These days it seems world powers are bent on eradicating the sovereignty of nations. The European Union is a perfect example of what can go astray when original intentions sought to strengthen nations ends up weakening them.
The United States should, in my opinion, jealously guard sovereignty. Why?
No other nation has a document limiting central powers like the US Constitution. The founding fathers were most definitely visionary, some of them anyway, by including limits on government power over speech and the confiscation of private property among other declarations.
As the US government bureaucracy grew over time, however, some of those limits were imperiled. A bureaucracy’s longevity depends on power. As the number of federal bureaucrats expanded, the rights of citizens contracted. Agencies such as IRS, EPA, FEC, DHS and others wield powers that as we have seen in recent years can be horrendously abused.
Meanwhile the global organization, the United Nations, has grown concurrently, expanding its own bureaucracy in ways its founders may not have envisioned. The UN at present has a great deal of impact on migration policy for Western nations, and the result of that impact is highly questionable.
I wrote about this in 2014. I believe the significant increase in migration during the Obama years was a direct result of yielding to UN policy. If you follow the link to that essay, the concept of no-borders becomes apparent. Compassion for refugees is a given in a Western society, but annihilating a country’s sovereign borders will never work for the benefit of those citizens who reside therein.
How can I say that?
Attacks on the US First Amendment are an excellent example of what can happen when sovereignty is subordinated to global powers. Media have been in arms about criticism from presidents present and past, yet few media rose up in arms when the UN came up with a sophistic argument to ‘protect’ cultural identities by eradicating rights to speech and expression. Some on the Left even seemed to like the idea.
Much discussion has been devoted to the concept and evolution of the European Union. While advantages did come with that entity, so did disadvantages. The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU—or secession if you prefer—indicated the desire of those within the UK to return sovereignty to their country.
Protecting sovereignty protects a country’s citizens. People want to belong to something. As Americans, we all technically share the ideals set forth in our formal documents and laws. Yet as our sovereignty has been eroded by both domestic and international bureaucrats, and by financiers interested in lining their pockets, our unity as a people has suffered. What happens in the absence of sovereignty and a country’s philosophical identity?
People niche themselves, with help from ambitious politicians, into identity groups, and that results in discordant tribalism based on gender, complexion, religious creed, or political ideology.
People want to belong to something; that is natural. But a strong sense of sovereignty is a natural outcome of a nation with strong families, communities and states. It’s almost laughable how media and some academics seem to approve of segregating ourselves via identity politics, yet those same sectors are appalled if we are proud to call ourselves Americans. Which, I ask you, is better for our country and community?
We should not forget that, and cliché aside, we should bear the Republic of Rome in mind as our still young republic ages.
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/Oct. 12, 2017)
If you can possibly offer a small tip to help us keep operating, we would much appreciate it. We don’t place ads that track you, and we are currently near a point where we will have to stop publishing without support. We aren’t paid by a political party, PAC, or the government.