By Don Hank
There is an urgent need for the US to recover its lost sovereignty, especially in terms of borders and immigration but also in more subtle ways such as freeing ourselves from UN Agenda 21 or Common Core in education. Part of our problem is the distorted idea of what sovereignty really is. Some think national sovereignty is a possible encroachment on state and personal sovereignty. Some say that sovereignty was a term avoided by the Founders because they were conditioned to think it referred to sovereign kings and queens of Europe.
These concerns raise the question of what sovereignty really is, and I hope herein to add a few grains to our understanding.
There are several levels of sovereignty, which are, from lower to higher, essentially as follows:
state sovereignty, and
The founders did not eschew the notion of sovereignty, as some have worried. In fact, it is central to their founding idea as pointed out here.
Nor does national sovereignty imply a loss of state sovereignty. The Tenth Amendment is dedicated to protecting state sovereignty.
When I mentioned sovereignty above, I was referring to national sovereignty.
National sovereignty is the concept that the national government is not beholden to any other outside country or entity and has the full right to decide its path and destiny.
But in the case of our political class, it is clear that they are following leadership that does not come from We the people. Mind you, it does not necessarily come from the UN or from any particular country.
But there are bits and pieces of supranational, and what could be called ‘foreign’ leadership in Washington.
Recent presidents have all had cabinet members who were members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) or the Trilateral Commission. According to Carroll Quigley, a liberal professor who taught at Georgetown, wrote in his book “Tragedy and Hope”:
“The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch
of a society which originated in England… (and) believes national
boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.
I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it
for twenty years, and was permitted in the early 1960’s to examine
its papers and secret records…. I believe its role in history is
significant enough to be known.”
Richard Haas, as president of the CFR, once wrote that it is time to “rethink” sovereignty. Only a person who does not want countries to be sovereign would think that way.
Now you might say, “what’s wrong with that? The CFR is not part of our government, and even if the organization came from England, it is not making the US subservient to England.”
All very true.
However, any organization, whether domestic or foreign, that seeks to weaken our national sovereignty, as Quigley describes above, is intentionally undermining the US as a sovereign nation, taking it closer to becoming part of a supranational entity, similar, for example, to the Soviet Union or the EU, whose member states were barred from making independent decisions (the people of EU nations are starting to push back against this authoritarian top-down rule). Yet all presidential cabinets have prominent members from this clearly subversive organization. This does not bode well for our national security or our freedom to shape our own destiny.
There are two aspects of sovereignty that are being undermined routinely by our national government, and they are: borders and immigration. Just as no household can survive for long if the owner leaves the doors wide open 24-7 and hangs a sign on the door “All welcome to enter any time. Help yourselves to furnishings and fridge contents,” no nation can claim sovereignty if it has no control over its borders or invites all and sundry to enter and stay, with or without ID and without any background checks. Spain, under Prime Minister Zapatero, of which Obama seems to be a reasonable facsimile, kept Spain’s borders notoriously wide open, giving rise to a concept dubbed the “call effect”, an unspoken invitation to illegal immigration, a phenomenon that, in our case has birthed the “children’s invasion” from Central America.
I did not mean to give short shrift to state sovereignty. State sovereignty has been unduly undermined, particularly since Lincoln and needs to be restored to its rightful place. For example, state authorities must annul federal laws that encroach on their sovereignty, as in the case of the Bundy ranch.
As for popular sovereignty, it was a concept held in high esteem by our Founders: Sadly, this concept has been so badly distorted in today’s America that there are groups of people who think they are free to drive cars with no plates or drivers licenses, citing the Constitution’s mention of free travel. Others insist that the Constitution gives them the right to buy, sell and take drugs. It also leads some to side with criminals who are shot by police in self-defense. Many “sovereign citizens” openly defy the law, declaring themselves sovereign when confronted by law enforcement. They have gotten the cart before the horse. You don’t acquire freedom simply by declaring yourself to be sovereign. The authorities do not give people special rights based on their ability to quote the Founders. I have known some who wound up behind bars and were forced to find a new hobby. This warped concept of “sovereignty” has detracted from the overall concept of national sovereignty and is one reason why our national sovereignty has taken a back seat. Many fail to apprehend that no one is truly free in a nation that is not sovereign. If people can be deluded into believing that they are each a king or queen, then national sovereignty and winning back our lost national rights to exist are no longer a relevant issue for them. But the reality of the situation is that we are losing jobs and inviting dangerous criminals to our shores in ways that will not be sustainable for too much longer — in ways that will affect even “sovereign citizens.”
So far no national political party has arisen to make this issue of national sovereignty a central part of its plaftorm. Both of the main ones are rushing to open our borders even further, using false mantras and excuses, such as pretending that building a border fence would lead us to become another Soviet Union, with its famous Iron Curtain, or suggesting that because Americans are all descended from foreigners, we should welcome foreigners without background checks or ID. Yet none of these bleeding heart idealists would think of requiring other nations to do likewise. Americans across the political spectrum would say “we must respect the sovereignty of all nations.”
What they mean is, all nation except the US.