Sovereignty Is Where The Rubber Meets The Road

[Flanders]

You can find a mountain of reaction to President Trump’s announcement on television and on social media.

​

I want to focus on a constitutional issue —— SOVEREIGNTY —— with excerpts from a fabulous piece by E. Jeffrey Ludwig:

The economic facts would have been enough to justify our withdrawal from the Agreement. Nevertheless, the defining moment was when Trump said (my italics):​

My emphasis throughout is in color:

There are serious legal and constitutional issues as well. Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia, and across the world, should not have more to say with respect to the U.S. economy than our own citizens and their elected representatives, thus, our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America's sovereignty. Our constitution is unique among all nations of the world. And it is my highest obligation and greatest honor to protect it. And I will[.] ... It would once have been unthinkable that an international agreement could prevent the United States from conducting its own domestic economic affairs, but this is the new reality we face if we do not leave the agreement or if we do not negotiate a far better deal."​

In saying these words, President Trump announced to the world that we are departing from the trajectory of the U.S. toward globalization. "America First" in the good sense, not in a hyper-nationalist or chauvinist sense, is being affirmed and embraced. The key to a sincere nationalism, one that represents the highest ideals that were the original impulse of our republic, is holding fast to our national sovereignty. ​

In truth, not in my lifetime:

Sovereignty has not been discussed in the public square for a long time. ​

At long last Woodrow Wilson is being challenged in the name of sovereignty:

The first major attempt to turn away from the nation-state concept toward a globalist vision was Woodrow Wilson's brainchild, the League of Nations. The League of Nations was rejected by the U.S. Senate based on objections raised by Republican senators Henry Cabot Lodge and William Borah. Both repudiated the treaty because of its inclusion of a League of Nations, which would jeopardize – you guessed it – U.S. sovereignty. ​

Parenthetically, sovereignty was never included in the reason for fighting a total victory war during or after WWII while Wilson’s PEACE WITHOUT VICTORY was always lurking in the shadows:

Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill returned to a Wilsonian vision during the war as they drafted plans for a United Nations. ​

Rejecting the Paris Climate Accord is akin to the first paragraph in a mystery novel. Withdrawing from the United Nations is the novel’s final sentence:

Trump is thus speaking against not merely membership in the Paris Agreement. By speaking of our sovereignty, he is throwing down the gauntlet to our entire strategy of world relations during the post-WWII period. His reference to sovereignty suggests to this writer that he is forthrightly bucking an 82-year trend toward multilateralism, an 82-year trend of diluting American sovereignty. He is saying no to a furtherance of the many financial and legal compromises made when entering into to such extensive networks. With great clarity, he closed his announcement by saying, "In other words, the Paris framework is just a starting point. As bad as it is. Not an end point."

Seeing that our continued membership would be the beginning of a further phase towards global governance, the president decided boldly to say "no." We can conclude that his "no" is likewise to be seen as a first step – a game-changing, powerful, proactive step – toward regaining our precious sovereignty.​

June 2, 2017
Trump Steps on the Paris Agreement, Stands for Sovereignty
By E. Jeffrey Ludwig

Articles: Trump Steps on the Paris Agreement, Stands for Sovereignty​

Finally, if you are puzzled by Democrat reaction to President Trump’s frontal assault on their beloved environmental movement, you just wait until you see what they will say and do when withdrawing from the United Nations gets off the ground. Repealing the XVI Amendment is the only thing the parasite class fears more than passing this:

Text - H.R.193 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017

 

[anotherlife]

If America and Russia took away Germany's sovereignty in ww2, then why is it a problem to give up US sovereignty too? (Or Russian sovereignty.)

 

[Flanders]

If America and Russia took away Germany's sovereignty in ww2, then why is it a problem to give up US sovereignty too? (Or Russian sovereignty.)

To anotherlife: There is no problem when aggressive totalitarian governments forfeit their nation’s sovereignty in a losing war. Under no circumstance should Americans surrender their sovereignty to any nation, never mind handing it to Europe, or to the United Nations populated by a shit load of totalitarian governments.

 

[anotherlife]

If America and Russia took away Germany's sovereignty in ww2, then why is it a problem to give up US sovereignty too? (Or Russian sovereignty.)

To anotherlife: There is no problem when aggressive totalitarian governments forfeit their nation’s sovereignty in a losing war. Under no circumstance should Americans surrender their sovereignty to any nation, never mind handing it to Europe, or to the United Nations populated by a shit load of totalitarian governments.

Totalitarian being a problem? Having never anything more than two political parties that mostly do the same thing, and any 3rd candidate is made a joke, is pretty close to totalitarian to start with.

 

[SeaGal]

Finally, if you are puzzled by Democrat reaction to President Trump’s frontal assault on their beloved environmental movement, you just wait until you see what they will say and do when withdrawing from the United Nations gets off the ground. Repealing the XVI Amendment is the only thing the parasite class fears more than passing this: ​

Not puzzled, no, not at all. That reaction reinforces the notion that 'global warming' and 'global governance' are two of the deities in the trinitarian religion of materialism. (the third being 'modern utopia'). The priests of which Huxley's description as 'more dogmatic than any robed cleric could hope to be'...appears to be accurate. They are reacting as any religious fanatics would when all they hold Holy is threatened.

On the other hand - they could simply be greedy hypocrites who see the possibility of power, influence and wealth diminishing. (also a beloved religious trinity of the left)

 

[anotherlife]

Here is another argument that can be made against sovereignty. We have to examine whose sovereignty we want. It was a loss of sovereignty when ancient lands United to form the European kingdoms. It was also a loss of sovereignty when the 13 colonies United. And now only a few southern ranchers if even they have any sovereignty in the USA. The loss of sovereignty therefore started in ancient times when tribes United, and has been going on ever since, only now we renamed it globalization. So the question is, why were all those past losses of sovereignty a good thing, but this particular one today is not?

 

[Flanders]

Here is another argument that can be made against sovereignty. We have to examine whose sovereignty we want. It was a loss of sovereignty when ancient lands United to form the European kingdoms. It was also a loss of sovereignty when the 13 colonies United. And now only a few southern ranchers if even they have any sovereignty in the USA. The loss of sovereignty therefore started in ancient times when tribes United, and has been going on ever since, only now we renamed it globalization. So the question is, why were all those past losses of sovereignty a good thing, but this particular one today is not?

To anotherlife: That is not an argument. It is a misreading of history.

Advanced cultures will always overcome primitive societies. Alexander the Great devised the oblique movement for his troops. The result was an example of an advanced military culture overpowering a primitive one. The same result will always occur politically and scientifically between countries.

 

[anotherlife]

Here is another argument that can be made against sovereignty. We have to examine whose sovereignty we want. It was a loss of sovereignty when ancient lands United to form the European kingdoms. It was also a loss of sovereignty when the 13 colonies United. And now only a few southern ranchers if even they have any sovereignty in the USA. The loss of sovereignty therefore started in ancient times when tribes United, and has been going on ever since, only now we renamed it globalization. So the question is, why were all those past losses of sovereignty a good thing, but this particular one today is not?

To anotherlife: That is not an argument. It is a misreading of history.

Advanced cultures will always overcome primitive societies. Alexander the Great devised the oblique movement for his troops. The result was an example of an advanced military culture overpowering a primitive one. The same result will always occur politically and scientifically between countries.

Then this is bad news for the USA, because France is a much more advanced culture than the USA and much more evil too.