The paradigm of seeking a balance between the federal government and states began to cave during the Obama years.  Now, under Biden, the abandonment of the federalism paradigm is picking up steam, and we see an attempt to sabotage federalism in favor of a vast federal bureaucracy and regulations and laws produced and upheld by a cadre of antisocial, power-mad elitists.

The replacement is seen in a growing identity with authoritarian regimes and practices such as being soft on Iran and Russia.  Liberty always means support for the individual and locality against the encroachments or belligerence of tyranny.  There is contempt for the states, especially those at our southern border, as we see the federal government breaking its own laws and distributing illegal migrants throughout the country.  We see it In its attacks on the nuclear family and our military by its extreme support of non-heterosexual agendas.  The obsessive climate change agenda enhances globalist encroachments over U.S. sovereignty, and thus reduces the foundational federalism with concomitant liberties of our own sovereign system.

The key principle of our Constitution is the federalist system itself, with shared power between the states and the federal government.  Here, the United States is unique among nations in that the state governments created the federal government.

The government of these United States prior to our Constitution was under the Articles of Confederation.  Under that system, the federal government was purposely weak. Power resided overwhelmingly in each of the separate states.  But without a uniform trade policy, a uniform national tax policy, and a standing army, the sense of unity among the states was diluted.  Even though we had won the War for Independence under a less than unified system, it was clear that in order to survive in the world, we needed to have more unity. 

Thus, the U.S. Constitution with its separation of powers into three branches of government; its Bill of Rights; its affirmation against the presence of titles of nobility; its assertion of the importance of habeas corpus (recently diluted or ignored in our treatment of Jan. 6 defendants who as of this writing are still being oppressed); Article 1, Sec. 8, which states 18 categories of laws Congress may pass; Article 1, Sec. 9, which states eight topics of laws Congress may not pass; and Article 1, Sec. 10, which states that three areas of legislation states may not engage in at all establishes a beautiful balance between decentralized and centralized governance.  Because of the comprehensiveness of these articles particularly, some did not consider the Bill of Rights necessary, since the duties and no-nos of legislation were already contained in the document.  But because their ancestors in England already had enunciated many rights of Englishmen in 1689, it was considered wise to emphasize that hundred-year-old heritage.

Although the scope of federal legislation was enlarged by the so-called progressive presidents early in the 20th century, and later by the New Deal, there was still a great deal of ambivalence in our society — even among many New Deal Democrats — that perhaps the federal government was getting too much power.  That sense of balance between the separate states and the federal government still resonated with both parties, albeit less so with the Democrats, who had too many aggressive leftists even in the 1940s — men like the Democrat secretary of commerce Henry Wallace, who eventually ran against Harry Truman for president in 1948 as the Progressive candidate.

However, in the Obama years, we saw a shift in the pro-Constitution paradigm that was shared by both the Republicans and Democrats, despite the Democrat excesses over a few decades in expanding the scope of federal authority.  That shift can be clearly seen by the sign-off of the Obama administration in 2015 in support of U.N. Agenda 2030.  This commitment by our government (which, by the way, was not rescinded by President Trump) places our government's activities on the world stage within a globalist paradigm built around the idea of "sustainability."

This agenda is not mainly an agenda of countries, nor of states or provinces or other localities within countries.  Rather, it is an approach to solving global issues by "stakeholders."  Stakeholders include governments, but they also include "civil society, the private sector, and others [non-specified]."  This worldwide behemoth will thus transcend classic distinctions and nation-state ideals where governments (in our case federalism and concomitant liberties) define society.  Rather, governments, including the USA, are part of a more complex venture.  This more complex venture, we are told in the United Nations' sustainability document, "will require resource mobilization and financing strategies."  These strategies "will require quality, accessible, and timely data collection and regional follow-up and review."

What lies behind these vapid, vague words is never specified.  Will all citizens of all countries be required to fill out forms regularly as part of this "data collection" as we now do with our income tax?  Will the U.S. budget process already mired in thousands of pages and a regular cause of consternation among the legislators and the citizens now have to include increasingly large allocations for "resource mobilization and financing strategies"?  The opaque wording should be a cause of concern to every adult citizen of the USA.

We should also note that Agenda 2030 shifts from an emphasis upon rights, which appears in almost every sentence in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was passed by all countries with only eight abstentions and no negative votes, in 1948.  Thus, the U.N. at that time used rhetoric that was in no way a threat to our system of government or our sovereignty.  Like us, the whole world said rights were of uppermost importance.  Rights, liberty, separation of powers, and federalism were mutually enforcing ideas and institutional realities.  Now, 74 years later, the goals of Agenda 2030 do not seem to reflect the historical and institutional values of our country.  The word "rights" appears only once in Agenda 2030 in Section 19.

How will this new vision be implemented?  The U.N. tells us that "resources need to be mobilized from domestic and international sources, as well as from the public and private sectors."  If ever there was a sentence that called for specifics, this is it.  You see, dear reader, you and I compose the private sector, even if we are employed by a governmental entity.  We tend to think our money belongs to us, but this mealy-mouthed language leaves that as an open question in the new sustainable world order.

The electric company in NYC sends out notices with bills advising people to wash their clothes in cold water.  This is an energy-saving measure and is consistent with sustainability.  Although this advice is local, it is also at the same time global.  It bypasses local and state legislation and clearly points to a time when it will not be a suggestion but will be required.  This writer heard Obama state in an interview that he believed in remote controls over home thermostats but that there were some practical issues of conversion to that that still had to be overcome. This means the complete destruction of consumer choice, and by invading the home, he clearly was going beyond the constitutional restraints on the power and authority of the federal government in our Constitution.  Today's suggestion undoubtedly is tomorrow's controlling command.

Sustainability was a key Obama commitment during his term of office, and it is a key commitment today.  The paradigm of federalism on which our system was founded continues to be undermined by our present administration, which has intensified the radical path of sustainability Obama propelled us on.

Image via Pixnio.