Pieces of the Puzzle: The Militarization Of American Liberty

Forcing ‘Democracy’ On Other Nations Under The Guise Of ‘Liberty’

If we are to see more of the ‘bigger picture’ that is our world, we need to know and understand more history.  It is only when we know and understand history that we can start to see and understand how the things that happened in the past are still driving the events of today.  It is easy for each new generation to think they are somehow separated from the past, but this is an illusion.  We are closer to the past than we realize.  For example: suppose I were ninety years old today, and when I was ten, I spoke to a relative who was ninety years old at that time (that would be in 1933).  Now imagine that my relative had spoken to another ninety year old relative when he was ten (that would be in 1854).  Do you understand what that means?  It means that – today — it is possible for me to have spoken directly to someone who actually knew one someone who was alive before the birth of this nation!  It is actually possible to connect a ninety year old American to the founding of this nation in two steps, yet we think of our founding as ancient history.  I wonder, are you closer to Kevin Bacon than our hypothetical ninety year old American?  Now, here’s why this matters.

Our founders never intended this nation to meddle in the affairs of other nations – especially in a military sense.  How do we know this?  We know this because John Quincy Adams told us so:

[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

In other words, America does not get involved in foreign wars or struggles for liberty.  We will lend our voice to the cause of liberty, and set the example through our own actions.  But we know that, if we were to get involved directly, we will end up getting into a mess from which we could not extract ourselves and which would – eventually –lead to the loss of liberty, here and abroad.  Too bad we didn’t listen because, looking backward, this is exactly what we’ve done.

The seeds of our meddling in foreign affairs were planted long before and in another land, but they first germinated under Teddy Roosevelt and sprouted into national policy under Woodrow Wilson.  Wilson was among the very first to make it a national policy to “make the world safe for democracy.”  He was also the President that started the process of ceding American sovereignty to an international body: in Wilson’s case, the League of Nations.  It continued under Franklin Delanore Roosevelt and the United Nations.  It continues today with men such as George Soros and his Open Society Institute.  The difference is, since WW II, this nation has changed the way it uses its military.  Rather than declare war, we engage in ‘Police Actions” and “Kinetic Military Actions.”  These represent a violation of the Constitution, as I explain in my post on The Road to Concord,  CONSTITUTIONAL EROSION: Presidential Usurpation Of Congress’ Authority To Declare War.  But this usurpation of Congressional powers to permit military ventures in the affairs of other nations is just a tool.  The idea behind it is what drives it, and that idea is wholly foreign to the American ideal.

Our founders also believed that we should hold an allegiance to our nation akin to that which we have for our family.  However, for the last century, our national leaders have pushed the idea of democracy and global community.  This is the driving force behind the League of Nations and United Nations.  Our founders also rejected the idea of democracy.  In fact, they called it the tyranny of the masses:

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

— John Adams

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.  Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

–Benjamin Franklin

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

 – Thomas Jefferson

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”

–James Madison

So, in the nation that showed the world how to put the principles of individual rights and liberty into practice, how is it the people have forgotten these important principles?  How did they instead come to embrace the very concepts our founders told us are enemies of individual rights and liberty?  Is there an ideology that embraces these ideas?  Actually, there is, and it just happened to gain global prominence at about the same time this nation started to advocate these same ideas.  It is well known that the various schools of socialism all embrace some form of democracy, but what is not so well known is that Communism not only rejects nationalism, but openly advocates for a global governance:

I don’t care what becomes of Russia. To hell with it. All this is only the road to a World Revolution.

The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them.

— Vladimir Lenin

The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism.

— Karl Marx

“Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a “world order” in which “the principles of justice and fair play … protect the weak against the strong …” A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.”

— George H. Bush, March 6, 1991 speech

 How can you have an absence of opposition to socialism if there are nations that reject socialism?  The answer is: you can’t.  The next question then becomes: How do you force socialism on every nation in the world? The only solution is a global government, but — until you have that global government — you push the ideas of global democracy and ‘good’ where and how you can:

Now, it should be noted that, while the idea of a global government is embraced by people with different agendas, that global government is just a means to an ends.  Each of these groups sees the formation of global governance as nothing more than a vehicle to achieve their goals.  Likewise, though they will speak of and push the notion of democracy, not even the Communists believed that democracy can work:

Democracy is a form of government that cannot long survive, for as soon as the people learn that they have a voice in the fiscal policies of the government, they will move to vote for themselves all the money in the treasury, and bankrupt the nation.

— Karl Marx

To these people, democracy is just another vehicle to use until they achieve their goal, and global governance is that goal.  Now, what comes after that will depend on which faction among those pushing for this global governance happens to win the war that is sure to follow any formation of a global government.

[NOTE: Using our hypothetical ninety year old Americans, the American who could have spoken to someone who actually knew John Quincy Adams would have been ninety in 2008 – meaning he or she could still be alive today at the age of 95!]