What The Left Would Have Us Surrender?

[PoliticalChic]

Our independence.


1. That applies both to our individual independence to the mandates of a government that orders collectivism....
....and our national independence, known as sovereignty.



2. Progressives, Liberals, statists have always opposed the freedom and individualism, principles on which this nation was founded. It was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label, and applying it to the Socialist Party, giving us the folks who claim 'Liberalism' today.

Dewey, in his book Individualism Old and New argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism.

a. “Once [WWI] is on, the conviction spreads that individual thought is helpless, that the only way one can count is as a cog in the great wheel. There is no good holding back. We are told to dry our unnoticed and ineffective tears and plunge into the great work.”
From a Randolph Bourne essay published in June 1917, “The War and the Intellectuals.”


b. Dewey reveled in the thought that the war might force Americans to “give up much of our economic freedom…we shall have to lay by our good natured individualism and march in step.”
Taking liberties

"....to lay by our good natured individualism and march in step.” And that is the very best definition of 'collectivization.'





3. On a national level, independence is called sovereignty.

" Sovereignty is a simple idea: the United States is an independent nation,.... The Founding Fathers understood that if America does not have sovereignty, it does not have independence. If a foreign power can tell America “what we shall do, and what we shall not do,” George Washington once wrote to Alexander Hamilton, “we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little.”

The Declaration of Independence tells us why sovereignty mattered to America’s Founders.

When America declared its independence in 1776, the Declaration described Americans as “one people” who had the right “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” Why Does Sovereignty Matter to America?



4. Which of the 'shameful six' is based on personal independence, or on the sovereignty of our nation?
Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Fascism, Nazism, or Progressivism?

That's right....none of them.

What freedom do you want that you don't have?

SHE's Canadian.


LOL

"The 13th chime of a clock, not only does it make no sense, but it calls into question the validity of the 12 chimes that preceded it."'

As your current post is untrue.....
....so must all of your posts be untrue.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The President does not need permission of Congress to take military action.

You mean when GW Bush and his supporters were repeatedly citing UN resolutions as justification for the disastrous needless invasion of Iraq?

How's Libya doing and the consulate that was left undefended after that military action that your blood soaked Nobel Champion Of Peace preformed in his little 'War That Was Not A War' against the government of a sovereign nation?

*****SMILE*****

 

[PoliticalChic]

And....a contemporary example of the loss of sovereignty, and a cautionary tale for the United States....the EU.


6. The European Union is collectivism on the march! One can see that it is possible to lose sovereignty quickly. Consider the European Union. It began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.


a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!

b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!

c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.

d. Neither does the EU have a constitution, nor does the EU have an army or police force for common control of its borders. Thus it has political superiority over member states, but declines to be responsible for its defense. Inherent in this idea of transcending nation-states is the idea that defense is unimportant.



When we consider the abrupt changes in Europe, we should be concerned about the lack of consensus in our own country regarding the importance of constitutional sovereignty.
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. sponsored by Hillsdale College.



" Sovereignty is a simple idea: the United States is an independent nation,.... The Founding Fathers understood that if America does not have sovereignty, it does not have independence. If a foreign power can tell America “what we shall do, and what we shall not do,” George Washington once wrote to Alexander Hamilton, “we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little.”

The Declaration of Independence tells us whysovereignty mattered to America’s Founders.

When America declared its independence in 1776, the Declaration described Americans as “one people” who had the right “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”Why Does Sovereignty Matter to America?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The nation is still sovereign if it agrees to binding treaties.

Is that why the UN is currently dictating when and how we go to war instead of our Congress?

You mean when GW Bush and his supporters were repeatedly citing UN resolutions as justification for the disastrous needless invasion of Iraq?

"Responsibility to Protect knew they would get nowhere under Bush, but viewed the 2008 elections as an opportunity for change.
Clearly, the Obama Administration has proven far more sympathetic to Responsibility to Protect’s agenda than was that of President Bush."
Op. Cit.

What? English please.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The President does not need permission of Congress to take military action.

You mean when GW Bush and his supporters were repeatedly citing UN resolutions as justification for the disastrous needless invasion of Iraq?

How's Libya doing and the consulate that was left undefended after that military action that your blood soaked Nobel Champion Of Peace preformed in his little 'War That Was Not A War' against the government of a sovereign nation?

*****SMILE*****

You want to match 4 dead in Libya with 4500 dead in Bush's disastrous unnecessary invasion of Iraq?

Fair enough. You lose times 1000.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And....a contemporary example of the loss of sovereignty, and a cautionary tale for the United States....the EU.


6. The European Union is collectivism on the march! One can see that it is possible to lose sovereignty quickly. Consider the European Union. It began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.


a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!

b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!

c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.

d. Neither does the EU have a constitution, nor does the EU have an army or police force for common control of its borders. Thus it has political superiority over member states, but declines to be responsible for its defense. Inherent in this idea of transcending nation-states is the idea that defense is unimportant.



When we consider the abrupt changes in Europe, we should be concerned about the lack of consensus in our own country regarding the importance of constitutional sovereignty.
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. sponsored by Hillsdale College.



" Sovereignty is a simple idea: the United States is an independent nation,.... The Founding Fathers understood that if America does not have sovereignty, it does not have independence. If a foreign power can tell America “what we shall do, and what we shall not do,” George Washington once wrote to Alexander Hamilton, “we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little.”

The Declaration of Independence tells us whysovereignty mattered to America’s Founders.

When America declared its independence in 1776, the Declaration described Americans as “one people” who had the right “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”Why Does Sovereignty Matter to America?

Ok, so you want us to leave the UN. Should we leave NATO too?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The President does not need permission of Congress to take military action.

You mean when GW Bush and his supporters were repeatedly citing UN resolutions as justification for the disastrous needless invasion of Iraq?

How's Libya doing and the consulate that was left undefended after that military action that your blood soaked Nobel Champion Of Peace preformed in his little 'War That Was Not A War' against the government of a sovereign nation?

*****SMILE*****

You want to match 4 dead in Libya with 4500 dead in Bush's disastrous unnecessary invasion of Iraq?

Fair enough. You lose times 1000.

How many Libyans died in that little 'War That Was Not A War' military action?

Oh!!!!! They were just collateral damage, and the over 25,000 known Libyan causalities don't count in your mind, even though those figures in my mind indicate a war vice military action.

If we're going to decimate a country then why leave a embassy, much less a consulate, in that country until such a time as we're invited back and the new government can guarantee it's safety?

Only a retard, which another word for liberal and meant as no disparagement to the those who are mentally challenged, would think that everything was going to be rainbows and unicorns for anyone representing the United States after butchering the people of that country.

*****SMILE*****

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Right would have the US surrender its nation sovereignty to 50 different principalities, aka the states,

and in the process create the new Balkans.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Right would have the US surrender its nation sovereignty to 50 different principalities, aka the states,

and in the process create the new Balkans.

Let me stretch and try to imagine you with an education.
Maybe another time....

Start here:

1. "Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces)."Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The less insightful, or should I say, less educated, have come to believe that American people are evil racists.....and that some, in particular states, have to be controlled by a benevolent government ready and able to control/change them....sometimes called 'hope and change.'

Of course, most Leftists don't comprehend 'sovereignty' any more than 'federalism.'

2. Time an again command-and-control economies have failed, and "The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture.”
Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 198

 

[PoliticalChic]

Battling back against creeping international socialism....


7. On the bright side, there has been push-back against the loss of sovereignty by a large segment in our long-time ally, Great Britain.


The term BREXIT....a blend of the words 'British' and 'exit' which refers to the possibility of Great Britain leaving the European Union. British Prime Minister David Cameron has raised the possibility of a 'Brexit', a British exit from the European Union.
Brexit definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary



This NYSun editorial describes the current situation:

"So are the unutterably irritating pretentions of the industrious little worker bees of Brussels, robotic bureaucrats from little countries, delivering the timetable of homogenizing Eurofederation to the credulous leaders of larger nations with the insolence of Prussian schoolmasters. And also now exposed are the falsity and insipidity of all those American Euro-experts who, even after the satisfactory end of the Cold War, tried to propel the United Kingdom into a centrally governed Europe by the scruff of the neck and the small of the back — the Raymond Seitzes and Richard Burts, fluent and crisply turned out, explaining on autocue as if early graduates of the Marco Rubio school of unspontaneous rapid delivery, why Britain had to strip institutions that had served it well for centuries to clothe Euro-institutions of recent date.

Instead of building on the Roosevelt-Churchill and Reagan-Thatcher relations which brought the West victory in World War II and the Cold War, administrations of both parties mindlessly tried to dismantle that relationship, culminating in the insulting gaucheries of the Obama regime. There are stranger, and far worse, prospects than that Donald Trump and Boris Johnson could rebuild that relationship, with all the resulting benefits of olden time."
As Trump Takes Lead Here Boris Johnson Makes Stand For an Independent Britain - The New York Sun

 

[BlindBoo]

The progressives of 1917 have little to do with today's liberals...... for example

Cato's Mission

Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution — individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law — call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism — the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known — as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.

"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" fails to capture the contemporary vibrancy of the ideas of freedom.

"Liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world — the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina tend to be supporters of human rights and free markets — but its meaning has clearly been altered in the contemporary United States.

The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.

This vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, recognizing that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is — or used to be — the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.

Libertarians have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We applaud the progressive extension of the promises of the Declaration of Independence to more people, especially to women, African-Americans, religious minorities, and gay and lesbian people. Our greatest challenge today is to continue to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The progressives of 1917 have little to do with today's liberals...... for example

Cato's Mission

Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution — individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law — call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism — the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known — as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.

"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" fails to capture the contemporary vibrancy of the ideas of freedom.

"Liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world — the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina tend to be supporters of human rights and free markets — but its meaning has clearly been altered in the contemporary United States.

The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.

This vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, recognizing that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is — or used to be — the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.

Libertarians have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We applaud the progressive extension of the promises of the Declaration of Independence to more people, especially to women, African-Americans, religious minorities, and gay and lesbian people. Our greatest challenge today is to continue to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.

Progressives....and Modern Liberals, distinctions without real difference, are centered on collectivism and big, unlimited government.
That has been the defining characteristic from mid 19 century to the present.

 

[BlindBoo]

The nation is still sovereign if it agrees to binding treaties.

Is that why the UN is currently dictating when and how we go to war instead of our Congress?

With our veto power on the Security Council the UN is powerless to stop us or the other countries with the same veto power.. President Bush(43) didn't need the UN to invade Iraq. However after the invasion force collapsed the recognized government in Iraq he asked the UN for legitimacy and aid during the occupation. That move ultimately led to the withdrawal of our troops.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Progressivism is all about turning over the power of the people to bureaucrats, technocrats, experts of every stripe....and the result is collectivization and loss of independence and sovereignty.


8. "... there’s a tendency among bureaucrats, politicians, academics, and other members of the New Class to convince the people to hand over the major decisions of their lives to the “experts.”These experts aren’t all in the government, but they all collude with government to convince people that the experts have all the answers and that the people need to hand the reins over to them. They will tell us what to eat, what to drive,what to think.

It’s an approach that puts politics before economics. Because it is an attempt to politicize peoples’ lives.”
Nazis: Still Socialists, by Jonah Goldberg, National Review



Hence...

"So are the unutterably irritating pretentions of the industrious little worker bees of Brussels, robotic bureaucrats from little countries, delivering the timetable of homogenizing Eurofederation to the credulous leaders of larger nations with the insolence of Prussian schoolmasters."
NYSUN, Op. Cit.

 

[BlindBoo]

The nation is still sovereign if it agrees to binding treaties.

Is that why the UN is currently dictating when and how we go to war instead of our Congress?

Where is the UN sending US troops?

You are another one who should take note.....if you ever want to be educated.


“Responsibility to Protect” – The End of National Sovereignty As We Know It?
Cross-posting from theNew Zeal blog

Why Did U.S. PresidentBarack Obamaorder a military attack on Libya? Why did he seek the permission of the United Nations Security Council, but not that of the U.S. Congress – as he is constitutionally obliged to do?

Those who justify the Libyan intervention on humanitarian grounds draw much of their logic from a concept which has dramatically gained ground over recent decades. The concept is known as “R2P,” shorthand for the world’s “Responsibility to Protect” civilians.

But what does this catchy little phrase mean? Where did it come from? What are its implications?

The United Nationsreported in July 2009;

The Obama administration is supporting moves to implement an U.N. doctrine calling for collective military action to halt genocide. In a week-long debate on implementing theResponsibility to Protect Doctrine, the U.S. joined a majority of U.N. countries,including Russia and China, in supporting implementation of the policy. The doctrine itself was approved in 2005 by more than 150 states including the U.S.
The doctrine specifies that diplomatic options such as internal conflict resolution, sanctions, and prosecution by the International Criminal Court, should be used first.If they don’t work, then a multi-national force approved by the Security Council would be deployed.

In other words, if the United Nations does not approve of a certain government’s behavior, and that government’s leaders will not respond to sanctions and the threat of prosecution, they will be attacked militarily.

“Responsibility to Protect” means the end of national sovereignty. It mandates the surrender of any nation state’s legal authority over their own citizenry and armed forces to a supra-national body, with the power to sanction or destroy any deemed “rogue” nation – does Israel spring to mind?

“Responsibility to Protect” – three little words, that should strike terror into the heart of every patriot in every free nation of the world."

http://keywiki.org/blog/?p=1928

Good thing it didn't exist in 1492! Too bad it wasn't around in 1994!

Genocide in Rwanda | United Human Rights Council

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Right would have the US surrender its nation sovereignty to 50 different principalities, aka the states,

and in the process create the new Balkans.

Let me stretch and try to imagine you with an education.
Maybe another time....

Start here:

1. "Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces)."Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The less insightful, or should I say, less educated, have come to believe that American people are evil racists.....and that some, in particular states, have to be controlled by a benevolent government ready and able to control/change them....sometimes called 'hope and change.'

Of course, most Leftists don't comprehend 'sovereignty' any more than 'federalism.'

2. Time an again command-and-control economies have failed, and "The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture.”
Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 198

You proved me right. Thank you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Progressivism is all about turning over the power of the people to bureaucrats, technocrats, experts of every stripe....and the result is collectivization and loss of independence and sovereignty.


8. "... there’s a tendency among bureaucrats, politicians, academics, and other members of the New Class to convince the people to hand over the major decisions of their lives to the “experts.”These experts aren’t all in the government, but they all collude with government to convince people that the experts have all the answers and that the people need to hand the reins over to them. They will tell us what to eat, what to drive,what to think.

It’s an approach that puts politics before economics. Because it is an attempt to politicize peoples’ lives.”
Nazis: Still Socialists, by Jonah Goldberg, National Review



Hence...

"So are the unutterably irritating pretentions of the industrious little worker bees of Brussels, robotic bureaucrats from little countries, delivering the timetable of homogenizing Eurofederation to the credulous leaders of larger nations with the insolence of Prussian schoolmasters."
NYSUN, Op. Cit.

Did you tell us what freedom you want that you don't have,

or do you concede you're crying about nothing?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sovereignty in the balance:


9. By a June vote, England will decide whether to retain its sovereignty, or be submissive to the bureaucrats of the EU.


"....Cameron scheduled the referendum while promising to negotiate concessions from the European socialists. His negotiations, though, got bupkis. Famed editor and Margaret Thatcher biographer Charles Moore wrote recently that the result of Mr. Cameron’s dickering was “insulting.”

It’s plain that staying in the European Union would eventually doom British sovereignty.

.... a British exit from Europe would be a geopolitical earthquake. It would be a rebuke not only to European socialism but also to the idea of Europe as an anti-American bloc.


....Israel, which has proved that even an embattled country need not truckle to the EU. (It’s no coincidence, I’m going to guess, that one of Britain’s liveliest voices against the movement to boycott the Jewish state has been Boris Johnson.)

Imagine, in any event, if an independent Britain could lead to a new and wide alignment with America, whose own revolution was inspired by ideas of liberty often hatched in England and Scotland.



So who will extend a hand to Boris Johnson and his allies as Britain tries to make a break for freedom — Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or Donald Trump? Whoever it is will be a candidate to watch."
‘Brexit of Champions’: How Britain May Trigger A Political Earthquake - The New York Sun

 

[Agit8r]

The only thing we'd have y'all surrender is your pathetic ignorance.

 

[ClosedCaption]

What The Left Would Have Us Surrender?

Hand over your copy and paste