Regardless of which representative of the statist Democratic/Republican duopoly is awarded the presidency in November, the United States of America will involve itself in more unconstitutional, undeclared, unwise foreign wars.
During the vice-presidential debate held October 4 between Tim Kaine (Democrat) and Mike Pence (Republican), both veep wannabes pledged their bosses to the commitment of American military might and men to the “protecting” of the world from armed menace.
For the Republicans, when asked by the moderator, Elaine Quijano, whether “the U.S. [has] a responsibility to protect civilians and prevent mass casualties” on the scale of that occurring in Aleppo, Syria, Mike Pence responded, “The United States of America needs to begin to exercise strong leadership to protect the vulnerable citizens and over 100,000 children in Aleppo.” “I truly do believe that what America ought to do right now is immediately establish safe zones,” Pence said, adding, that “the provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength.”
Finally, in case it wasn’t clear just how expansive the American military presence would be globally, Pence said, “There’s a broad range of other things that we ought to do, as well.”
Undoubtedly.
That’s a significant commitment to increasing the American military presence throughout the world.
Not to be outdone, Tim Kaine said that he and his running mate, Hillary Clinton, would take action in Syria “consistent with the U.N. Security Council resolution that was passed in February 2014.”
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
A promise of allegiance to the United Nations is a priori a violation of the presidential oath of fidelity to the Constitution, for there is not a single syllable in that document authorizing the president or any other officer of the government of the United States to use the armed forces of this country to protect any nation other than our own.
The notion that there is a “responsibility to protect” as spoken of by the moderator and praised by Mike Pence and Tim Kaine is one that has been extremely popular in globalist circles for years, as it is a devious way to sell unbounded U.S. military combat activity as a humanitarian obligation.
It is a way for the United Nations and the architects of the New World Order it serves to abolish U.S. sovereignty and to co-opt the U.S. armed forces, making them the military arm of the global government.
A cursory rehearsal of the history of “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) will reveal the true plan of the plutocrats.
One of the chief advocates (if not architects) of the R2P is the American ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power. Since assuming that post in 2013, Power has coordinated an unprecedented acceleration of the drive toward one-world government and a subordination of U.S. sovereignty to the unelected, unaccountable whims of that world body.
Ambassador Power rose to prominence in government circles as part of her campaign to promote the Responsibility to Protect. Responsibility to Protect is a doctrine advanced by the United Nations and is predicated on the proposition that sovereignty is a privilege, not a right, and that if any regime in any nation violates the prevailing precepts of acceptable governance, then the international community is morally obligated to revoke that nation’s sovereignty and assume command and control of the offending country.
The three pillars of the United Nations-backed Responsibility to Protect are:
• A state has a responsibility to protect its population from mass atrocities.
• The international community has a responsibility to assist the state if it is unable to protect its population on its own.
• If the state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions.
Military intervention is described as a “last resort,” but judging by the commitments to combat made by both vice-presidential candidates, it seems that perhaps the last shall be first, so to speak.
Records indicate that the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, of which Samantha Power is a co-founder, participated in the advisory board of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty that was established by the Canadian government in September 2000 to address the growing problem of “mass atrocities.”
It was this “independent” commission that coined the term “responsibility to protect.”
Also of significance to the current examination of Samantha Power is the fact that she was the founding executive director and the head of the Carr Center at the precise time it was helping to hammer out the details of the implementation of the Responsibility to Protect.
There are other more ominous threads in the tapestry depicting the relationship that exists among President Obama, Samantha Power, the Atrocities Prevention Board she once led, the United Nations, and America’s official sponsorship of the Responsibility to Protect.
The worldwide leader in the promotion of this sovereignty-stealing doctrine that Samantha Power worked to develop is the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect (GCR2P).
As published on its website, the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect’s mission is
to help transform the principle of the responsibility to protect into a practical guide for action in the face of mass atrocities. The GCR2P was founded by leading figures in government and academia, as well as by International Crisis Group, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam International, Refugees International, and WFM-Institute for Global Policy.
The GCR2P engages in advocacy around specific crises; conducts research designed to further understanding of R2P; recommends and supports strategies to consolidate the norm and help states build capacity; and works closely with NGOs, governments and regional bodies which are seeking to operationalize the responsibility to protect.
Not surprisingly, the fingerprints of one of the world’s most notorious “philanthropists” are found all over the Responsibility to Protect.
One of the biggest financial supporters of the GCR2P is the Open Society Institute, which itself is a branch of the Open Society Foundations, a grantmaking network created and funded by none other than the leftist financier and Rothschild benefactor George Soros.
A quick perusal of the GCR2P website reveals that the group of Soros is one of a very small cadre of sponsors not affiliated with any government. The other two sponsors are the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (a substantial funder of National Public Radio) and Scott and Elena Lawlor.
Apart from providing financial backing to the Responsibility to Protect, Soros personally believes in and promotes the philosophy. In an article published by Foreign Policy in 2004 entitled “The People’s Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations,” Soros presented his take on the principles that undergird the Responsibility to Protect. “True sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments,” Soros wrote.
And:
If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified. By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states’ borders to protect the rights of citizens.
In particular, the principle of the people’s sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict.
As The New American and The John Birch Society have chronicled for decades, the only way to protect U.S. sovereignty from the globalist government-in-waiting and the establishment of the new world order is to get the United States out of the UN and the UN out of the United States.
It seems that the need for the influence of constitutionalists is urgent, as the candidates offered by both major political parties promise to further the globalist goals of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine and to commit the armed might of the United States to advancing the cause of global government.
Photo: AP Images
