I have learned that the concern about the "sovereignty" of America, control over our "independence," has been over many years, perhaps emphasized in the last 70-100 years (after WWI? League of Nations we chose NOT to join even while it was Woodrow Wilson's idea to help the world avoid future wars!).
Sovereignty is topic for analysis and concern by intellectuals as our government chooses to participate in international organizations. But over many, many years if not always, the US has been more about hegemony than it is willing to admit, than its own sovereignty. That is my opinion and assessment.
The fundamental issue is whether we allow international organizations to "rule" us and undermine our sovereignty, or whether we benefit as a country as a participant.
My sense of American sovereignty is that no country or international organization can undermine or threaten our sovereignty, period, FULL STOP. We can opt out of any agreement unilaterally and we have two oceans and the biggest military to back it up, period, FULL STOP.
Someone wrote Tweety a speech about sovereignty he read at the UN. It was a silly and funny speech, even made the UN laugh.
The Washington Examiner is silly too, maybe even stupid, serving as a Trump apologist, trying to say he is coherent, when, as always, he is spit-balling it with the help of a pathetic, mindless plutocrat Cabinet, and staff of idiots.
"Trump's sovereignty doctrine" [Yep, The Washington Examiner, Tweety's insightful assistance, just discovered the United States is a sovereign nation! Wow!]
by Washington Examiner September 25, 2018 06:34 PM
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/trumps-sovereignty-doctrine
"“ We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable global bureaucracy,” President Trump told United Nations officials Tuesday. His comment was a specific rejection of the authority of the International Criminal Court, but it could have applied to other matters as well. For example, the president also justified withdrawing the U.S. from the U.N. Human Rights Council on the grounds that it had become a sham, an enabler of human rights abuses in desperate need of reform.
[How is this a unique statement, a policy of the government? What country or entity or organization threatens America's sovereignty? For Tweety's words and The Washington Examiner comments to matter they need to list the REAL threats to America's sovereignty. They do not. They are silly.]
[ADD EVIDENCE OF SOVEREIGNTY HERE, start with the American's Declaration of Independence . . .
"Why Does Sovereignty Matter to America?"
by Steven Groves
"The United States is a sovereign nation. Sovereignty is a simple idea: the United States is an independent nation, governed by the American people, that controls its own affairs. The American people adopted the Constitution and created the government. They elect their representatives and make their own laws."
https://www.heritage.org/american-founders/report/why-does-sovereignty-matter-america
And this from 1994:
"Threats to U.S. Sovereignty"
Mar, 1994 by Jeremy Rabkin
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/threats-to-u-s-sovereignty/
" . . . rescue the issue of sovereignty from the overheated and hypocritical rhetoric of the NAFTA debate. Many nations in the European Community (EC) are having anguished second thoughts about submerging their own national sovereignties in an integrated Europe. The United States is still a long way from the condition of the European states. But in the area of human rights as well as in the field of trade, we are now beginning to move in that direction, and we ought to start seriously considering how far we really want to go."
True in 1994, true today, but Presidents are nt thinking of ways to harm US interests. That is a stupid thing to imply. Dumber than dirt. Even George Bush was not thinking of harming America's sovereignty, and he really was dumb.
The United States chooses how far to go with "globalization" and withdrawing from the international bodies that help resolve legal and criminal issues, help nations trade, is not a solution, nor is it protection from losing sovereignty when it actually becomes threatened. American's and Tweety's paranoia s clear, BUT UNJUSTIFIED.
Tell me who and what REALLY has the power over the United States to take away our sovereignty!
OK, skeptical, but not paranoid! No entity truly threatens US sovereignty.
Do you get it? Obvious boundaries exist to protect US sovereignty, like two huge oceans and our military. Even as the US infringes on human rights of its citizens, we are immune from threats of international bodies of justice, ethics, and morality who might like to see us behave better toward our minorities and people of color cannot threaten our sovereignty.
" . . . very soon after its formation, the UN adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights and proceeded to draft international conventions spelling out the full implications of this new commitment. By the late 1940’s, some legal scholars were proclaiming a new era for international law, which would now necessarily reach into the domestic affairs of nations to protect citizens from abusive treatment by their own governments."
Enough history.]
Back to Tweety at the UN and The Washington Examiner:
“America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control, and domination,” Trump said, offering American friendship as an alternative to the hegemony that Russia and China are trying to impose worldwide. [Really? And America is not trying to take over the economic well being of Europe? USA hegemony is universal! Ha! Tweety has mad himself and America an enemy of China. Why would China want to work with America given Tweety's win-lose approach to negotiations?] “I honor [No, Tweety respects no one, no culture, no rights, and no traditions or culture.] the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs, and traditions. The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.”
[OK, which country is NOT honoring America's sovereignty?]
These admonitions, contrary to much punditry, do not amount to an “isolationist” or “‘go it alone” approach to world affairs. That's just a convenient and lazy way for people who disagree to denigrate them. [The Washington Examiner does not present support for an attack on America's sovereignty, then says anyone who doesn't agree we are under attack is lazy?] Rather, the president reminded the world that the U.S. is a sovereign nation, governed by and for Americans and no one else. [No country needed to be reminded that America is an independent country. This is child-like.]
Although many seek to find something sinister in this idea [What? How? Whom? Silly again.], Trump is right. And it is good that he used the words “sovereign” and “sovereignty” 13 times.
The U.S. Constitution is an experiment in self-government, deriving from a longer tradition of social contract theory. It presupposes that the moral legitimacy of any government depends not upon its fulfillment of obligations to foreign powers or international standards or a world popularity contest, but upon its commitment to and protection of the natural rights of its own citizens.
[And The Washington Examiner felt the need for this reminder of how we documented our sovereignty because of what?]
If the federal government is taking actions that don’t directly or indirectly promote American citizens’ common interests and natural rights, then whose interests and whose rights is it promoting? Any such exercise of power is wrong.
[Every President until Tweety has promoted America's interests. No American President has betrayed America. This reads like a paranoid, ultra-conservative, possibly racist opinion against Obama. We are given NO names of Presidents, or USA government organizations that acted against USA interests . . . indirectly [What?] and directly PURPOSELY . . . It's easy to have an opinion, much harder to PROVE an action purposely taken or even accidentally taken to hurt American interests. This is silly stuff!]
When a government fails to fulfill this essential obligation to its citizens, it loses its legitimacy, and those subjected to it are justified in rebellion. This was the theory behind the Declaration of Independence. With each passing day, members of all three branches of the current federal government should be thinking of how to make sure America does not slide away from this principle.
The nation is nowhere near the point at which armed rebellion could be justified, but it has suffered a lot under rulers who failed to put America first. There is broad agreement today that officials of both political parties in Congress and in the administration of President George W. Bush chose the Iraq War. In hindsight, this was a war of choice that did not promote American interests in the region or secure the liberties of citizens at home. [Hindsight is always 20-20. We all know the war against Iraq was wrong, but I do not believe George Bush intentionally tried to harm American interests, even tho indirectly the war did a huge amount of damage. More silly stuff here.]
Some U.S. officials have also tried to commit the U.S. to climate treaties and agreements, Kyoto 20 years ago and Paris more recently, that would have proven highly expensive and extremely damaging to our economy [This is simply NOT TRUE, and propaganda for a conservative interest. The Paris Accord is voluntary, the US committed FAR LESS than smaller countries, and the entire WORLD signed up to commit to a better planet. Why is it good for the US to go alone into this wilderness?], while having no impact on global warming [Really? What advance evidence does The Washington examiner have on global warming impacts? This is an incredibly stupid comment, based on no evidence whatsoever.]. This is another good example of government outgrowing its usefulness.
[This paragraph doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the article. It is right on.] Trump would like to argue that U.S. trade policy follows this same pattern. We strongly disagree. Open trade with other nations, even when it results in large trade deficits, is a win-win for consumers and has not cost jobs. But when you watch how Trump pursues his misguided trade policy, you can see this thread running through it. It provides a unified theory of what motivates this famously impulsive man in government.
If there is a Trump Doctrine, it can be summed up in this way: First, government has no role at all except to serve its citizens. It must make its decisions based on American rights and interests, full stop. [US rights and interests are much more complex than Tweety will ever understand, and apparently, more complex than The Washington examiner will ever understand. As General Mattis said, if we abandon the world and soft power, which requires participating in international organizations, enhancing the State Department, fully funding USAID, even allowing charges against our military endeavors in an international court, we will need more bullets, many, many more bullets. War is NOT in the bet interests of the US.]
Second, the nations of the world can neither call on the U.S. to solve every problem [The US likes to interfere in other countries government. Have you not read history?], hence Trump's insistence upon NATO nations beefing up their military spending [NATO countries spent enough on defense while building an economic buffer to the interference of communist countries like Russia. The economic strength of these Allies, these NATO countries, has benefitted the US in a huge way. Study the situation before you say building big military machines like we have in the US is truly a good idea. It is actually a BAD idea. The US doesn't need to compete with NATO countries for military supremacy. The fact is, the US is suffering an infrastructure melt-down, a less secure/safe country as we fail to protect our electric grid from hackers, put off dealing with nuclear waste, fail to take care of poor Americans who deserve help, and much, much more, while the Military Industrial Complex sucks up trillions of tax dollars in what is essential a WELFARE PROGRAM.] and avoiding dependency on Russia [NATO countries and European countries are not children that need the US to tell them to avoid being dependent on Russia.], and nor can they use unaccountable bureaucracy by needling us with spurious prosecutions in the International Criminal Court [Of course, charges of war crimes against the US bombing and killing of civilians, while factually true, are not a war crime since the US killed civilians for a good cause, right? NO! WRONG! As the US runs away like cowards when they have to face justice, the world sees our true amoral, hypocritical, cynical face! The United States is essentially an international pariah, too powerful to challenge, too powerful to accept fault for our crimes.].
Third, this assertion of sovereignty does not entail isolationism. It will frequently require that America engage in robust cooperation [What is this?] with other nations where there are mutual interests. Isolationism would in many cases be a betrayal of Americans’ rights and interests.
[Tweety is betraying, insulting, threatening Allies. Allies typically have similar democratic and economic interests, so is this "robust cooperation" a win-lose which betrays US interests? How is this "robust cooperation" not isolationist?]
For those who believe that Trump’s policy is incoherent, or just a mish-mash of inherited conservative ideas with some anti-immigration and anti-trade rhetoric thrown in, this speech should make them think again. Trump has a coherent view of the world, and it’s very helpful to hear it spelled out in this way."
I am not sure The Washington Examiner was agreeing, and supporting Tweety, or just reporting Tweety's ideas. I might misunderstand the article, and maybe The Washington Examiner does NOT support Tweety's ideas. What I am absolutely certain about is that Tweety's ideas of how the US should relate to the world are wrong and not in the US's or the world's best interests.
Time will tell.
