Author H.G. Wells states in his novel The New World Order that “Countless people…will hate the New World Order, be rendered unhappy by frustration of their passions and ambitions through its advent and will die protesting against it.” The term “New World Order” represents a different sociological and political ultimatum for every individual. World leaders, presidents, politicians, and historians frequently utilize the phrase when referring to their model for a harmonious balance between nations. Conspiracy theorists often refer to it as the ultimate political and sociological endgame for all of mankind proposed by devious world controllers. Ultimately, historians and political scientists have found that the term is frequently used to represent the pinnacle of human civilization and the political structures utilized to reach that point.
In order to understand the term, it is necessary to examine the composition of the United States government as it represents the most effective nation-state since the fall of the Roman Empire. If there is to be a New World Order, the United States must approve of its structure. When scrutinizing this idealistic political reality, one must ask three important questions: Does the United States propose a “New World Order” that upholds the tenets of democracy and individual liberty? Does the proposed social order work in unison with the Constitution of the United States? How does the Office of the President of the United States administer this vision to U.S. citizens and the rest of the world?
To answer these moral questions, it is necessary to first examine the structure of the United States Constitution. The U.S. Constitution has produced the highest level of individual liberty for citizens due to the protection of private property and other important civil liberties. It is important to understand the original intent of the legislative powers of Congress, the power of the executive branch, and most importantly, how treaties are negotiated with foreign countries. Due to the fact the Executive Branch has a strong influence with foreign policy, it is necessary to consider the words of previous U.S. Presidents. Secondly, to examine the current state of world affairs it is necessary to dissect the current relationship of the United States with the United Nations as this lawmaking body represents the closest form of world government we have to date. Multiple governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, and private lending institutions that work under the umbrella of the U.N. have a strong influence within the United States. Finally, after examining the UN-U.S. relationship, it is vital to compare the goals of each with the historical aspirations of securing human rights worldwide.
When reading the Declaration of Independence, it is clear that the framers of the United States government were strongly concerned for the consequences of a large central government. Ultimately, they contended that large government bureaucracies can abuse their power and eventually “lose the consent of the governed,” and when this happens, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” In their minds, the centralization of government was ultimately equivalent to the consolidation of power, which historically leads to the purest form of despotism. Three years later after the Declaration when the Constitution was ratified in 1787, similar dialogue continued to be at the forefront of all political discussion when a Pennsylvanian man spoke in the local paper, referring to the powers granted within the Constitution to the Federal government:
We have so interwoven continental and state legislatures that they cannot exist separately; whereas we in truth only leave them the power of electing us, for what can a provincial legislature do when we possess the exclusive regulation of external and internal commerce, excise, duties, imposts, post-offices and roads…the power to wage war, make peace, coin money… organize the militia and call them forth to execute our decrees, and crush insurrections assisted by a noble body of veterans subject to our nod, which we have the power of raising and keeping even in the time of peace. What have we to fear from state legislatures or even from states, when we are armed with such powers, with a president at our head?
Even after the revolution was over and the U.S. Constitution was ratified, citizens’ distrust with government would continue to thrive as seen in the debate of whether to have a strong federal government versus stronger state governments. Clearly, an inherent distrust of government is intrinsic to the American way.
When the Founding Fathers of the United States convened to forge a new path in human history, it was their objective to transform the New World to create a new social order, one based on the merits of Laissez-faire economics, republican ideology, and democracy. North America offered multiple economic opportunities for the colonists, and through the realized oppression of the British crown, they knew there was a political awakening on the horizon. Undoubtedly, this was due to the fact many of the founding ideologies were products of the Enlightenment. It was during this period that mankind broke through the oppressive feudalist systems of the past and realized its true potential. Philosophers like John Locke proclaimed, “men are naturally in a state of perfect freedom to order their actions.”People were beginning to recognize the benefits of free exchanges of goods and ideas. Phrases like “Don’t tread on me,” and, “No Taxation without Representation,” spread like wildfire prior to America’s revolution with Britain. The spirit of individual liberty and economic freedom was inscribed within the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent Constitution that would follow.
Ultimately, the immediate economic benefits were noticed worldwide after America claimed its independence and the documents that helped spark this growth were recognized as a canon for future governments. For these reasons, the United States was viewed as the political and economic leader of the free world. If there were to be a New World Order, the United States would have to issue approval as its current composition offered the best model.
The political structure of the United States government was compartmentalized due to the inherent fear of unrestricted government. The Constitution stipulates “All legislative powers…shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,” and “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States,” followed by “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court.” These three clauses indicate the most essential functions of each branch of government: only congress can write the laws, the executive branch must adhere to these laws, and the judicial branch must interpret them and determine their constitutionality. Furthermore, as the constitution indicates, all powers prescribed to each branch are listed, and if the power in question is not specifically mentioned, the indicated power is delegated to the people.
It is notable to mention that most political power in the United States rests with the legislature. Congress has the power to regulate most matters under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Under this section, Congress has the power to collect taxes, regulate commerce, and borrow money. Congress may delegate power concerning foreign affairs as well. When referring to the power to negotiate with other countries, the Office of the President holds the initial bargaining chip. The President may make a recommendation to sign a treaty with another foreign entity, but it is Congress, specifically the Senate that must approve the treaty with a two-thirds majority. All foreign ambassadors are also appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
Due to the fact the Executive Branch also holds power over the army and navy, the President tends to have more influence concerning foreign affairs as compared to Congress. Congress definitely holds the final decision-making power concerning war and the approval of treaties. On the other hand, the President may have more influence when considering the impact of public opinion. Furthermore, the President also makes initial recommendations for foreign ambassadors and other agencies that make decisions on an international level. When these facts are held in consideration with the historical significance of the United States’ economic and political superiority, it becomes clear as to why the President is often referred to as the “leader of the free world.”
The role of the United States in the world is often separated into two spheres, one of action and inaction. Some historians and political scientists argue the United States must maintain an active military and diplomatic role with other nations in order to maintain peace and uphold democracy. Others contend we must focus on taking care of our own interests and lead by example through diplomacy in order to promote peace and democracy. This debate is often confusing and belittled with political rhetoric that is subjectively based on the perception of the speaker. Henry Kissinger, a well-known political advisor in the United States during the Nixon and Ford years presents this dual sided debate well when referring to U.S. military intervention:
Like most Americans, we believe that the United States should always support democracy and human rights politically, economically and diplomatically, just as we championed freedom for the captive peoples of the Soviet empire during the Cold War. Our values impel us to alleviate human suffering.
Yet, he continues to state, “We cannot be the world’s policeman.” It is evident that the political atmosphere concerning foreign affairs in the United States can often be confusing and backwards. Political leaders often find themselves stating one thing while doing another, as often times the perception of foreign intervention can be complex. The framers of the Constitution did see this dilemma beforehand, which is why careful attention was paid to how treaties were to be established and how war would be declared.
Prior to World War I, American congressmen and Presidents were mainly focused on building a new nation. In fact, many of the key systems that support the framework of the union were not ordained until the end of the American Civil War. Each President’s words have slowly changed over time in the context of political focus. The concentrations of previous Presidents prior to 1917 ultimately focused on the health of the nation, “according to the rules of the Constitution [to] arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good.” After this time, the words and subsequent actions of United States leaders have slowly changed to represent new political objectives.
After Congress hastily passed the 16th Amendment on February 3rd, 1913, the United States entered a new era of banking and international politics. For the first time, the United States had re-delegated its power to coin money to that of a private central banking system. Simultaneously, Congress would now lay a direct tax on the incomes of all American citizens. President Woodrow Wilson hailed that the Federal Reserve System was a “gift to businessmen,” and it would increase the “field of credit.” In the end, Wilson helped pass an amendment and bill that would loft the credit of the United States to private banks that operated on an international basis. The process of globalization had begun.
Nearly seven years later, Wilson would remind Americans of his true vision for the United States. One could almost infer that the previous American ideologies within “manifest destiny” had now extended past the frontier to the rest of the world:
With that faith and the birth of a nation founded upon it came the hope into the world that a new order would prevail throughout the affairs of mankind, an order in which reason and right would take precedence over covetousness and force; and I believe in our exercise of influence upon the affairs of the world. 
Once again, the paradoxical relationship of action and inaction presents itself within the President’s words. The “exercise of influence” can undeniably be equated to the “exercise of force.” Wilson has essentially argued that force cannot be used, unless it is done on behalf of the United States.
Woodrow Wilson would be one of many Presidents and U.S. diplomats that would utilize the political term “New World Order,” in order to present a progressive plan to improve society. In reality, the term is used as a means to justify a certain end. Although the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was supposed to increase the field of credit like President Wilson claimed, economic hardship would once again plague the citizens of the United States due to economic speculation and fraud. Franklin D. Roosevelt reinvigorated the call for a new world order at the height of the Great Depression in 1933: “Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order: there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments, so that there will be an end to speculation with other people’s money…” Through the workings of Roosevelt’s New Deal, more control was allocated to the government under this premise.
During this period of increased government consolidation of monetary policy, the world was facing multiple military crises as well. World War I and II resulted in the creation of the League of Nations and then the United Nations after that in 1945. Consolidation of government controls and economic controls were working together simultaneously. Additionally, new treaties prescribed within the newly formed United Nations would allow for more input from other countries regarding a nation’s internal and external affairs. Undoubtedly, Congress would tread lightly as national sovereignty is paramount to the tenants of the Constitution.
More recently, former Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush have evoked similar power from the United Nations in order to further their political and military objectives. Prior to the original invasion of Iraq in 1991, George H.W. Bush proclaimed: “Out of these troubled times, our objective—a new world order—can emerge.” Ten years later his son would pull from the same rhetoric: “Through the tears and sadness, I see an opportunity…to make the world a better place for generations to come and to spread goodwill around the world.” It is undeniable that the United States actively engages in foreign military affairs in order to accelerate a specific agenda. The purported objective may be world peace, but the results of each act of aggression have produced nominal results towards this end.
It is not necessary to analyze the words of every President, but it is important to highlight the political transition that has been made over time. Ultimately, the role of the Executive Branch has grown as the role of the United States has grown. After Congress confirmed the United States role with the United Nations in 1945, the United States assumed a stronger leadership position. Consequently, the United Nations and the United States have built a strong relationship based on the premise of avoiding further military transgressions and helping countries that seemingly cannot help themselves.
Since the United Nations’ creation in 1945, the organization has built relationships with thousands of non-governmental organizations (NGO) and international banking conglomerates. Most of these institutions focus on tasks such as world hunger, economic leadership, and military intervention when diplomacy is longer an option. The United Nations is “committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights.” The main financial institutions that help the UN reach their diplomatic goals are the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. At first glance, the UN appears to have strong moral objectives that directly correlate with the notion that human rights must be respected at all times.
The banking institutions that have uplifted the United Nations objectives to the world stage have been candid about their true aspirations for consolidated economic control. David Rockefeller, a once powerful businessman and the founder of the Rockefeller Foundation have had strong financial connections to the UN and other non-governmental organizations that support it. Mr. Rockefeller once proclaimed:
Some believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interest of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
Whether the consolidation and integration of economic power is suitable for a healthy world economy is irrelevant—the important aspect of this dynamic is that the consolidation is occurring at an increased rate. Furthermore, as noted by the Great Depression of the 1920’s and the Great Recession of 2008, economic consolidation has shown to be inefficient and fraudulent.
After the World Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, global participation from NGO’s with the United Nation increased exponentially to approximately 2400 participants. This was mainly due to the fact that scientists and other climate professionals testified to the risk of man-made climate change at this conference. Under the guise of “sustainable development,” the United Nations announced their plan to mitigate climate change, titled “Agenda 21.” To summarize Agenda 21, the United Nations listed their main objectives:
- To promote patterns of consumption and production that reduce environmental stress and will meet the basic needs of humanity.
- To develop a better understanding of the role of consumption and how to bring about more sustainable consumption patterns.
Undeniably, this type of program expands the scope of control for the UN.
The United States has pledged their support to mitigate climate change as well, and the Executive Branch has also followed this course through the use of executive orders. On June 29th, 1993, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12852 which created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. More recently, on June 9th, 2011, Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13575, which has diction that directly reflects the words of Agenda 21. Because this movement has grown on an exponential basis, it has permeated through every level of government. Any government official who questions it will likely be crucified by popular public opinion.
The average citizen would be hard-pressed to not find documents, legislation, or other proposals that directly relate to sustainable development and Agenda 21 within their local governments. Yes, Agenda 21 proposals have avoided the rule of law, through Executive Orders—they have clearly violated the Constitution of the United States. Furthermore, the organizations surrounding Agenda 21 have avoided using Federal means to implement their procedures—-most of these new regulations have been initiated at the local level (city governments) with the help of non-governmental organizations. However, with the plethora of legislation relating to sustainable development that has followed our Constitution through the institution of the Congress, it would be deceitful to claim that the environmentalist agenda has completely ignored our governmental procedures. Agenda 21 is alone in regards to its disrespect of the United States Constitution.
Agenda 21 has dire consequences for countries that honor the concept of individual property rights. The program specifies controls over most areas of human activity, whether it is transportation, food production, or land management. The Wildlands Network, a non-profit organization that works directly with the UN has stipulated that fifty percent of land should be barred from any sort of human interaction. The map below specifies the proposed land management strategy:
When held in comparison with other political ideologies, Karl Marx’s view of communism sums up Agenda 21 best: “…the theory of communists may be summed up in the single sentence: the abolition of private property.” Named the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison once said “as a man is said to have right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.” Through and through, it is evident that the United Nations’ Agenda 21 directly violates the Constitution of the United States and the overall concept of private property.
There are other questionable programs instituted by the United Nations. The UN lists one of their objectives as “disarmament of dangerous ammunition and weapons caches.” Clearly, this provision could directly violate the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right to bear arms for every citizen in the country. The more recent United Nations Small Arms Treaty, which effectively extends this provision to “illegal arms trafficking,” could also raise constitutional questions. The U.S. Senate has already implied that they will not ratify this treaty, something Secretary of State John Kerry has vehemently opposed.
The role of the United States in the world will continue to be debated within the political and historical spectrum. Currently, our military and diplomatic affairs are based upon the pretext of preventing social calamities before they occur. The most recent example of this diplomatic approach is the current “War on Terrorism.” Since the creation of Homeland Security after 9/11, the U.S. federal government has increased its expanding surveillance state with gross violations of the Constitution implemented on behalf of the National Security Agency. Unfortunately, this tactic has not proven to be efficient. Multiple agencies have reported a steady rise in terror attacks since the implementation of President Obama’s controversial drone strike assassination program. These revelations should serve as a stark reminder that global intervention does not solve all of the world’s problems. Undoubtedly, the consolidation of diplomatic and economic institutions that has occurred worldwide will continue to reap consequences that are both unintended and negative towards the goal of world hegemony. One could contend that the world is indeed less safe since this consolidation began.
In summary, it is evident that the New World Order represents multiple meanings across the political spectrum for professionals and citizens alike. The Founding Fathers of the United States saw the historical enigma of large government as a threat to individual liberty and the security of a free state. For these reasons, they envisioned a nation that would compartmentalize government in order to avoid one agency from hijacking power from another. Simultaneously, they delegated power to declare war and pass treaties with foreign nations to the people of the United States. Their vision of the New World Order was based on volunteerism and compromise. Any treaty that delegates sovereign power to a foreign entity should be scrutinized at every level. As history has shown, the U.S. Constitution has proven to be the most suitable confirmation of human rights. The United Nations and other programs within it have proven to be in conflict with the Constitution.
 Wells, H. G. The New World Order. [S.l.]: Filiquarian Pub., 2007. Print. Pg 10.
 United States. The Declaration of Independence. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off. Print.
 The Federalist Papers, “Antifederalist Paper 9 A Consolidated Government is a Tyranny.” Accessed November 11, 2013. http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-9
 John Locke , “Second Treaties of Government,” Classics of Political & Moral Philosophy, ed. Stephen Cahn (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 451.
 United States. The Constitution of the United States of America. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off. Print. Utilized to compare our structure of government to the United Nations.
 Kissinger, Henry. Henry Kissinger, “Grounds for US Military Intervention.” Last modified April 10, 2011. Accessed December 1, 2013. http://www.henryakissinger.com/articles/wp041011.html.
 Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, ed. Thomas J McInerney (New York: Routledge, 2013), 32.
 Woodrow Wilson, The Federal Reserve System Established: A Gift to Businessmen, ed. Thomas J McInerney (New York: Routledge, 2013), 189.
 San Francisco Federal Reserve , “Is the Federal Reserve a privately owned corporation?” Last modified September 2003. Accessed December 1, 2013. http://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2003/september/private-public-corporation.
 Woodrow Wilson, A New World Order. ed. Thomas J McInerney (New York: Routledge, 2013), 198.
 Franklin D Roosevelt, Inaugural Address. ed. Thomas J McInerney (New York: Routledge, 2013), 228.
 Elliott, Michael. “Son of the New World Order.” Time, Oct 09, 2001. http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,178726,00.html (accessed December 1, 2013).
 David Rockefeller , Memoirs, (New York : Random House, 2002), 405.
 Poole, Stephen. “Benefit Corporations: Expansion of the Public-Private Fascist State, Part 4.” Freedom Advocates | Exposing Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development. Freedom Advocates, 17 Aug. 2011. Web. 11 Dec. 2011. <http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/illegitimate_government/benefit_corporations:_expansion_of_the_public-private_fascist_state,_part_4_20110817449/>.
 Agenda 21. Rep. United Nations, 1992. Chapter 4. Web. 11 Dec. 2011.
 United States. President of the United States. The American Presidency Project. By William J. Clinton. University of California Santa Barbara. Web. 11 Dec. 2011. <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=61547>
 Exec. Order No. 13575, 3 C.F.R. (2011). Print.
 Agenda 21. Rep. United Nations, 1992. Web. 11 Dec. 2011.
 Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and E. J. Hobsbawm. “Chapter 1.” The Communist Manifesto: a Modern Edition. London: Verso, 1998. Print.
 Fox News, “Kerry signs UN arms treaty, Senators threaten to Block It..” Last modified September 25, 2013. Accessed December 2, 2013. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/kerry-signs-un-arms-treaty-senators-threaten-to-block-it/.
 Rushe, Dominic. The Guardian, “NSA bulk data collection violates constitutional rights, ACLU argues.” Last modified November 22, 2013. Accessed December 2, 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/22/nsa-bulk-data-collection-constitutional-rights-aclu.
 Burke, Daniel. CNN, “Terrorist Attacks and deaths hit record high.” Last modified October 28, 2013. Accessed December 2, 2013. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/28/terrorist-attacks-and-deaths-hit-record-high-report-shows/.