Difference between revisions of "War on Sovereignty"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Conservative reaction to the War on Sovereignty)
(Reasons for the War on Sovereignty)
Line 19: Line 19:
 
Liberals and globalists understand that if a global government or "community" with many international treaties is created, as is already happening, the government is raised to a level where it is aloof from the people and it cannot be held accountable by them.<ref name="Hayward2016"/> This is because in an international community, the individual member-nations are members of multiple international organizations and are bound by numerous treaties that restrict their sovereignty.<ref name="Groves2010"/><ref name="Hayward2016"/> These international organizations and treaties have the final say on nations' domestic and foreign policies,<ref name="Groves2010"/> and voters in the individual nations cannot choose or enact any policies that go against the requirements of the treaties and organizations.<ref name="Hayward2016"/>
 
Liberals and globalists understand that if a global government or "community" with many international treaties is created, as is already happening, the government is raised to a level where it is aloof from the people and it cannot be held accountable by them.<ref name="Hayward2016"/> This is because in an international community, the individual member-nations are members of multiple international organizations and are bound by numerous treaties that restrict their sovereignty.<ref name="Groves2010"/><ref name="Hayward2016"/> These international organizations and treaties have the final say on nations' domestic and foreign policies,<ref name="Groves2010"/> and voters in the individual nations cannot choose or enact any policies that go against the requirements of the treaties and organizations.<ref name="Hayward2016"/>
  
Liberals, who oppose [[limited government]], also tend to oppose and harshly criticize nationalism and sovereignty.<ref name="Hayward2016"/> If Congress – in the specific case of the United States – chooses to hand over its power to international organizations, the American people will be increasingly unable to control policy through elections.<ref name="Hayward2016"/>
+
Liberals, who oppose [[limited government]], also tend to oppose and harshly criticize nationalism and sovereignty.<ref name="Hayward2016"/> If [[United States Congress|Congress]] – in the specific case of the United States – chooses to hand over its power to international organizations, the American people will be increasingly unable to control policy through elections.<ref name="Hayward2016"/>
  
 
===Admissions of the War on Sovereignty===
 
===Admissions of the War on Sovereignty===

Revision as of 12:24, 11 December 2017

The War on Sovereignty is a term used to describe to the push by liberals and globalists to undermine and eventually do away with national sovereignty, autonomy, and self-governance, replacing it with a "global community" or "consensus" and a one-world government.

Overview

The founding fathers and sovereignty

George Washington, like the other founding fathers, highly valued American sovereignty and autonomy in world affairs

The founding fathers of the United States cared deeply about preserving national sovereignty, as a sovereign U.S. government would serve the American people alone and protect their unalienable rights, and let them govern themselves.[1] In fact, they chose to declare independence because Britain was not respecting their right to self-government.[1] In his farewell address in September 1796, George Washington warned his fellow Americans against becoming entangled in international treaties and alliances, as he knew it would end American sovereignty:

...a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. ...

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.[2][3]

Conservatives and nationalists continue to support national sovereignty and autonomy for the same reasons – because they are the equivalent of limited and accountable government.[4] They note that with national sovereignty, the government is close to the people, who themselves are sovereign, and protects their rights.[4]

Reasons for the War on Sovereignty

The European Union is a regional example of an unaccountable international globalist government

Liberals and globalists understand that if a global government or "community" with many international treaties is created, as is already happening, the government is raised to a level where it is aloof from the people and it cannot be held accountable by them.[4] This is because in an international community, the individual member-nations are members of multiple international organizations and are bound by numerous treaties that restrict their sovereignty.[1][4] These international organizations and treaties have the final say on nations' domestic and foreign policies,[1] and voters in the individual nations cannot choose or enact any policies that go against the requirements of the treaties and organizations.[4]

Liberals, who oppose limited government, also tend to oppose and harshly criticize nationalism and sovereignty.[4] If Congress – in the specific case of the United States – chooses to hand over its power to international organizations, the American people will be increasingly unable to control policy through elections.[4]

Admissions of the War on Sovereignty

Liberals and globalists have publically admitted their push against national sovereignty and for a one-world government. For example, Arnold J. Toynbee, a British historian and researcher, stated in 1931 that "if we are frank with ourselves, we shall admit that we are engaged on a deliberate and sustained and concentrated effort to impose limitations upon the sovereignty and independence of the fifty or sixty local sovereign independent States which at present partition the habitable surface of the earth and divide the political allegiance of mankind."[5] He also stated that "the local national state, invested with the attributes of sovereignty … is an abomination of desolation standing in the place where it ought not," and that he wished to transfer sovereignty to "some institution embodying our society as a whole."[5] Furthermore, he admitted that elites lie about their support for sovereignty in order to do away with it:

I will merely repeat that we are at present working, discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands...[5]

In addition, Denis Healey, a British chancellor of the exchequer speaking about the Bilderberg group meeting he attended, stated in 2001 that "to say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair", and that "we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing."[6][7] The Bilderberg group's website itself states that "in the context of a globalised world, it is hard to think of any issue in either Europe or North America that could be tackled unilaterally."[8][9] Hillary Clinton, who also attended Bilderberg meetings,[10] stated in a 2013 speech in Brazil that "my dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future."[11]

According to Walt Rostow – a U.S. government official who served in several important positions during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations including National Security Advisor – in his 1960 book The United States in the World Arena, it is "an American interest to see an end to nationhood as it has been historically defined."[5] After a trip to Moscow in the USSR that same year, he restated that the ultimate goal of U.S. foreign policy is "the creation of a world order which really can’t stop very short of world law and some form of world government."[5]

Liberal distortions of sovereignty

Besides establishing international treaties and organizations, liberals and globalists advance their one-world agenda by distorting the meaning of national sovereignty, either through false attacks or by changing its definition to make it compatible with their globalist worldview so they can claim to support sovereignty.

False attacks

Many liberals have attempted to delegitimize nationalism and sovereignty, equating it with "racism," "xenophobia," "nativism," and even "fascism."[4] They have also equated it with "imperialism" or "white supremacism."[12] In addition, they have attacked and criticized policies promoting sovereignty, such as low immigration levels, border walls, and putting a nation's own citizens before immigrants – but when they do this, they do so without mentioning sovereignty, instead making emotionalistic or superficial statements like "that’s not who we are," for example, or even deriding those who promote such policies.[4] Not only are such attacks false, as nationalism and sovereignty can be mutually exclusive with racism, fascism, and even nativism sometimes, but the attacks are also hypocritical, as the Left supports fascist planned economy policies and has an intolerance for opposing viewpoints.[4]

Changing definitions

In addition to blatantly attacking nationalism and sovereignty, many liberals and globalists distort the definition of sovereignty to make it compatible with their globalist worldview, allowing them to claim to support sovereignty while continuing to push for global governance in reality. While national sovereignty is something that a country either has or does not have, with no middle ground – according to Professor Jeremy Rabkin of Cornell University, "a sovereign state is one that acknowledges no superior over its own government — or as the Declaration of Independence put it, with proper piety, no superior 'among the powers of the Earth.'"[5] According to conservative John Bolton, American sovereignty's usual definition is "our collective right to govern ourselves within our Constitutional framework."[13] However, many liberals and globalists have created their own definition of "sovereignty" that resembles a "middle ground" approach that in reality allows for globalism.[5]

An example of this fake "sovereignty" is the Bush Administration's plans for Iraq when planning for the nation's future after the Iraq War. Not only did the Bush Administration support handing the country over to the UN, but it effectively admitted that Iraq would not be a truly sovereign nation while verbally stating otherwise.[5] According to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2004: "They will be sovereign, but I think as a result of agreements, as a result of ... [UN] resolutions that are passed, there will be some constraints on the power of this sovereignty."[5] While stating that Iraq would be "sovereign," they effectively admitted that their newspeak definition of "sovereignty" was synonymous with one-world globalism.[5]

Another example of the fake definition of "sovereignty" comes from Stewart Patrick of the "International Institutions and Global Governance Program" in his 2017 book The Sovereignty Wars. The thesis of his book, according to the globalist Council on Foreign Relations website is that "the United States can protect its sovereignty while advancing American interests in a global age."[14] In reality, Stewart promotes a globalist worldview where nations must make "sovereignty bargains", twists the definition of sovereignty to mean more than autonomy and independence, and attacks the Trump Administration for actually taking steps to preserve national sovereignty such as by announcing its exit from the Paris climate agreement.[14] In a 2017 op-ed, he made the same globalist arguments, stating that "sovereignty" also demands "fundamental responsibilities", and he used policies pursued by George W. Bush and Barack Obama – both globalist presidents who both lived in the early 21 century when globalism was the main international ideology – as examples to prove his point.[15]

At the beginning of the Obama Administration, one notable policy proposal representing the views of liberals and globalists was titled A Plan for Action: A New Era of International Cooperation for a Changed World: 2009, 2010, and Beyond.[13] The plan promoted what it called "responsible sovereignty," and, among other statements, stated that "Global leaders increasingly recognize that alone they are unable to protect their interests and their citizens–national security has become interdependent with global security," and that the U.S. must, therefore, submit itself to "a rule-based international system that rejects unilateralism and looks beyond military might."[13] In other words, this plan, while claiming to support "sovereignty," in actuality promotes EU-style globalism and "global governance" that would do away with real national sovereignty.[13]

A likely reason why liberals and globalists have adopted a new definition of "sovereignty" is because of the growth of nationalism and anti-internationalism in the world among the public.[5] Needing to satisfy those who wish to preserve the self-governance and independence of the founding fathers, and having contempt for such people, globalists claim they support sovereignty – something which will help assure their maintaining of power so they can continue to undermine national sovereignty.[5]

Examples of the War on Sovereignty

Middle Eastern migrants traveling through Slovenia in 2015 with the assistance of the police and armed forces, a result of the EU's open borders policies.
See also: One-world government#Developments towards a one world government

Numerous other examples of the War on Sovereignty exist.[22]

Organizations opposed to sovereignty

George Soros, who wrote in 1998 that "the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions"[23] and in 2009 that "sovereignty is an anachronistic concept originating in bygone times,"[24] funds several organizations that promote mass migration and undermine – and eventually seek to completely do away with – sovereignty and national borders, including the Columbia Global Policy Initiative, Global Policy Institute, International Migration Institute, and the Open Society Foundations.[23][25] Other organizations also oppose and seek to undermine national sovereignty:

Conservative reaction to the War on Sovereignty

While many people who claim to be "conservative" also support globalism, open borders, and the War on Sovereignty, many consistent conservatives have also fought back against it. The election of Donald Trump as U.S. President in 2016 was a reaction against the War on Sovereignty, as seen by Trump's positions and actions as president, and it served as a setback to globalists[22] (see also: Donald Trump and nationalism). Some organizations, such as the John Birch Society, have also fought against the War on Sovereignty.

In Europe, Euroskepticism serves as the main source of opposition to the War on Sovereignty, and Euroskeptics have been boosted by incidents such as the Eurozone Crisis and the European migrant crisis. Notable victories in Europe by Euroskeptics include the 2016 Brexit vote and the establishment of nationalist governments over Poland and Hungary.

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Groves, Steven (December 3, 2010). Why Does Sovereignty Matter to America? The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved November 27, 2017.
  2. Washington's Farewell Address 1796. The Avalon Project -- Yale Law School. Retrieved November 27, 2017.
  3. Washington's Farewell Address. Government Publishing Office. Retrieved November 27, 2017.
  4. 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 Hayward, John (June 17, 2016). Progressives’ Hatred of Nationalism Pushes US Towards the End of Sovereignty. Breitbart News. Retrieved November 27, 2017.
  5. 5.00 5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04 5.05 5.06 5.07 5.08 5.09 5.10 5.11 Jasper, William F. (May 17, 2004). The War on Sovereignty. The New American. Retrieved November 27, 2017.
  6. 6.0 6.1 Newman, Alex (June 4, 2014). Bilderberg: Where Big Business and Big Government Plot Globalism. The New American. Retrieved November 26, 2017.
  7. Sanburn, Josh (June 9, 2016). What to Know About the Bilderberg Group's Secret Annual Meeting. TIME. Retrieved November 26, 2017.
  8. 8.0 8.1 Newman, Alex (June 2, 2017). Top Trump Officials Attend Globalist Bilderberg Summit. Why? The New American. Retrieved November 26, 2017.
  9. Background -- BRIEF HISTORY. Bilderberg Meetings. Retrieved November 26, 2017.
  10. FOIA 2008-0637-F - Bilderberg Conferences. Clinton Digital Library. Retrieved November 29, 2017.
    See also:
  11. Multiple references:
  12. Perlman, Merrill (September 25, 2017). A war of words over sovereignty. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved November 27, 2017.
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 Bolton, John R. (February 2, 2009). The Coming War on Sovereignty. American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved November 27, 2017.
  14. 14.0 14.1 The Sovereignty Wars. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved November 27, 2017.
  15. Patrick, Stewart (September 23, 2017). Trump's Sovereignty Doctrine. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved December 3, 2017.
  16. Newman, Alex (August 20, 2013). The EU: Regionalization Trumps Sovereignty. The New American. Retrieved November 28, 2017.
  17. Scaliger, Charles (November 28, 2017). NAFTA's Realignment of Political Power. The New American. Retrieved November 28, 2017.
  18. Newman, Alex (March 22, 2016). Refugee Crisis: Using Chaos to Build Power. The New American. Retrieved December 11, 2017.
  19. Hale, Virginia (November 28, 2017). EU President: Without Millions of African Migrants, Europe Will Be Lost. Breitbart News. Retrieved November 28, 2017.
  20. Binder, John (November 28, 2017). 21 Times Exiting Rep. Luis Gutierrez Touted Open-Borders. Breitbart News. Retrieved November 28, 2017.
  21. Hahn, Julia (October 17, 2015). Paul Ryan’s Open Borders Push With Luis Gutierrez Exposed in 2013 Video. Breitbart News. Retrieved November 28, 2017.
  22. 22.0 22.1 Jalsevac, Steve (February 6, 2017). The surprising real reason for the hate against Donald Trump. LifeSiteNews. Retrieved December 11, 2017.
  23. 23.0 23.1 Scarborough, Rowan (October 20, 2016). Hillary Clinton embraces George Soros’ ‘radical’ vision of open-border world. The Washington Times. Retrieved December 11, 2017.
  24. Soros, George (October 28, 2009). The People’s Sovereignty. Foreign Policy. Retrieved December 11, 2017.
  25. Multiple references: See also:
  26. Perloff, James (July 23, 2009). Council On Foreign Relations. The New American. Retrieved November 27, 2017.
  27. Newman, Alex (February 25, 2017). Some of Trump's Picks Have Troubling Links to Globalism, CFR. The New American. Retrieved November 27, 2017.