Global Governance vs. American Sovereignty

Posted on January 18, 2015 Written by mesquitelocalnews.com

Empires have been built through­out his­tory and most even­tu­ally fell when the empire got too large or too tyran­ni­cal. There has always been, and prob­a­bly always will be, a ten­sion between con­sol­i­dat­ing power at the top or decen­tral­iz­ing power to the peo­ple. Our Found­ing Fathers gave us a highly decen­tral­ized Repub­lic with most power vested in the states and with the peo­ple. Over time our fed­eral gov­ern­ment has shifted this ever so slowly to cen­tral­ized power at the top. The Found­ing Fathers wrote lan­guage into the Con­sti­tu­tion to guard against this loss of sov­er­eignty of the states.

Most Amer­i­cans hope to pass on to their chil­dren and grand­chil­dren a nation of laws with defined, secured bor­ders and a com­mon lan­guage. Some in our coun­try and in our gov­ern­ment are mak­ing deci­sions con­cern­ing our future and have a far dif­fer­ent Amer­ica in mind.

Steps taken dur­ing the last three admin­is­tra­tions, largely with­out approval of the Amer­i­can peo­ple, have eroded our eco­nomic sov­er­eignty. Amer­i­cans need to ask our­selves: “Do we want a sov­er­eign nation of self– gov­erned peo­ple with secure bor­ders and the rule of law or do we want to join a “New World Order” and sub­ju­gate our­selves to inter­na­tional orga­ni­za­tions that are beyond our laws and the voters?”

The term glob­al­iza­tion is how we dis­cuss this con­flict of visions and is used in two ways: as glob­al­iza­tion with a small “g” and Glob­al­iza­tion with a cap­i­tal “G”. The for­mer is a fact; the lat­ter is a polit­i­cal ideology.

Small “g” glob­al­iza­tion is the real­ity that tech­nol­ogy, orga­ni­za­tional advance­ments, and global politico-economic sta­bil­ity are increas­ing the level of inter­ac­tion among nations, and as a result, for­merly iso­lated peo­ple are rapidly learn­ing what works best, aban­don­ing ways that inhibit human devel­op­ment, and adopt­ing ways of free­dom and progress.

Small “g” glob­al­ism is a good thing, lift­ing many out of poverty and oppres­sion. The chal­lenge of glob­al­iza­tion is global gov­er­nance. How do we man­age com­merce and pro­tect human rights and the envi­ron­ment in our highly inte­grated and rapidly devel­op­ing world with­out jeop­ar­diz­ing the polit­i­cal sov­er­eignty of nations and the per­sonal lib­erty of individuals?

Lead­ers com­mit­ted to cap­i­tal “G” Glob­al­ism believe that the sov­er­eignty of nations is a bad thing. Their goal is to dis­solve all national bound­aries, blend all cul­tures, and merge all nations into one big political/economic system.

Mak­ing a claim like this used to be con­sid­ered “con­spir­acy the­ory.” Now it’s dis­cussed openly. One of the rea­sons those in the grow­ing U.S. trade pol­icy reform move­ment call for a mora­to­rium on trade agree­ments is that these agree­ments go far beyond address­ing the chal­lenge of small “g” glob­al­ism. They move us toward cap­i­tal “G” Glob­al­ism. They unnec­es­sar­ily include stip­u­la­tions that sub­or­di­nate the U.S. to global gov­er­nance orga­ni­za­tions that vir­tu­ally nul­lify the polit­i­cal author­ity of our local, state, and national gov­ern­ments to make and enforce our own poli­cies rel­a­tive to trade, envi­ron­men­tal pro­tec­tion, and more.

Global com­merce and gov­er­nance can be bet­ter accom­plished with­out over­step­ping the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion, pulling Amer­ica into “entan­gling alliances”, and sur­ren­der­ing America’s sov­er­eignty. If America’s lead­ers desire to embrace cap­i­tal “G” Glob­al­ism, they should lay these issues hon­estly before the Amer­i­can pub­lic for open dia­logue and debate, rather than sub­tly and incre­men­tally merg­ing the U.S. into a glob­al­ist com­mune with­out the thor­oughly informed con­sent of the Amer­i­can people.

As informed cit­i­zens it is our duty to ask our elected rep­re­sen­ta­tives which side they are on: An Amer­ica as a sov­er­eign nation act­ing as a good world cit­i­zen exer­cis­ing good faith with our neigh­bors and pro­mot­ing peace and pros­per­ity for all nations. Or, do they sub­scribe to the the­ory that our nation should no longer serve the peo­ple of Amer­ica, as our con­sti­tu­tion states, but rather sub­ju­gate our nation to world orga­ni­za­tions? If Amer­i­cans were allowed to vote for a plat­form based on the above, they would pick sav­ing our nation’s sov­er­eignty almost unanimously.

Related Posts

• Secret trade agree­ment cov­er­ing 68 per­cent of world ser­vices pub­lished by WikiLeaks
• The Next Phase of North Amer­i­can Inte­gra­tion. NAFTA to be Swal­lowed up by the Trans-Pacific Part­ner­ship (TPP)?
• EU-US Trade Nego­ti­a­tions Con­tinue Shut­ting out the Public—When Will They Learn?
• Press Release — Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Part­ner­ship Agree­ment (TPP) — IP Chap­ter (sec­ond publication)
• The Free Trade Decep­tion Almost No One Understands
• Obama’s Secret Treaty Would Be The Most Impor­tant Step Toward A One World Eco­nomic System
• “Free Trade” Agree­ments Are Crim­i­nal­is­ing Farm­ers’ Seeds for the Ben­e­fit of Multi­na­tional Corporations
• The Dis­ap­pear­ing States
• Sen. Ses­sions: ‘Super-Elites in Wash­ing­ton and Wall Street Dream of World With­out Borders’
• A Global Tax? UN Debates Requir­ing Mem­bers to Report ‘GHG’ Emissions
  http://agenda21news.com/2015/01/global-governance-vs-american-sovereignty/#more-4450