Sovereignty, Issue One

"51st State" over on Da Goddess wrote a post near and dear to my heart. He speaks of his single over riding issue that is steering his vote.

Sovereignty. Pure and simple, my single issue for this election is, was, and will always be about the sovereignty of the United States of America. A nation, as a sovereign power unto itself, does not, indeed must not, answer to another authority. The moment a candidate says he (or she, for that matter- this is not limited to this election) would seek permission from some authority not specified in the United States' Constitution, that is the moment sovereignty is ceded, that is the moment a nation is no longer master of its fate. That is the moment a nation is no longer an independent state, but a mere protectorate.

I cannot, in good conscience, vote to dissolve these United States, or even vote for one who casually accepts the possibility of doing so. 228 years of independence is too much to let go to waste.

Yet Kerry wonders why his patriotism is questioned? He who would give away his country is no patriot.

Many of you still don't see our sovereignty is something that Kerry would attempt to give away piece by piece.

I am not talking about a "Global Test" for defending this country. I think Kerry made it clear that he does indeed require sign off by the nations of the world before proceeding to defend this nation. Even in 1991 when the United States went to the UN and obtained permission to aid a country that had been invaded, he voted against giving that support. The "Global Test" was passed and it wasn't enough for him.

Defending the nation under Kerry would be reactionary not preemptive but it would not threaten our sovereignty.

So how will a Kerry presidency give away our sovereignty piece by piece?

Piece One - World Criminal Court:

For European leaders and many in the human rights community, the establishment in July of a world court is the most important development in international law since the United Nations was created more than half a century ago. But Washington sees it as an ominous threat to its sovereignty - and, in an attempt to evade its reach, could threaten to withdraw support for UN peacekeeping operations.

World Criminal Court Launched:

Washington, fearing its troops could face politically motivated prosecutions, strongly opposes the ICC and has declined an invitation to join U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and hundreds of other guests at the inaugural session.

"We won't be attending the inaugural ceremony because we're not a party to the ICC, and that's basically it," a spokeswoman for the U.S. embassy in The Hague told Reuters.

Washington, which has withdrawn its signature from the 1998 treaty that set up the ICC, has been busy persuading other countries to seal bilateral agreements exempting all U.S. citizens from the court's authority.

Courting disfavour

America has opposed the new court ever since the basic concept was first agreed by 120 other nations in 1998 at a UN treaty conference in Rome. America’s opposition has hardened under President George Bush, and his administration is considering symbolically reversing the signing of the court’s treaty by Bill Clinton just before he left office. That, too, was a gesture. Mr Clinton had no intention of ratifying the treaty either, but he wanted to leave Mr Bush the option of keeping America engaged in planning how the court would function. The court has “a number of fundamental problems,” Philip Reeker, a State Department spokesman, said on April 11th. “The United States is concerned that its military and civilian personnel will be exposed to politically motivated investigations and prosecutions.”

President Bush recognizes the threat to our sovereignty and has the intestinal fortitude to pull out of a flawed treaty. Kerry on the other hand sees us not participating in this treaty as a road block to appeasing the world. He would give control of our freedom to an international body.

Piece Two - Kyoto Treaty, this treaty has been flawed from it's inception. It was based on incomplete, little understood assumptions about climate science. Since 1997 it is more and more apparent that man has little influence over the climate and that the majority of the warming seen has been due to natural variance. Kerry, in debate one, said the following:

"you have to earn [the] respect" of other countries, "and I think we have a lot of earning back to do" -- cited the Kyoto Protocol as an example of poor U.S. policy.

"You don't help yourself with other nations," he said, "when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance."

Kyoto is no longer about the worlds climate it is most decidedly about wealth redistribution.

The Kyoto Protocol is not, never has been, nor will it ever be, about global warming. It is, instead, an ingenious mechanism to centralize the control of energy availability and consumption. It is the perfect mechanism to enforce the redistribution and equalization of wealth, while eliminating the principle of free markets in the energy industry.

The touted emissions trading scheme advanced by the protocol is nothing more than a wealth-transfer system. For example, Russia, whose industry is in such a shambles that its emissions are already below their assigned target, has "emission credits" to sell, as do most of the developing nations. For American energy providers to stay in business, they will have to purchase credits from a seller nation. American ratepayers will actually pay for those credits, through increases in their monthly electric bills and at the gasoline pump.

This is one of the more conspicuous mechanisms the protocol provides. The U.N. enforcement body is also empowered to dictate the type of energy that may be developed in the future. It has the power to dictate land use by limiting land use changes and requiring massive areas of land to be reserved for carbon "sequestration." Whatever rules the U.N. body wishes to impose, it can impose. Should the protocol ever be ratified by the U.S., ratepayers and consumers would have no recourse. The U.S. has only one vote among the 120 nations that have ratified the protocol, only 36 of which are bound by its provisions.

President Bush has been demonized by not only John Kerry, but by other nations who eagerly await the transfer of America's wealth the Kyoto Protocol was designed to facilitate. John Kerry's flip-flop on this issue demonstrates his willingness to sell out America's rate payers, industry and all energy consumers to meet the "global test" of international approval.

...President Bush has kept the United States energy policy free from U.N. control; John Kerry has promised to subject U.S. energy policy to the U.N.'s control. Whether voters realize it or not, they will decide -- with their vote on Nov. 2 -- whether the U.N. takes control over America's future.

Again, Kerry is willing to give away a piece of our sovereignty. Outsourcing our Energy Policy just as he would outsource price controls on our pharmaceutical industry.

Pieces three, four, five ... - Various asundry international treaties.

In his1796 Farewell Address, George Washington cautioned the new nation:

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.

Washington's advice has been forgotten by the U.S. Senate, which continues to enter into entangling U.N. treaties that sap our national sovereignty and mold this great free nation into a subservient member of the family of nations subject to the global governance of the U.N.

...At U.N. meetings where these treaties are discussed, the most frequent answer to the enforcement question is to use the WTO, with its power to impose penalties, as the enforcement mechanism.

These treaties all have language such as "shall adopt laws" or "shall bring laws into conformity," which binds the U.S. to enact laws acceptable to the dispute-resolution mechanism of the particular treaty body. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 says in Article 2(4) that it is enacted to meet the requirements of several U.N. treaties.

These treaties are, indeed, "baneful foes" of a republican government, each of which further erodes national sovereignty and extinguishes a little more of our individual freedom. We need a modern-day George W. who will stand up and say "no" to any further surrender to the United Nations.

I would caution all Americans, step by step, piece by piece, the United States is losing it's sovereignty. The war on terror is a big frontpage news story that we see on a daily basis. Our freedoms in this country will not be usurped by laws put in place to fight this war. Our freedoms have been and will continue to erode as a result of our politicians worrying how the world perceives us instead of worrying about what is best for our country.

What are the chances that a Kerry Presidency would defend us on this front. Based on his rhetoric he would enage us in any treaty that passed by his desk driven by some sort of need to be included in the world.

Update: Outside the Beltway points out "George Will's latest column, "There are two 'L-words' in campaign: liberal, lawyers." It's an apt title." George points out the importance of the Judiciary in our lives. I would like to add another L-phrase "Loss sovereignty". These same liberal lawyers are assisting in negotiating international treaties. These treaties are constitutionally binding and all the conservative justices in the world can't assist us when the President and the Senate blinding approve treaties with out considering our countries long term health.

Read Pattericio's site