Prismatic Transparency Pt. 2

Still reading the May 2010 National Security Strategy. It is amazing how aloof our President is. As if he lives in a world of peace, love and cotton candy. Under the section titled "Pursuing Comprehensive Engagement" the following reads

"Succesful engagement will depend upon the effective use and integration of different elements of American power. Our diplomacy and development capabilities must help prevent conflict, spur economic growth, strengthen weak and failing states, lift people out of poverty, combat climate change and epidemic disease, and strengthen institutions of democratic governance."

• Prevent conflict - Why? What's to gain by that? We would still be under the rule of England if our revolutionary conflict were prevented. One of the smartest things ever said by President John F. Kennedy, in reference to the Vietnam conflict before it got fully underway, was "It's their war, let them fight it."
• Spur economic growth - In what way are we talking about? Oh, I get it... globalization. We'll ship more American jobs overseas to spur the economic growth of another country. Is that a great idea or what?
• Strengthen weak and failing states - I believe the "bailout" metaphor works nicely here. If a business is failing, it is best to allow said business to heal itself or die. In the case of a country, the same should hold true. It is up to the peoples of any nation to make due for themselves. Except in such instances where tyranny is the cause for national insolvency. In this regard ONLY, should another government interfere with the sovereignty of another nation.
• Lift people out of poverty - Sounds like welfare to me. Is this an allusion to a new policy of "stimulus" for entitlements? We can't even afford our own welfare entitlements, what makes this administration think it can afford to prop up those of other countries?
• Combat climate change - Interesting choice of words. To combat... does that mean Green Peace will now train as a para-military pressence to enforce cap and trade? I'm sure some of you have seen that cable show "Whale Wars", where animal rights activists COMBAT whaling ships. It seems like it is only a matter of time before environmentalists take up guns and terrorize businesses for their percieved carbon foot print.

Interjection - Nothing thwarts Earth in her own forces. This world will take care of itself. If man causes too much damage to her, then Earth will let us know by killing off every insectile human who dwells on her surface. That doesn't mean that I think we should allow toxic waste to be dumped in our streams or let the oil in the gulf just sit on the shorelines. But it does mean that man should not hold down man with an iron fist for using Earth's resources to improve life. If a hippie wants to live barefoot and naked in the woods they should be allowed to, but to enforce such a minimalistic lifestyle on the masses is unrealistic and undermines personal freedom.

The next section is titled "Promoting a Just and Sustainable International Order". The first paragraph alone speaks volumes to its intents.

"Our engagement will underpin a just and sustainable international order—just, because it advances mutual interests, protects the rights of all, and holds accountable those who refuse to meet their responsibilities; sustainable because it is based on broadly shared norms and fosters collective action to address common challenges."

Friends and neighbors, this is Socialism on a worldwide scale. Just how just can it be?

• Advances mutual interests - Mutual interests do not exist on a global scale. What's good for one nation is often times bad for another. Like globalization, shipping American jobs overseas is bad for us, but good for the country who is taking them.
• Protects the rights of all - This is an impossibility. Does that mean an international order will protect Israel's right to exist, while simultaneously protecting Hezbollah's "right" to wipe them off the face of the Earth? When enacting laws for one group of people, you oppositely alienate another group of people. It is a paradox.
• Holds accountable those who refuse to meet their responsibilities - So, the responsibility of a sovereign nation to do what it is told by a global authority, thus negating said nation's sovereignty. Another paradox.

Sustainable... yeah, only in political theory, but not in reality.

• Based on broadly shared norms - This means, in socialist parlance, that whatever the majority of a particular issue wants is what is adopted into the plan. That's the democracy part of Democratic-Socialism (an oxymoron in and of itself). But because that becomes the plan, any deviations from the means to that end are disregarded. Because it is impossible to quantify the personal needs of every individual, it is impossible for a one-size-fits-all plan to maintain effectuality, and therefore is unsustainable. The only "broadly shared norm" is that we are human and work toward our own individual ends.
• Fosters collective action - Another allusion to collectivism (as discussed in previous post), which is purposely ambiguous in its usage with "broadly shared norms" to not specify what those particular norms are, or what, if any, "collective action" is to be taken. This is highly important to the function of a socialist system for the sole purpose of my previous point in that not one plan will ever be agreed upon.
• Addresses common challenges - By keeping terms limited to "general welfare", "general interest", "common good", "common purpose", "social goal", etc. it becomes a tool of those in executive power to effect their own idealogical ends. Inevitably it becomes evident that no one can agree on anything (abortion, gay marriage, economy and politics are all good examples of this) and that nothing is getting done. This is when it is deemed neccessary to suspend democratic process in the name of the "common good" to appoint a legislative council or even an autocrat with supreme power to get things done. We've seen this happen before. That's how Germany got Adolph Hitler. And we see it today with the President's commissions and czars on everything from healthcare to the BP debacle.

Below, the President expresses his love for a one world government. Even if he does admit it has its flaws. He seems to believe that those flaws are reconcilable.

"In recent years America’s frustration with international institutions has led us at times to engage the United Nations (U.N.) system on an ad hoc basis. But in a world of transnational challenges, the United States will need to invest in strengthening the international system, working from inside international institutions and frameworks to face their imperfections head on and to mobilize transnational cooperation. We must be clear-eyed about the factors that have impeded effectiveness in the past. In order for collective action to be mobilized, the polarization that persists across region, race, and religion will need to be replaced by a galvanizing sense of shared interest. Swift and effective international action often turns on the political will of coalitions of countries that comprise regional or international institutions. New and emerging powers who seek greater voice and representation will need to accept greater responsibility for meeting global challenges. When nations breach agreed international norms, the countries who espouse those norms must be convinced to band together to enforce them."

Replaced by a galvanizing sense of shared interest? Where is this mythic land where region, race, and religion cease to be polarizing issues? I wanna go there... Do they call it Shangri-la-la land? Has civilization really evolved to such utopian proportions that we would be willing to give up the sovereignty of our nation? And how exactly is this galvanized sense of shared interest suppossed to happen? Well, let's think about this...

... I remember the morning of September 11th, 2001 very clearly, and even the few months following. It sure seemed then that there was a galvanizing sense of shared interest to go kick the sh!t out of some terrorist cowards. Or possibly this administration's moratorium on offshore drilling because of the galvanizing sense of shared interest that we could suffer another catastrophe.

Both of these scenarios have multiple conspiracy theories attached to them. Some say the Bush administration worked in collusion with al-qaida to mobilize the military industrial complex. Some say that Obama had the Deep Water Horizon rig sabotaged (and possibly the West Virginia coal mine incident) to advance the progressive cap and trade agenda.

A galvanizing sense of shared interest. Man, what on Earth could invoke such a sense? There are only two things I can think of that would transcend the issues of region, race, and religion and cause a galvanizing sense of shared interest.

1. An asteroid hurtling toward Earth that would wipe out mankind indeffinitely.
2. Jesus drives a shiny white Cadillac back to Earth to clean house.

Unless of course what causes the galvinization is in response to a threat of worldly origin. Such as the deliberate collapse of a national economy for the purposes of driving the masses into the embrace of Socialism.

Ever heard of the Cloward-Piven Strategy? Look it up, it will explain a lot. Basically, the strategy is to "organize" poor and ethnic communities for the sake of getting them on welfare. This "community organizing" educates the people... not on how to better themselves, no... it educates them on how to drain the system. Once enough people are on welfare it will bankrupt the nation, thus causing mass panic and rioting due to hunger and homelessness, at which time the progressives believe the conditions will be ripe for Socialism.

The last sentence of the paragragh, "When nations breach agreed international norms, the countries who espouse those norms must be convinced to band together to enforce them.", is a very dangerous proposition. In advancing this international order or one world government, we give up our rights to govern ourselves. If the central body of government is the United Nations, then those international norms will be based on what the majority of countries deem them to be. Unfortunately, America's "norms" vastly differ from those of most other countries.

There is a lot in the National Security Strategy that I do agree with, and I believe that our President has good intentions... or at least, I hope and pray he does. For as intelligent as he seems to be, you'd think that he'd have researched Socialism and its pitfalls before acting in a way that advances its principles. Hmm... food for thought.

Thanks for reading.... more to come later.