Sunday, March 15, 2009

The coming loss of American sovereignty

Most Americans don’t realize it but as Jon Bolton has pointed out the United States is in a war on sovereignty. Add this war to the still unfinished war on poverty and the war on terrorism (now disclaimed by President Obama) and we have the makings of the destruction of our constitutional form of government. The new war on sovereignty started slowly but will be accelerated in the next four years and from all appearances may be a war our country will lose unless the public realizes Obama in just a socialist idealist and not a messiah but one who has been under the tutelage of socialist and communist mentors.

In the first less than 100 days of his presidency, Obama has not focused on one, or even a few, items from his socialist agenda but has embarked on wholesale programs under a smokescreen of a “financial crisis” designed to change our society and respected traditional institutions and policies; presented virtually all at the same time. Some sleeping pundits have criticized Obama for “doing too much at one time” but the reality is that he knows he must do all this quickly before Americans wake up to what he is doing and strike while the iron is hot and kept heated by Democrat majorities in the House and senate.

For those who care to keep up of with Obama machinations, there is a short report with an ominous plan for action modestly entitled “A Plan of Action” and with a revealingly immodest subtitle: “A New Era of International Cooperation for a Changed World: 2009, 2010, and Beyond.”

Cleverly, “A Plan for Action” at first seems to be merely a foreign-policy paper but the text is written by three liberal academics—Bruce Jones of NYU, Carlos Pascual of the Brookings Institution, and Stephen John Stedman of Stanford. Its findings and recommendations, they claim, rose from a series of meetings with foreign-policy eminences here and abroad, including the alleged by participation of former Secretaries of State of both parties as well as defense officials from the Clinton and first Bush administrations. This is supposed to give the Plan its bona fides - though the document does not actually reflect the ideas of these officials but is in fact the new mainstay of the liberal vision of the future of American foreign policy. The Plan has become a blueprint for the Obama administration’s effort to construct domestic and foreign policies that take a radical departure from the principles and practices of our constitution-based and self governing Republic form of government that has been at the core of our country since the nation’s founding; in reality it is a devious plan to first chip away and then destroy American sovereignty.

Domestic supporters of the “Plan” have come to the conclusion that “…national security has become interdependent with global security” and they urge “responsible sovereignty” which they define as “the notion that sovereignty entails obligations and duties toward other states as well as to one’s own citizens.” To believers, the Plan should be the basis for a “cooperative international order.” The phrase “responsible sovereignty” is remarkable because in reality it is “irresponsible non sovereignty” and a dramatic change of sovereignty itself.

These Domestic and “Global leaders” assert that alone countries, [the United States included] are unable to protect their interests and their citizens. The United States must therefore commit to “a rule-based international system that rejects unilateralism and looks beyond military might,” or else “resign [our]selves to an ad-hoc international system.” Mere “traditional sovereignty” is insufficient in the new era we have entered, an era in which we must contend with “the realities of a now transnational world.” But clearly this “rule-based international system” will create the conditions for “global governance.”

To advocates of a global government the transition to this new system must begin immediately because of the terrible damage done by the Bush administration as he, in their view, disdained diplomacy, and preferred the use of force, regime change, preemptive attacks, and general independence from different views of other countries in the conduct of foreign affairs. In contrast, the Plan “rejects unilateralism and looks beyond military might”; hence Obama’s avowed intention to meet with our enemies “without precondition.” Obama believes this approach will lead to the successful resolution of all disputes and bring a period of worldwide comity where everyone puts away their slings and arrows and sings cum by yah – but what would one expect from an incompetent leader who has risen well beyond his ability and was mentored by some of the best socialists and communists.

While the term “sovereignty” has acquired many, often inconsistent, definitions, Americans have historically understood it to mean our collective right to govern ourselves within our Constitutional framework. Americans generally don’t believe their government’s actions have to be approved by other governments. But globalists disagree with this long-held American conviction and this is their motivating factor behind "A Plan for Action" which represents an attempt to change this set of American beliefs in the modern world.

To this end, authors of the Plan advocate what they call “responsible sovereignty.” They define it as “the notion that sovereignty entails obligations and duties toward other states as well as to one’s own citizens,” and they believe that its application can form the basis for a “cooperative international order.” At first glance, the phrase “responsible sovereignty” may seem plausible but despite the Plan’s mainstream terminology, its conception is a dramatic change of sovereignty itself.

“Global leaders,” the Plan supporters insists, “increasingly recognizes that countries alone are unable to protect their interests and their citizens—national security has become interdependent with global security.” The United States must therefore commit to “a rule-based international system that rejects unilateralism and looks beyond military might,” or else “resign [our]selves to an ad-hoc international system.” Mere “traditional sovereignty” is insufficient in the new era we have entered, an era in which we must contend with “the realities of a now transnational world.” However, this “rule-based international system” will create the conditions for “global governance” and destroy our treasured sovereignty.

The Plan suggests that the transition to this new system must begin immediately because of the terrible damage done by the Bush administration. As Jon Bolton has said: “In the Plan’s narrative, Bush disdained diplomacy, uniformly preferring the use of force, regime change, preemptive attacks, and general swagger in its conduct of foreign affairs. The Plan, by contrast, “rejects unilateralism and looks beyond military might.” In the view of the Plan’s supporters its implementation will lead to the successful resolution of all disputes dispute and usher in a new and unprecedented period of worldwide comity as we join together to sing cum by ah.

Of course the problem is that fundamental differences are resistant to diplomatic efforts, like resolution of the Israel-Arab conflict because of Arab vow to destroy the Jewish state. If diplomacy does not and cannot work, continual reliance on this approach merely serves to provide Israel’s enemies with time to improve their military might as they prepare for their version of “the final solution.” In the case of Muslims acting on the dictates of the Koran, the time gained by a diplomatic process obscures their objectives, enables them to conduct their successful public relations campaign, build alliances, prepare for future wars and complete their efforts to build weapons of mass destruction and the ballistic missiles to carry them. Failure to recognize the inevitable has dire consequences for the safety of the United States and the survival of Israel.

The unvarnished truth of history is that there is no peace until one side wins and one side loses; we must not forget that – you can’t make peace with anyone whose goal is to destroy you.

1 comment:

Josh said...

'If diplomacy does not and cannot work, continual reliance on this approach merely serves to provide Israel’s enemies with time to improve their military might as they prepare for their version of “the final solution.”'

The final solution? I find you article narrow-minded and bent by a partisan resentment that has resulted in you making giant illogical leaps. I would ask of you what evidence have you based these conclusions on?

How can a global government, acting as a mediator, inflame a situation. If there was global pressure if would be more effective than anyone states approach.

'In the case of Muslims acting on the dictates of the Koran, the time gained by a diplomatic process obscures their objectives, enables them to conduct their successful public relations campaign, build alliances, prepare for future wars and complete their efforts to build weapons of mass destruction and the ballistic missiles to carry them.'

Are you implying here that any attempt to negotiate and reslove conflict is a waste of time? You seem to view the 'Muslims' you speak of as irrational people who's only aim in life is to lose it in a war against the 'west.' It seems to me that you have fallen pray to the propaganda, and through you mass generalizations you have left your argument flawed and unpersuasive.

'Failure to recognize the inevitable has dire consequences for the safety of the United States and the survival of Israel.' Inevitable? Forgive me for questioning your authority in predicting the events of the future. But to those of us without the power of clairvoyantcy the future is unknowable. We live in a fluid and changing world my friend, and any conclusions otherwise are misguided and false.

'The unvarnished truth of history is that there is no peace until one side wins and one side loses; we must not forget that – you can’t make peace with anyone whose goal is to destroy you.' There is another unvarnished truth of history that you have forgotten sir. This is the fact of historical progression of the human race, from Plato to Rousseau, we have been striving to better ourselves and our surroundings. Also, who are these people who's only goal are to destroy you? As there is no description of this party, I would have thought that would have been important for you to enlighten your readers to these murky threats that hide in the shadows. As without definition they are no more real than 'a spaghetti monster in the sky.'