Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, Check users, delete, edit, move, oversight, protect, rollback, Administrators
51,035
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 33:
Line 33: − + + +
→Changing definitions: Add.
===Changing definitions===
===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.'"<ref name="Jasper2004"/> However, many liberals and globalists have created their own definition of "sovereignty" that resembles a "middle ground" approach that in reality allows for globalism.<ref name="Jasper2004"/>
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.'"<ref name="Jasper2004"/> According to [[conservative]] [[John Bolton]], American sovereignty's usual definition is "our collective right to govern ourselves within our Constitutional framework."<ref name="Bolton2009">Bolton, John R. (February 2, 2009). [https://www.aei.org/publication/the-coming-war-on-sovereignty/ The Coming War on Sovereignty]. ''American Enterprise Institute''. Retrieved November 27, 2017.</ref> However, many liberals and globalists have created their own definition of "sovereignty" that resembles a "middle ground" approach that in reality allows for globalism.<ref name="Jasper2004"/>
An example of this fake "sovereignty" is the [[George W. Bush|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.<ref name="Jasper2004"/> 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."<ref name="Jasper2004"/> While stating that Iraq would be "sovereign," they effectively admitted that their [[newspeak]] definition of "sovereignty" was synonymous with one-world globalism.<ref name="Jasper2004"/>
An example of this fake "sovereignty" is the [[George W. Bush|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.<ref name="Jasper2004"/> 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."<ref name="Jasper2004"/> While stating that Iraq would be "sovereign," they effectively admitted that their [[newspeak]] definition of "sovereignty" was synonymous with one-world globalism.<ref name="Jasper2004"/>
Another example of the fake definition of "sovereignty" comes from Stewart Patrick of the "International Institutions and Global Governance Program" in his 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."<ref name="CFRSovereigntyWars">[https://www.cfr.org/book/sovereignty-wars The Sovereignty Wars]. ''Council on Foreign Relations''. Retrieved November 27, 2017.</ref> 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]].<ref name="CFRSovereigntyWars"/>
Another example of the fake definition of "sovereignty" comes from Stewart Patrick of the "International Institutions and Global Governance Program" in his 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."<ref name="CFRSovereigntyWars">[https://www.cfr.org/book/sovereignty-wars The Sovereignty Wars]. ''Council on Foreign Relations''. Retrieved November 27, 2017.</ref> 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]].<ref name="CFRSovereigntyWars"/>
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''.<ref name="Bolton2009"/> 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."<ref name="Bolton2009"/> 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.<ref name="Bolton2009"/>
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.<ref name="Jasper2004"/> 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.<ref name="Jasper2004"/>
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.<ref name="Jasper2004"/> 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.<ref name="Jasper2004"/>