Rejecting America’s Founding Principles

As Americans celebrate Independence Day, it is worrisome that the basic and underlying principles for which, and upon which, the nation was founded are under attack. There can be little doubt that those on the extreme left clearly have a very different vision, not just of what America should be, but whether it’s guiding principles are worthy of existing at all.

Increasingly, the concept of free speech has been assaulted by those who would force their partisan views of political correctness and acceptance of censorship upon the citizenry. Academic institutions harass, intimidate, and force out students and teachers who dare to challenge left wing orthodoxy. Media and internet powers ignore contrary views and engage in efforts to delete opinions that conflict with theirs. Officials, during the Obama Administration, sought to place federal monitors in news rooms. New York’s Senator Schumer actually introduced legislation to limit the application of the First Amendment towards paid political speech. So-called campaign regulations move far beyond guaranteeing fair and transparent elections and into the realm of actively discouraging average citizens from competing with career professionals in running for office.

Consider also the comments of Obama-era Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who openly considered criminally prosecuting anyone who merely expressed verbal disagreement with Barack’s views on climate change.

Self-defined globalists seek to subject the Constitution to the dictates of unelected, unaccountable and undemocratic international institutions. Before there even was an American Constitution, the concept of forcing laws upon America not of the country’s own making worried the Founders. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence contains this phrase, speaking at the time of King George III:

“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws…”

Those repeated claims by the left that the U.S. Constitution may be limited by international treaties and dictates can be seen most prominently in attempts to limit the Second Amendment but exists in other areas as well. Consider President Obama’s motives in removing some aspects of internet control from America, the nation which founded it, and surrendering it to an international body which is not bound by the First Amendment. Consider, as well, aspects of some international trade agreements which take authority away from Congress.

The solution has cialis generic purchase brought the online pharmacies. You will see an adjustment in your generico viagra on line http://robertrobb.com/2020/05/ penis size in the males so that t can perform well during the acts of intimacy. Let’s take a glance sildenafil tab at the main research and highlights. Because your HVAC system plays a significant role in the life of each and every person. order cialis over at this shop It’s not the only prescient phrase in that extraordinary and unprecedented document. Washington’s bureaucracy sees itself as superior to the elected government. The stunning spectacle of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation ignoring Congressional demands to release records and key information after Congress has repeatedly demanded them should trouble every American. Similarly, the actions of the Obama-era Environmental Protection Agency in believing that it could, even in cases where no clear environmental issue is at stake, control the actions of landowners on their own property is a major cause for alarm.

The Declaration itself discussed the threat of bureaucracy over elected government, when it complained that the King “… erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

Unable to win at the ballot box, the Left has engaged in street riots, intimidation of its opposition, and the harassment of White House appointees. Once again, this was a type of action mentioned in the Declaration, when it complained that King George III “excited domestic insurrections amongst us…”

The rising acceptance of Socialism, which has miserably failed to provide sustainable prosperity wherever and whenever it has been tried, is a major rejection of the individual rights and freedoms Americans have fought and died for in the 240 years since the Declaration of Independence was first signed.

Whether we will continue to be guided by its principles is now in serious contention.

Photo: National Archives

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.