Why
doesn't America want to be sovereign?
by
Don Hank
There is an urgent need for the US to recover its lost sovereignty,
especially in terms of borders and immigration but also in more subtle ways such
as freeing ourselves from UN Agenda 21 or Common Core in education. Part of our
problem is the distorted idea of what sovereignty really is. Some think national sovereignty is
a possible encroachment on state and personal sovereignty. Some say that
sovereignty was a term avoided by the Founders because they were conditioned to
think it referred to sovereign kings and queens of
Europe.
These
concerns raise the question of what sovereignty really is, and I hope herein to
add a few grains to our understanding.
There
are several levels of sovereignty, which are, from lower to higher, essentially
as follows:
state sovereignty, and
The
founders did not eschew the notion of sovereignty, as some have worried. In
fact, it is central to their founding idea as pointed out here.
Nor
does national sovereignty imply a loss of state sovereignty. The Tenth Amendment
is dedicated to protecting state sovereignty.
When I mentioned sovereignty above, I was referring to national
sovereignty.
National
sovereignty is the concept that the national government is not beholden to any
other outside country or entity and has the full right to decide its path and
destiny.
But
in the case of our political class, it is clear that they are following
leadership that does not come from We the people. Mind you, it does not
necessarily come from the UN or from any particular
country.
But
there are bits and pieces of supranational ,and what could be called 'foreign'
leadership in Washington.
Recent
presidents have all had cabinet members who were members of the Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR) or the Trilateral Commission. According to Carroll Quigley, a liberal professor who taught at Georgetown, wrote in his book "Tragedy and
Hope":
"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American
Branch
of a society which originated in England... (and) believes nationalboundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.
I know of the operations of this network because I have studied itfor twenty years, and was permitted in the early 1960's to examineits papers and secret records.... I believe its role in history issignificant enough to be known."
of a society which originated in England... (and) believes nationalboundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.
I know of the operations of this network because I have studied itfor twenty years, and was permitted in the early 1960's to examineits papers and secret records.... I believe its role in history issignificant enough to be known."
Richard
Haas, as president of the CFR, once wrote that it is time to "rethink" sovereignty. Only a person who does not want countries to be sovereign would
think that way.
Now
you might say, "what's wrong with that? The CFR is not part of our government,
and even if the organization came from England, it is not making the US
subservient to England."
All
very true.
However,
any organization, whether domestic or foreign, that seeks to weaken our national
sovereignty, as Quigley describes above, is intentionally undermining the US as
a sovereign nation, taking it closer to becoming part of a supranational entity,
similar, for example, to the Soviet Union or the EU, whose member states were
barred from making independent decisions (the people of EU nations are starting
to push back against this authoritarian top-down rule ). Yet all presidential cabinets have prominent members from this
clearly subversive
organization. This does not bode well for our national
security or our freedom to shape our own destiny.
There
are two aspects of sovereignty that are being undermined routinely by our
national government, and they are: borders and immigration. Just as no household
can survive for long if the owner leaves the doors wide open 24-7 and hangs a
sign on the door "All welcome to enter any time. Help yourselves to furnishings
and fridge contents," no nation can claim sovereignty if it has no control over
its borders or invites all and sundry to enter and stay, with or without ID and
without any background checks. Spain, under Prime Minister Zapatero, of which
Obama seems to be a reasonable facsimile, kept Spain's borders notoriously wide
open, giving rise to a concept dubbed the "call effect", an unspoken invitation to illegal immigration, a
phenomenon that, in our case has birthed the "children's invasion" from Central
America.
I
did not mean to give short shrift to state sovereignty. State sovereignty has
been unduly undermined, particularly since Lincoln and needs to be restored to
its rightful place. For example, state authorities must annul federal laws that
encroach on their sovereignty, as in the case of the Bundy
ranch.
As for popular sovereignty, it was a concept held in high esteem by our
Founders: Sadly, this concept has been so badly distorted in today's America
that there are groups of people who think they are free to drive cars with no
plates or drivers licenses, citing the Constitution's mention of free travel.
Others insist that the Constitution gives them the right to buy, sell and take
drugs. It also leads some to side with criminals who are shot by police in
self-defense. Many "sovereign citizens" openly defy the law, declaring
themselves sovereign when confronted by law enforcement. They have gotten the
cart before the horse. You don't acquire freedom simply by declaring yourself to
be sovereign. The authorities do not give people special rights based on their
ability to quote the Founders. I have known some who wound up behind bars and
were forced to find a new hobby. This warped concept of "sovereignty" has
detracted from the overall concept of national sovereignty and is one reason why
our national sovereignty has taken a back seat. Many fail to apprehend that no one
is truly free in a nation that is not sovereign. If people can be deluded into
believing that they are each a king or queen, then national sovereignty and
winning back our lost national rights to exist are no longer a relevant issue
for them. But the reality of the situation is that we are losing jobs and
inviting dangerous criminals to our shores in ways that will not be sustainable
for too much longer - in ways that will affect even "sovereign
citizens."
So far no national political party has arisen to make this issue of
national sovereignty a central part of its plaftorm. Both of the main ones are
rushing to open our borders even further, using false mantras and excuses, such
as pretending that building a border fence would lead us to become another
Soviet Union, with its famous Iron Curtain, or suggesting that because Americans
are all descended from foreigners, we should welcome foreigners without
background checks or ID. Yet none of these bleeding heart idealists would think of
requiring other nations to do likewise. Americans across the political spectrum
would say "we must respect the sovereignty of all nations."
What they mean is, all nation except the US.
No comments:
Post a Comment