Tag Archives: national sovereignty

Are Americans Ready?

It should be quite obvious to clear minded people who are paying attention that the left-wing agenda is single-party “progressive” rule in perpetuity.  Economic viability, domestic security, national sovereignty, individual Liberties and adherence to Constitutional principles are all secondary to this ultimate goal.

Americans are people who will fight to preserve, protect and defend the United States of America envisioned by its Founding Fathers.  Emerging from the Tea Party are Patriotic Americans ready to lead a return to American principles and values.

The political establishment ignores these new leaders at their own peril.

From 2000 to 2006, a Republican legislative majority and a Republican president abandoned traditional American values and practiced spending habits that were indistinguishable from those of “progressive” Democrats. They did not demonstrate the fiscal responsibility and discipline that had traditionally distinguished Conservative Republicans from “progressive” Democrats. As a result, the size and scope of government, “entitlement” programs, debt and deficits all grew by unacceptable amounts.  This opened the door for the “progressive” Democratic Party to seize power by running a political campaign based on lies about how they would practice fiscal responsibility and financial discipline.  After seizing unobstructed power, “progressive” Democrats, including the current White House occupier, set about adding $5 trillion to America’s national debt in less than four years.

This is not the path to economic growth and stability.  No nation can borrow and spend its way to prosperity.  After having been so betrayed by both political Parties, Americans are now awake to this stark reality.

This lack of anchorage to American values, this blindness to the true purpose of America’s mission has produced baleful results.

That time over.

The way for Americans to separate themselves from the tax and spend policies of “progressive” big government is a return to fiscal responsibility and financial discipline.  In order to succeed, Americans must be united in that endeavor.

A winning coalition will include both economically and socially Conservative Americans. Neither agenda can be successfully pursued without the other; they fit hand in glove.  This is because the government’s power is derived from the consent of the governed, whose rights are God given.

The Tea Party proves that across America, a huge natural constituency exists for the bread-and-butter American issues of lower taxes, reduced government, a strong national defense, secure borders and a return to the traditional American values of: E Pluribus Unum, Liberty and in God we trust.

E Pluribus Unum means from many, one. It does not mean unquestioning acquiescence to multiculturalism and diversity.  Liberty means opportunity for all, not equality of results.  In God we trust means reliance upon the Creator of all things.  It does not mean passive acceptance of secularism, atheism or submissive surrender to “progressive” statist mandates.

The time has come.  Whether they asked for it or not, this is the time for all Americans to stand up and defend their country.

There can be no substitute for Liberty. The Constitution was designed to defend that Liberty. It is imperative that the shredding of this document by big government “progressives” be stopped. It is inherent upon Patriotic Americans to stand up and remind “progressives” that government’s power is derived from the consent of the people.

Disillusioned middle of the road swing voters disappointed by the “progressive” government’s failure to successfully respond to the economic crisis and college graduates who voted for hope and change who are now dissatisfied by the prospect of not finding a job are ready for viable solutions to an economic catastrophe brought about by “progressive” big government spending.

Americans must set aside whatever differences they have and unite behind the goal they share: Economic prosperity.

Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, even those not yet registered must join in the fight to defend the Constitution, revive the private sector free market economy and protect the American way of life.

America, stand up for your God given rights! Let no mortal take them from you.

The question remains: Are Americans ready to put aside their egos and personal agendas in order to secure the Blessings of Liberty for themselves and their posterity?

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/are-americans-ready/

Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty

The International Conference on Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty, sponsored by American Freedom Alliance, concluded Monday in Los Angeles CA.

The chief question posed at the Conference’s opening: Is Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty the West’s next ideological war?

John Bolton, Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN gave Sunday morning’s Keynote Speech. Ambassador Bolton spoke from first hand experience, sharing front line knowledge accumulated through years of engagement in international diplomacy. He not only gave definition to the term “the Global Governance Movement”, he also described its agenda, which is to subvert national sovereignty in favor of a supranational authority through the invention and initiation of international laws and norms.

After his speech, Ambassador Bolton welcomed Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for American Common Culture at the Hudson Institution, John Yoo, Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkley, Steven Groves, the Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at the Heritage Institute’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, and Michael Shaw, guiding attorney for Freedom Advocates.org to the stage. The five elaborated intelligently on the consequences of increasing subservience by sovereign nations to the ideology of Global Governance. Both the political makeup and the ideological activism of the UN were indicted.

Following morning breakout sessions focused on:

  • Non-governmental organizations as purveyors of Global Governance
  • The Green Movement, Agenda 21, Global Warming alarmism and Global Governance
  • Who will control the Internet and who will control the seas

The afternoon was kicked off by a Keynote Speech by President Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. President Klaus spoke directly of the prospects of Global Governance and its European variant, the European Union. Drawing upon his experience as a leader of a former Soviet bloc country, President Klaus warned against the threat of independent sovereign states surrendering control to an un-elected, unaccountable extra-national governing body in a distant capitol.

Larry Greenfield, National Executive Director of the Jewish Institution for National Security Affairs, invited Robert O’Brien, Managing Partner of the Los Angeles office of Arent Fox LLP, Donald Kochan, Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Elan Journo, a fellow in foreign policy at the Ayn Rand Institute into a discussion about the politicization of international law and its impact on national sovereignty. Global and international law were identified as both threats to and the means by which national sovereignty is undermined.

Subsequent to afternoon breakout sessions focusing on:

  • The demonization/diminishment of the United States and Israel as a chief Global Governance strategy
  • Law-fare, international humanitarian law and their role in undermining sovereignty
  • The role of Islam in fostering and encouraging Global Governance

The Honorable John Howard, Australia’s 25th Prime Minister gave the day’s concluding Keynote Speech. The former Prime Minister discussed the concept of the nation state and why it still matters to countries that enjoy governance by popularly elected representative governments.

Sunday’s last panel, featuring President Klaus, Nonie Darwish, founder of Arabs for Israel, John Yoo and John Fonte discussed whether or not liberal democracies have the strength and will to defend their national sovereignty. The endurance of strong constitutions and distinct cultural identities were viewed as key elements in an ongoing uphill struggle by sovereign nation-states against the intrusions of Global Governance. Panelists considered these elements necessary to fending off the introduction and implementation of transnational ambitions by proponents of Global Governance.

The Conference reconvened Monday morning with a spirited discussion concerned with using the political process and judicial system to thwart and defeat Global Governance activism. A distinctly academic intellectual discussion about whether Constitutional Law was robust enough to prevent the political branches of government from violating the Constitution through treaties whose provisions conflict with constitutional guarantees was initiated by Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA School of Law. Professor Volokh gave an extensive portrayal of why the introduction of Sharia Law into the American judicial system is not threatening U.S. Constitutional rule of law. His observations were challenged by Larry Greenfield, Steven Groves and by John Yoo. Professor Volokh’s defense of his position was based primarily on viewing individual situations and circumstances as singular, isolated potential constitutional violations easily rationalized away by equating Islam’s ambitions to those of other, more benign religious institutions found in America. This approach was resounding rejected by Stephen Coughlin, a fellow of the American Freedom Alliance, who successfully portrayed the fallacy of ignoring the global dominance agenda openly preached and taught by proponents of Islamic global dominance under Sharia Law. Mr. Coughlin’s remarks received applause from Conference attendees.

After an address by Professor Mike Farris of Patrick Henry University on how Global Governance threatens the nuclear family through international laws and treaties, the Conference concluded with a reading of and discussion about the Conference Declaration.

The Declaration of Los Angeles: Sovereignty, Democracy and Individual Rights are Indivisible.

We, the undersigned, do hereby append our signatures to the statement below and declare:

THAT national sovereignty, constitutional democracy and the protection of individual rights are indivisible.

THAT constitutional democratic representative government is the most successful political system ever devised by the human mind.

THAT democratic self-government has only existed—and can only exist—within the sovereign liberal democratic nation state in which the people rule themselves.

THAT the principles of liberty, national independence and democratic self-government as articulated in Britain’s establishment of parliamentary democracy, the founding of the American republic, the establishment of the state of Israel, the achievement of dominion status in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the traditional national sovereignty of European democracies, and the continuing growth of liberal democracy in Asia, Latin America and Africa, are superior to any forms of global governance.

THAT the assertion of constitutional government’s obsolescence and decline is utterly false.

THAT while international cooperation should be encouraged and international treaties respected, no supranational authority which claims jurisdiction over liberal democratic states without the consent of the governed should be accepted.

THAT non-governmental organizations which purport to represent an international constituency do not have the legal or political authority to speak for the citizens of liberal democratic nation states, only democratically elected representatives have such legitimate democratic authority.

THAT the constitutions of our respective nations remain the supreme and inalienable law of our lands and if ever a conflict arises between our respective constitutions and any form of supranational authority (such as interpretations of international law, rulings of the United Nations, judgements of international courts, etc.), our Constitutions and constitutional principles will always prevail.

THAT we call on leaders of democratic nation states to reject the demands of transnational advocates to subsume domestic law to international law and stand together with us in upholding the principles of national sovereignty while rejecting the claims and arguments of global governance advocates.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/global-governance-vs-national-sovereignty/

Bad News for Globalists

European business activity fell in May, nearing a 35-month low, according to a survey by Markit. Its survey, based on European manufacturing and service sectors, fell to 45.9. The euro fell to a 22-month low against the dollar in response. Disagreement at Wednesday’s summit between European leaders about how to solve the dilemma did nothing to boost confidence.

Chris Williamson, chief economist for Markit, said research indicated the downturn had “gathered further momentum in May. The survey is broadly consistent with gross domestic product falling by at least 0.5% across the region in the second quarter, as an increasingly steep downturn in the periphery infects both France and Germany,”

Economic reports show that concerns over Greece are having a broader economic impact than originally expected. “It clearly indicates that the evaporating sentiment that we have seen in recent weeks, as the Greece crisis has intensified, is having a big impact on the economy” said Peter Dixon from Commerzbank.

Socialist President Hollande wants France to increase spending; a plan Chancellor Angela Merkel says Germany will oppose until there is more budget discipline across Europe.

Facing the reality that sovereign nations will retain and defend their own national views, interests and sovereignty is bad news for Globalists. New World Order proponents saw Establishment of the European Union and eurozone as an important step in the march towards their grand vision of One World Government.

Theorists within the “progressive” movement have envisioned such an eventuality since the early Twentieth Century. Woodrow Wilson, after winning re-election in 1916 on the campaign slogan: “He Kept Us Out Of War”, entered WWI in order to involve the United States in world affairs, thereby creating justification for his desire to establish the League of Nations.

While in Paris after the war, Wilson engaged in creation of the League of Nations while also helping shape the Treaty of Versailles. The Versailles Treaty resulted in economic devastation within Germany, leading to the rise of Adolph Hitler’s Nazi Germany. In 1919, Wilson and a Republican controlled Senate fought over giving the League of Nations power to force the U.S. into a war, a clear violation of Article One, Section Eight, Clause Ten of the United States Constitution, which assigns Power to declare War to the U.S. Congress. To the credit of Republicans in the Senate, they stood for U.S. sovereignty, rejecting the Treaty of Versailles, and voting against U.S. entry into the League of Nations.

Although the League of Nations proved completely impotent in the prevention of WWII, that didn’t deter “progressive” Globalists from forming the United Nations. The original aim of the UN was to keep peace throughout the world, develop friendly relations between nations, to help eliminate poverty, disease and illiteracy, stop environmental destruction and encourage respect for rights and freedoms. These aims were based on, among other principles, that all member states would have sovereign equality and that the UN was not to interfere in the domestic affairs of any country.

Pending before the United States Senate today are threats to U.S. national sovereignty:

The Convention on Biological Diversity, the Law of the Sea treaty, the International Labor Organization Convention No. 111, the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and other Related Materials, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

Additionally, there’s Agenda 21, which dictates action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally in every area where humans directly affect the environment. If the Agenda 21 agenda doesn’t clearly describe the UN interfering in America’s domestic affairs, what would? The Law of the Sea treaty, if ratified, would grant the UN mineral rights within U.S. territorial waters. If that’s not a violation of national sovereignty, what is? Were the firearms treaty to be ratified, the UN would then have control over arms within the United States, an open violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It’s time for Americans to stand up for national sovereignty and kiss the UN, Globalists and One World Government “progressives” goodbye. The best way to accomplish this is to do what Americans did in 1920 after Woodrow Wilson’s early attempt to violation American sovereignty. Elect Republicans in a landslide.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/bad-news-for-globalists/