. W. Bush was the first to talk of a New World Order. It’s understandable why. The media stumbled all over itself to diffuse what appeared to be a bomb. But those media people must have been the most uninformed ever to carry a press card because the word had been out for a long time. Here are quotes related to a “world order” or a “new world order,” capitalized and not capitalized, from as far back as the late 19th Century.

“It [a League] will mean, however, a certain limitation upon their [large and powerful states] freedom of action; they must renounce any claim to overcome the weaker by their superior strength, and they must forego the right in any dispute to resort straightway to force; they must be prepared to use their power in behalf of the established law though their own rights be not immediately endangered. Secret treaties and alliances must be forbidden, and disarmament be brought about.” –from Woodrow Wilson’s, “The State”, 1898, Special Edition revised by Edward Elliott, D. C. Heath & Co., 1918.

“The old world order changed when this war-storm broke. The old international order passed away as suddenly, as unexpectedly, and as completely as if it had been wiped out by a gigantic flood, by a great tempest, or by a volcanic eruption. The old world order died with the setting of that day’s sun and a new world order is being born while I speak, with birth-pangs so terrible that it seems almost incredible that life could come out of such fearful suffering and such overwhelming sorrow.” — Nicholas Murray Butler, in an address delivered before the Union League of Philadelphia, Nov. 27, 1915

“The peace conference has assembled. It will make the most momentous decisions in history, and upon these decisions will rest the stability of the new world order and the future peace of the world.” — M. C. Alexander, Executive Secretary of the American Association for International Conciliation, in a subscription letter for the periodical International Conciliation (1919)

“If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and brotherly love, they are doomed to disappointment. If we are ever to approach that time, it will be after patient and persistent effort of long duration. The present international situation of mistrust and fear can only be corrected by a formula of equal status, continuously applied, to every phase of international contacts, until the cobwebs of the old order are brushed out of the minds of the people of all lands.” — Dr. Augustus O. Thomas, president of the World Federation of Education Associations (August 1927), quoted in the book “International Understanding: Agencies Educating for a New World” (1931)

“This World Youth movement claims to represent and affect the politico-social activities of a grand total of forty million adherents – under the age of thirty…It may play an important and increasing role in the consolidation of a new world order.” — H.G. Wells The Fate of Man 1939

“… when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.” — from “The New World Order”, H. G. Wells, (1939)

The term Internationalism has been popularized in recent years to cover an interlocking financial, political, and economic world force for the purpose of establishing a World Government. Today Internationalism is heralded from pulpit and platform as a ‘League of Nations’ or a ‘Federated Union’ to which the United States must surrender a definite part of its National Sovereignty. The World Government plan is being advocated under such alluring names as the ‘New International Order,’ ‘The New World Order,’ ‘World Union Now,’ ‘World Commonwealth of Nations,’ ‘World Community,’ etc. All the terms have the same objective; however, the line of approach may be religious or political according to the taste or training of the individual.” — excerpt from A Memorial to be Addressed to the House of Bishops and the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the Protestant Episcopal Church in General Convention (October 1940)

“In the first public declaration on the Jewish question since the outbreak of the war, Arthur Greenwood, member without portfolio in the British War Cabinet, assured the Jews of the United States that when victory was achieved an effort would be made to found a new world order based on the ideals of ‘justice and peace.'” — excerpt from article entitled “New World Order Pledged to Jews,” in the New York Times (October 1940)

“If totalitarianism wins this conflict, the world will be ruled by tyrants, and individuals will be slaves. If democracy wins, the nations of the earth will be united in a commonwealth of free peoples, and individuals, wherever found, will be the sovereign units of the new world order.” — The Declaration of the Federation of the World, produced by the Congress on World Federation, adopted by the Legislatures of North Carolina (1941), New Jersey (1942), Pennsylvania (1943), and possibly other states.

“…until The Union shall gradually become the government of all mankind and armament be reduced to a world police force.” — from “Union Now with Britain, Rhodes Scholar Clarence Streit, Harper and Brothers, 1941

“Twenty years ago the majority of us began to wreck the new world order for which all of us had fought.” — from Streit.

And we were told the WW’s were fought “to make the world safe for democracy”.

“The very nature of my Trade Union work has compelled the study of international affairs and has caused me to examine the obstacles which were preventing humanity from coming together and establishing a world order.” — from “The Balance Sheet of the Future”, The “Rt. Hon.” [quotes mine] Ernest Bevens, Minister of Labor and National Service, Member of the British War Cabinet, Robert M. McBride & Co., 1941.

“At the end of the last war we struggled to establish a World Order…” — from Bevens.

“…one of the striking things in the “Atlantic Charter deals with raw materials, and I think that what applies to raw materials will apply largely to certain primary foods like wheat. There must be an acceptance that raw materials must no longer be the prerogative of scramble and speculation. There must be organization and control.” — from Bevens

Did you get that? If the Anglo-American led New World Order wins, they will control not only raw materials but the primary food supply as well. Kiss liberty goodbye!!!

“It is on that that our liberties really depend at the last resort, and by which the future Government of the world will be determined.” — from Bevens.

“On that day, after triumph over the forces of aggression, free men and women can set to work to build a new world order, whose foundation shall be social security and liberty.” — from Bevens”

…the next stage in human development must be directed toward world order. Anything [or anybody?] which stands in the way of achieving the consummation of that desirable end to which humanity is striving must be subordinated to the greater purpose.” — from Bevens”

That we use the whole of our democratic strength to contribute to progress and the establishment of a world order.” — from Bevens.

“New World Order Needed for Peace: State Sovereignty Must Go, Declares Notre Dame Professor” — title of article in The Tablet (Brooklyn) (March 1942)

“Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles tonight called for the early creation of an international organization of anti-Axis nations to control the world during the period between the armistice at the end of the present war and the setting up of a new world order on a permanent basis.” — from an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer (June 1942)

“The statement went on to say that the spiritual teachings of religion must become the foundation for the new world order and that national sovereignty must be subordinate to the higher moral law of God.” — American Institute of Judaism, excerpt from article in the New York Times (December 1942)

“To win this peace three things seem to me necessary–first, we must plan now for peace on a world basis; second, the world must be free, politically and economically, for nations and for men, that peace may exist in it; third, America must play an active, constructive part in freeing it and keeping its peace.”– from “One World”, Wendell L. Willkie, Simon & Schuster, 1943.

“There are some plain common-sense considerations applicable to all these attempts at world planning. They can be briefly stated: 1. To talk of blueprints for the future or building a world order is, if properly understood, suggestive, but it is also dangerous. Societies grow far more truly than they are built. A constitution for a new world order is never like a blueprint for a skyscraper.” — Norman Thomas, in his book “What Is Our Destiny” (1944)

“He [John Foster Dulles] stated directly to me that he had every reason to believe that the Governor [Thomas E. Dewey of New York] accepts his point of view and that he is personally convinced that this is the policy that he would promote with great vigor if elected. So it is fair to say that on the first round the Sphinx of Albany has established himself as a prima facie champion of a strong and definite new world order.” — excerpt from article by Ralph W. Page in the Philadelphia Bulletin (May 1944)

“National Socialism will use its own revolution for establishing of a new world order.”– Adolph Hitler during World War II

“World law should be enforceable directly upon individuals.” — a part of the 1948 platform of the World Federalists contained in Appendix A of The World Must Be Governed, Vernon Nash, Harper, 1949. Cited in “Power and International Relations”, Inis L. Claude, Jr., Random House, 1962

“We shall have World Government whether or not we like it. The only question is, whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” James P. Warburg before the U.S. Senate (Feb. 17, 1950) quoted in “Conquest or Consent” by Wickliffe B. Vennard, Sr., Forum Publications, 1965.

“If there is a violation [in world order or disarmament], the control organ must have power to move to meet it: and must be empowered to move against individuals, not to wage war against states.” from “The Price of Peace: A Plan for Disarmament”, Charles Bolte’, Beacon, 1956. Cited in Claude.

“All law in a disarmed society must be applicable to, and enforced upon, individuals.” from “The League of Nations: Another Rope of Sand”, Vernon Nash, Current History, August 1960. Cited in Claude.

We didn’t attack Afghanistan, we attacked Osama Bin Laden. We haven’t been waging war against Iraq! We’ve been waging war against Saddam and other “individuals” to “liberate” the Iraqi people.

“To destroy arms, however, is not enough. We must create even as we destroy – creating world-wide law and law enforcement as we outlaw world-wide war and weapons.” John F. Kennedy Future of the United Nations Organizations 1961

Grenville Clark and Louis B. Clark: “…an effective system of enforceable world law in the limited field of war prevention.” — from “World Peace Through World Law”, 2nd ed., Harvard U. Press, 1960. Cited in Chapter 6: “World Government: Monopoly of Power” of “Power and International Relations”, Inis L. Claude, Jr., Random House, 1962

“A major theme in the theory of world government is the subjection of the individual to the disciplinary authority and power of a central regime, in so far as this may be essential to the preservation of world order……the distinctiveness of the world government solution is assumed to lie in its prescription for abandoning the effort to impose order upon states in favor of the effort to regulate individual behavior.” from “Power and International Relations”, Claude, 1962.

Norman Cousins: “…the answer must lie in the establishment of an authority which takes away from nations, summarily and completely, not only the machinery of battle that can wage war, but the machinery of decision that can start a war.” from “In Place of Folly”, Harper, 1961. Cited in Claude, 1962.

“‘The United Nations’, he told an audience at Harvard University, ‘has not been able–nor can it be able–to shape a new world order which events so compellingly demand. … The new world order that will answer economic, military, and political problems’, he said, ‘urgently requires, I believe, that the United States take the leadership among all free peoples to make the underlying concepts and aspirations of national sovereignty truly meaningful through the federal approach.'” — Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York, in an article entitled “Rockefeller Bids Free Lands Unite: Calls at Harvard for Drive to Build New World Order” — New York Times (February 1962).

Two things to note here. One is that the UN is to be superseded by a US led organization and the second is the Orwellian double-think idea of making the underlying concepts and aspirations of national sovereignty meaningful by eliminating national sovereignty.

“The prediction for Latin America, then, is that it will forge ahead to prosperity and copartnership with Europe and Anglo-America under an effective superstate, or will, in its various parts, remain economically and politically dependent on outside countries–North American, West European, or Russian, with the Chinese possibly taking a hand. The most probable outcome is that it will, following the lead of Europe, gradually form a superstate and become an advanced member of the Atlantic Community.” — from “The Coming World Transformation”, Ferdinand Lundberg, Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1963.

“Instead of world rule by the Comintern, what is much more likely prospect is eventual rule of most of the world by a federation of the continental superstates outlined–United Europe, the United States (eventually including Canada), United Latin America, United Central Africa, United North Africa, and a United Far East.”– Lundberg.

The United States as outlined on the New World Moral Order map included Canada, Greenland, Mexico, and Central America. NAFTA is the first step as the Common Market was the first toward the “United States of Europe” [The EU] shown on the map.

“For the central purpose of the international community to flourish with vitality and appeal equal to that of basic national purposes, peoples must be convinced that their individual and collective interests, presently cared for by the state, can better be served by the larger world community, and they must be capable of sublimating their loyalty to the global dominium.” — from “International Integration: Purpose, Progress, and Prospects,” by Elmer Plischke in “Systems of Integrating the International Community,” Ed. by Elmer Plischke, D. Van Nostrand Co., 1964.

“Only within the past half century have governments been willing to take the major step of establishing a global, general international confederation possessing broad powers of peacekeeping and empowered to deal with political as well as social, economic, humanitarian, and juridical matters.” — from Plischke

“In recent years, as noted, many new global and regional confederations, multipartite diplomatic forums, supranational communities, and intergovernmental councils, commissions, and agencies have been created–each intended to afford some aspect of interstate institutionalization.” — from Plischke

“…The United Nations Disarmament Committee, which had been dormant for several years, suddenly came to life when the Soviet Union evinced an unexpected interest in a proposal for a treaty to prohibit the “dissemination” of nuclear weapons by any nuclear power to any non-nuclear power….Many Americans and Britons saw the anti-dissemination treaty as an important new step toward world peace and joined the opposition to an Atlantic nuclear force, on the ground that it was the only remaining obstacle to agreement with the Soviet Union.” — from “The Atlantic Idea and Its European Rivals, Harold van B. Cleveland, published for the Council on Foreign Relations by McGraw-Hill, 1966.

“The developing coherence of Asian regional thinking is reflected in a disposition to consider problems and loyalties in regional terms, and to evolve regional approaches to development needs and to the evolution of a new world order.” — Richard Nixon, in Foreign Affairs (October 1967)

“He [President Nixon] spoke of the talks as a beginning, saying nothing more about the prospects for future contacts and merely reiterating the belief he brought to China that both nations share an interest in peace and building ‘a new world order.'” — excerpt from an article in the New York Times (February 1972)

“If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis … In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.” — Richard N. Gardner, in Foreign Affairs (April 1974)

Wow!!! An “end run around national sovereignty!!!” Might that be anything like a “coalition?” Perhaps international treaties resulting from engineered scares such as “man made” global warming?

“The existing order is breaking down at a very rapid rate, and the main uncertainty is whether mankind can exert a positive role in shaping a new world order or is doomed to await collapse in a passive posture. We believe a new order will be born no later than early in the next century and that the death throes of the old and the birth pangs of the new will be a testing time for the human species.” — Richard A. Falk, in an article entitled “Toward a New World Order: Modest Methods and Drastic Visions,” in the book “On the Creation of a Just World Order” (1975)

“My country’s history, Mr. President, tells us that it is possible to fashion unity while cherishing diversity, that common action is possible despite the variety of races, interests, and beliefs we see here in this chamber. Progress and peace and justice are attainable. So we say to all peoples and governments: Let us fashion together a new world order.” — Henry Kissinger, in address before the General Assembly of the United Nations, October (1975)

“At the old Inter-American Office in the Commerce Building here in Roosevelt’s time, as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs under President Truman, as chief whip with Adlai Stevenson and Tom Finletter at the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco, Nelson Rockefeller was in the forefront of the struggle to establish not only an American system of political and economic security but a new world order.” — part of article in the New York Times (November 1975)

“Our nation is uniquely endowed to play a creative and decisive role in the new order which is taking form around us.” Henry Kissinger Seattle Post Intelligence (1975)

“Two centuries ago our forefathers brought forth a new nation; now we must join with others to bring forth a new world order.” The Declaration of Interdependence (1976)

“A New World Order” — title of article on commencement address at the University of Pennsylvania by Hubert H. Humphrey, printed in the Pennsylvania Gazette (June 1977)

“We must establish a new world order based on justice, on equity, and on peace.” Fidel Castro United Nations (1979)

“For American programmes to make sense at home, they must also make sense in global terms. Opinion polls cannot convey the unarticulated growth in awareness and maturation of the American people, who are all too often alienated from the cruder methods of bribery and flattery employed by the brokers of opinion, engineers of social change and vociferous contestants for political power.” — from “Novus Ordo Seclorum:America and the Global Community Towards the Year 2000”, Indian Rhodes Scholar Raghavan Iyer, Concord Grove Press, (1983).

“The globalization of America needs to be begun.” from Iyer.

“We are moving toward a new world order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.” Mikhail Gorbachev (1987)

“Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order.” — Mikhail Gorbachev, in an address at the United Nations (December 1988)

“Ultimately, our objective is to welcome the Soviet Union back into the world order. Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations.” President George Bush Texas A&M University (1989)

“We can see beyond the present shadows of war in the Middle East to a new world order where the strong work together to deter and stop aggression. This was precisely Franklin Roosevelt’s and Winston Churchill’s vision for peace for the post-war period.” — Richard Gephardt, in the Wall Street Journal (September 1990)

“We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.” President George Bush (1991)

“For two centuries we’ve done the hard work of freedom. And tonight we lead the world in facing down a threat to decency and humanity. What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea – a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world worthy of our struggle, and worthy of our children’s future.” President George Bush State of the Union Address (1991)

“We will succeed in the Gulf. And when we do, the world community will have sent an enduring warning to any dictator or despot, present or future, who contemplates outlaw aggression. The world can therefore seize this opportunity to fufill the long-held promise of a new world order – where brutality will go unrewarded, and aggression will meet collective resistance.” President George Bush State of the Union Address (1991)

“If we do not follow the dictates of our inner moral compass and stand up for human life, then his lawlessness will threaten the peace and democracy of the emerging new world order we now see, this long dreamed-of vision we’ve all worked toward for so long.” — President George Bush (January 1991). Reference to Saddam’s refusal to obey the New World Order.

“But it became clear as time went on that in Mr. Bush’s mind the New World Order was founded on a convergence of goals and interests between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, so strong and permanent that they would work as a team through the U.N. Security Council.” — excerpt from A. M. Rosenthal, in the New York Times (January 1991)

“I would support a Presidential candidate who pledged to take the following steps: … At the end of the war in the Persian Gulf, press for a comprehensive Middle East settlement and for a ‘new world order’ based not on Pax Americana but on peace through law with a stronger U.N. and World Court.” — George McGovern, in the New York Times (February 1991)

“… it’s Bush’s baby, even if he shares its popularization with Gorbachev. Forget the Hitler ‘new order’ root; F.D.R. used the phrase earlier.” — William Safire, in the New York Times (February 1991)

“Our efforts to create a sustainable world society and economy demands that we diminish the profligate lifestyles in the industrialized countries through a slow down in consumption–which may, in any case be forced on us by environmental contraints.” — from “The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome”, Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider, Pantheon Books, (1991).

“We believe we are creating the beginning of a new world order coming out of the collapse of the U.S.-Soviet antagonisms.” — Brent Scowcroft (August 1990), quoted in the Washington Post (May 1991)

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” – David Rockefeller Baden-Baden, Germany (1991)

“The task of saving the earth’s environment must and will become the central organizing principle of the post-Cold War world.” Senator Al Gore Putting People First (1992) Is that the motivation for Gore’s film? Erode national sovereignty piecemeal to “organize” the world?

“How I Learned to Love the New World Order” — article by Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. in the Wall Street Journal (April 1992)

“How to Achieve The New World Order” — title of book excerpt by Henry Kissinger, in Time magazine (March 1994)

“The Final Act of the Uruguay Round, marking the conclusion of the most ambitious trade negotiation of our century, will give birth – in Morocco – to the World Trade Organization, the third pillar of the New World Order, along with the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund.” — part of full-page advertisement by the government of Morocco in the New York Times (April 1994)

“New World Order: The Rise of the Region-State” — title of article by Kenichi Ohmae, political reform leader in Japan, in the Wall Street Journal (August 1994)

The “new world order that is in the making must focus on the creation of a world of democracy, peace and prosperity for all.” — Nelson Mandela, in the Philadelphia Inquirer (October 1994)

The renewal of the nonproliferation treaty was described as important “for the welfare of the whole world and the new world order.” — President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, in the New York Times (April 1995)

“Alchemy for a New World Order” — article by Stephen John Stedman in Foreign Affairs (May/June 1995)

“We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.” — Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs (July/August 1995)

At the White House, Mr. Bush said the United States will help other nations deal with terrorists. “If governments need training or resources to meet this commitment, America will help.”He also said September 11 is creating a new world order in which former foes become U.S. allies.–The Washington Times (March 12, 2002)

“Do not fear; put your trust in him! The life-giving power of his light is an incentive for building a new world order based on just ethical and economic relationships,” Pope Benedict, Vatican City (Dec 25, 2005)

Life giving power of whose light? God’s? Jesus’? Lucifer’s?

These quotations, and many others like them, demonstrate clearly that the concept of a world order and the words “new world order” have been in use for decades and did not originate with President George Bush in 1990. The “old world order” is one based on independent nation-states. The “new world order” involves the elimination of the sovereignty and independence of nation-states and some form of world government. This means the end of the United States of America, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as we now know them. Many of the new world order proposals involve the conversion of the United Nations and its agencies to a world government, complete with a world army, a world parliament, a World Court, global taxation, and numerous other agencies to control every aspect of human life (education, nutrition, health care, population, immigration, communications, transportation, commerce, agriculture, finance, the environment, etc.). The various notions of the “new world order” differ as to details and scale, but agree on the basic principle and substance.

DESIGNS FOR DESTRUCTION

These are some of the maps drawn up by the “Planners” who have been planning the elimination of our States, counties, townships, boroughs, and even our cities for nearly a century.

The first can be called, “The Crime of 1854.”  That’s what it was called in Philadelphia well into the last century and may still be called that in some sections.  In this instance, 13 townships, 6 boroughs, 9 districts, and one city were consolidated.  The people lost much of their representation.

Image

I believe the same consolidating action reduced a number of independent boroughs into one metropolitan mess called New York City.  It might be an interesting project for those in or around other big cities to find out if similar consolidations and eliminations have taken place in those cities.

Not content with the piecemeal destruction of local government, the would be emperors of the planning empire created a plan to bring to an end our Constitutional system of Sovereign Republics.  This was the 1935 plan to consolidate our States into 9 Federal Regions and abolish States’ Rights.

Image

No doubt this plan met stiff opposition at the time, so it slid into the cover of darkness.  When,in 1943, Governor Carr of Colorado said he had uncovered a government plan to set up “regional dictatorships,” government officials were quick to deny any knowledge of such a plan.

Like termites in the darkness of the woodwork, the “planners” continued work on their plan to undermine our country.  It re-emerged under Nixon in an Executive Order dividing the country into 10 Regions for federal administration.  Jimmy Carter set up ten Federal Regional “Councils” for these regions.

Again, the heat must have been on because Reagan issued an Executive Order rescinding the Nixon and Carter E.O.’s.

Don’t think for a moment the plan is dead.  This is too important to the powers behind the program.  While I knew this plan was paralleling the plan to regionalize  the world as a step to world government, I really didn’t fully understand.  With the plan for the North American Union emerging as a step toward unifying all of North America into one regional superstate, I realized that it would be difficult to merge the U.S., with 50 States and D.C., into Canada with, I believe, 10 provinces and 3 Territories.  Mexico with its 31 states and one federal district may be a problem, but I’m sure work is proceeding there to consolidate.  If anyone has any info on that, I’d appreciate hearing it.

Yet another parallel.  Not only are the States slated for destruction, even the townships, boroughs, and counties within the States are on the regional chopping block.  This is Pennsylvania’s plan, or maybe I should say, the power elite’s plan for Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania Consolidation Plan

Pursuant to federal mandates to “modernize” State and local government, the governor’s Executive Directive 48 of 1972 divided Pennsylvania into ten sub-state regions.

Article IV of the U.S. Constitution requires the federal government to guarantee each State a “Republican Form of Government.”  It further provides that “no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned…”  The “Master Planners” care nothing about the Constitution.  They’ve long sought a “Philadelphia Metropolitan Regional Government that would incorporate parts of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.  So far they’ve managed to achieve elements of this in a “regional planning commission” known as PennJerDel.  It’s possible the State legislatures have approved of this, but if so, it would have taken place under the threat of lost “revenue sharing” funds.

PennJerDel–The Philadelphia Regional Planning District

The outline of the “planning” district is essentially that of a planned Philadelphia Metropolitan Government. It includes counties of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. Of course, it is totally unconstitutional, but that usually doesn’t bother the planners.

Some references:

https://lostliberty1.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/regionalism-death-of-the-american-system/

The above is a write up I did while fighting regionalism in Bucks County PA.  It references these maps.

Ed Balajeski started fighting Big Brother when he got out of the Marines after WWII and fought most of his adult life.  He was the protege’ of a Philadelphia woman, Helen Somers who fought Big Bro most of her adult life.  She was one of the original America First group.  Ed inherited much of his documentation from Helen and expanded greatly on that himself.  My blog is an introductory course.  Get your Masters and Doctorates on Regionalism at Ed’s site.  His Pennsylvania Crier newsletter files include information he received from colleagues in many parts of the country.  Keep in mind that there was no internet at the time.

http://www.pennsylvaniacrier.com/filemgmt/index.php

It isn’t necessary to register for an account.

REGIONALISM – DEATH OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM

This is my first attempt to transfer posts from my Lost Liberty blog at blogspot.  http://phreedomphan-lostliberty.blogspot.com/2008/07/regionalism-death-of-american-system.html

If you follow this link, do not click on the maps or any graphics in the blog.  Google has apparently allowed a commercial or government site to redirect clicks on maps and graphics in blogspot.  That’s why I’m switching to WordPress.

I will be experimenting so please have patience.  Anyone who has wondered how our States got into the fiscal mess  many are in today may find some answers here.

I don’t plan to fool around with the content below, especially that which I wrote for our Bucks County, PA campaign.   I may try to expand somewhat in subsequent posts.  I also plan to publish the maps that accompanied this post at blogspot.  I was experimenting there too and didn’t connect them properly.  Here I’m not even going to attempt to connect them.  I’m going to try to publish the maps as a separate post after this.

REGIONALISM–DEATH OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM

I wrote this article a long time ago for a group I was involved in. We were fighting regionalism in Bucks County PA, so much of it is directed at our situation although the regionalization program is nationwide. I have made some minor updates since.

Ironically, I had a book “Beware Metro” by Phoebe Courtney at the time, but I never read it. I’ve recently found it as an ebook. If anyone wants a better look at the national scope, they can download the book at:

http://www.sweetliberty.org/beware_metro.html

This regional scheme to destroy our State and local governments parallels the efforts to destroy our national sovereignty.

REGIONALISM — DEATH OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

“If the day should ever arrive, (which God forbid!), when the people of the different parts of our country shall allow their local affairs to be administered by prefects sent from Washington, and when the self-government of the states shall have been so far lost as that of the departments of France, or even so far as that of the counties of England–on that day the progressive political career of the American people will have come to an end, and the hopes that have been built upon it for the future happiness and prosperity of mankind will be wrecked forever.” – John Fiske, historian, quoted in “Our Changing Constitution” by Charles W. Pierson, Doubleday, Page & Company, 1922.

Unfortunately, God did not forbid it, and the day of control of local affairs by Washington is here. It comes in the form of “regionalism” and the weapon for imposing it is federal “revenue-sharing”.

Regionalism is the consolidation of local and state governments into large regional units and the centralization of power in bureaucratic authorities, boards, and commissions whose primary function will be to administer plans and programs dictated by Washington.

We’ve found traces of Regionalism as far back as the 1920’s, in fact, the 1922 book mentioned above dealt with the federal incursions into state and local affairs and the Constitutional perversions used to justify it.

Earlier still, though we don’t know if it had any connection with the present federal drive for empire, the consolidation of Philadelphia in 1854 is a good example of one of the main goals of modern regionalism — the reduction of the number of local governments and elected officials. In that case, six boroughs, thirteen townships, and nine districts were combined into one city. Prior to that, we had such places as Germantown Borough, Germantown Twp., Roxborough Borough, etc, and, of course, Philadelphia County. In some sections of the city the action is still called the “crime of 1854”. And a crime it was! The people of the townships and boroughs were robbed of a substantial part of their representation and all of their local control.

Regardless of any connection that may have had with events today, it is clear that the underlying motive of the present drive for regional government is the consolidation of state and local governments into regional units under total federal control. The people will be excluded from the political and governmental processes.

The stage was set in 1913 for this federal usurpation of those powers delegated by the Constitution to the states and to the people. The Federal Reserve Act, together with the 16th Amendment permitting the graduated income tax, assured the Federal Government economic dominance of the states, and the 17th Amendment, sold to the people as a great triumph of democracy, took away state control of the Senate, thereby eliminating one of the most important Constitutional checks for maintaining the balance of power between the States and the Federal Government.

The promoters of centralization wasted no time in taking advantage of their new powers. In the revised 1923 edition of his 1915 book, “The New American Government and Its Work”, (Note the term “New”–implying the replacement of an “Old”!), James T. Young says, “Whenever it appears that the Constitution hinders a transfer of power from the States to Congress, those interested seek some expedient by which to evade this obstacle…”. He then cites “judicial interpretation” and “commerce regulating power” as two methods and continues, “The third, and at present most promising way is the subsidy plan. Congress grants to the States a fund under its power to tax and to appropriate for the general welfare. This fund is given only on condition that the States appropriate a similar sum and that the total amount be used for a definite purpose fixed in the Federal Law. This purpose may be, and often is, entirely outside the regulating authority of Congress.” That is the principle method used today to promote “Regionalism” (Federal takeover). It is commonly known as the “carrot and stick” method. The legal term is, “Bribery and Extortion”.

This might be a good point to interrupt the history of regionalism and discuss what’s wrong with it. The most important thing we can think of is that it effectively removes the people from the electoral process. It does this by concentrating power in units of government that are increasingly larger and more remote from the people and by establishing commissions and authorities composed of appointed officials who do not answer to the people.

As government moves to higher levels, towns to counties to “sub-state regions” to states to “federal regions” to the federal government itself, the per capita representation goes down and the people lose all control over elections. In a small town of thousands, a few knowledgeable citizens can inform enough others to oust corrupt officials. It’s almost impossible in a county with hundreds of thousands, or a state with millions. When it comes to a national government of hundreds of millions, only those who finance the nation and the elections can influence the elected officials and unelected bureaucrats.

Resuming the background, it’s fairly common knowledge, certainly among those who have fought the growth of government, that centralization received a major boost in the 1930’s as a result of the depression (which we were told the Federal Reserve was created to prevent — were we lied to?). Less known today is the plan announced in the New York Times Magazine on April 24, 1935, to divide the nation into nine “Departments”. Under the plan, States’ rights would have been abolished. The plan, so boldly announced, undoubtedly met very stiff opposition, so nothing came of it–at the time. In fact, in 1943, Governor Carr of Colorado said he had uncovered a government plan to set up “regional dictatorships”. Carr said that regional authorities would be setup “ostensibly to regulate physical resources”. Of course, government officials denied any knowledge of such a plan. However, in 1972, Richard Nixon, by Executive Order 11647, divided the country into ten “Federal Regions”. In typical Orwellian “Double-Speak”, he called it “decentralization”. In 1979, by E.O. 12149, Jimmy Carter established Federal Regional Councils for each of those districts. This has been the pattern–announce the plan, deny in the face of opposition, continue in darkness, then slip quietly into the light again. Under heat of opposition to the reemerged scheme, Ronald Reagan, so we understand, rescinded those E.O.’s, but we have to believe that, if true, the program just slid back into the cover of darkness again.

In the 1960’s, prior to Nixon’s E.O. 11647, the drive had picked up momentum again in the form of various “revenue- sharing” schemes. Federal officials pointed out that, now collecting over 70% of the nations tax revenues, Washington was in a better financial position to solve the problems of the states and our local governments. The Federal Deficit was apparently not noticed. That many of the problems were caused by prior Federal meddling in state and local affairs was ignored.

Possibly the most damning piece of evidence as to the intent of “Revenue-Sharing” is the audaciously honest book “Revenue-Sharing” by Congressman Henry Reuss. Reuss, a leading sponsor of the program, makes it clear in the book that “Revenue- Sharing” should be used as “an incentive” to states to “modernize” their local governments. To qualify for the federal handouts, states would have to submit a “good faith” plan showing how they intend to implement this “modernization” of local government. Among the things to be included are: consolidation of the “too many”, “fragmented”, “balkanized”, “minuscule”, “jungle of”, “outmoded”, “horse and buggy” local governments; establishment of regional planning mechanisms; state constitutional changes to permit “interstate compacts”; steps to reduce the number of elected officials and to replace them with appointed ones (because being “forced” to vote for too many officials confuses the voters); and finally, to make provisions for state income taxes–the more “progressive”, the better. He also wants the larger governmental units created by the program to be able to setup more “services”, borrow with less state restriction, and, of course, be able to levy more taxes in addition to the increased funds from federal and state programs. The “federal” money (the carrot) will come on the condition that the states and locals use it for ends consistent with a “national purpose”. If not, the funds will be withheld (the stick).

Even before Reuss’s book was published, it is evident that the intent of Congress was known. Some states had already begun complying. In 1968, for example, Pennsylvania amended its constitution to permit interstate compacts, boundary changes, and to “free” the expansion and taxing powers of local governments. It is through the expansion of “services” and taxing powers that the local governments will become such unbearable burdens that the people will demand that they be abolished. The regionalists will be able to say, “We only gave the people what they wanted”.

In 1972, the Pennsylvania State Legislature, yielding to the federal pressure, passed Act 62 of 1972, the so-called, “Home Rule and Optional Plans Act”. Act 62 is designed to carry out the federal plans to destroy (modernize) local government while creating an illusion of a “grass roots movement”. It permits almost unlimited expansion of local government and taxes, and the transfer of powers from one government to another. To create the “grass roots” illusion, the method of implementation provided by Act 62 is “citizen referendum”. A commission is elected to “study” the present form of government, be it township, borough, or county. After an allotted time specified in the Act, they issue their report. They may recommend keeping the present form, adopting a “Home Rule” charter, or changing to one of the “Optional Plans” provided in Act 62.

This last point must be emphasized. The only recommendations the commission can make regarding changing the form of government are: keep the present form, write a Charter, or adopt an “Optional Plan”. The Masters of Deceit in the Department of Community Affairs (now the Department of Community and Economic Development) try to tell us that if we don’t like Act 62 government after we’ve tried it, “it appears” we can go back to the old codes. We can’t! Act 62 does not give any provision for placing a question on the ballot for going back. When we asked state “consultants” to the Bucks County’s second commission to cite statutes that would authorize such a question, they could not.

How will the new forms destroy our townships and boroughs? In two ways. The slow way is to get a majority of them under Act 62 and then expand them under the new powers granted. Eventually, they will become such an intrusive and costly burden that the people will demand they be eliminated.

A much quicker method is through adoption of a “Home Rule” Charter or an optional plan at the county level. Again, through the broad grant of powers to tax and spend (pronounced: provide services) the county will ultimately come to dwarf the local units. The argument will then be made that the townships and boroughs are insignificant and superfluous, and they will be eliminated. The counties will become “cities”. Preparing the way for further consolidation of those “cities”, the governor, by Executive Directive 48 dated August 28, 1972, divided Pennsylvania into 10 sub-state regions.

Of course, proponents of Home Rule or Optional Plan Government vehemently deny that is regionalism–now! But at first they admitted, almost gloated, over the prospects of regionalizing local government through the Act. Like typical utopian gurus expecting the sheep (that’s us) to see immediately the brilliance of their ‘enlightened” schemes, they announced it openly. Denial began when we refused to follow the pipers and push our local governments into the sea. But they were too late. It was their words that we used to defeat them three times in Bucks County.

A word of caution. There are some who think that they can beat the intent of the Act by writing clauses in a “Home Rule” Charter that in some way limits the broad grant of powers or expands the “Opt-Out” clause. There are others who will do it to deliberately deceive the voters. Don’t be fooled. They can’t! Act 62 is the law. A local charter commission can’t amend acts of the legislature, and the “broad grant of power” and the provisions for a local government to “opt-out” are clear. Citizens of a county who accept a charter or Optional Plan because they think they can beat the Act will likely learn the hard way, and the price will be high. It will eventually cost them their townships and boroughs.

Despite the three “Home Rule”/Optional Plan victories at the county level in Bucks, we’ve hardly put a dent in regionalism, because Act 62 is only one part of a multi-pronged attack on local representative government. It is intended to give an appearance of a “grass-roots” origin to any changes, to make the people think it is their idea. However, if the people can’t be fooled, there are also COGS (Councils of Government), Regional Planning Commissions, special purpose authorities, “Urban County” status, etc. These are designed to bring in regionalism over, under, and around the people and their local officials if they can’t get through them. Still, because the illusion of a “grass-roots” source of regional government is important to those promoting it, the “Home Rule and Optional Plans Act” is their preferred method of achieving regional government.

We’ll end this article as we began it, quoting from Pierson’s “Our Changing Constitution”. We’ve chosen a few pertinent comments by the author himself.

“What then of the future? Is the Constitution hopelessly out of date? Are the states to be submerged and virtually obliterated in the drift toward centralization? No thoughtful patriot can view such a possibility without the gravest misgivings. The integrity of the states was a cardinal principle of our governmental scheme. Abandon that and we are adrift from the moorings which to the minds of statesmen of past generations constituted the safety of the republic.”

“There is another aspect of the matter, however. The burden of federal bureaucracy is beginning to be felt by the average man. He is being regulated more and more in his meats and drinks, his morals and the activities of his daily life, from Washington. If he will only stop and think he must realize that no one central authority can supervise the daily lives of a hundred million people scattered over half a continent, without becoming top-heavy.”

“In the very nature of things there is bound to be a reaction against centralization sooner or later. The real question is whether it will come in time to save the present constitutional scheme.”

That was 1922! We’ve sunk a long way, baby!