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

Part 3: AMERICA’S STRATEGIC POSTURE

We conclude our summary of the urgent recommendation of the Congressional Committee on the nation’s Strategic Posture NON-NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES The Commission recommends: The United States urgently deploy a more resilient space architecture and adopt a strategy that includes both offensive and defensive elements to ensure U.S. access to and operations in space. The United States and its Allies take steps to ensure they are at the cutting edge of emerging technologies – such as big data analytics, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence (AI) – to avoid strategic surprise and potentially enhance the U.S. strategic posture. The United States prioritize funding and accelerate long-range non-nuclear precision strike programs to meet the operational need and in greater quantities than currently planned. x America’s Strategic Posture The United States develop and field homeland IAMD that can deter and defeat coercive attacks by Russia and China, and determine the capabilities needed to stay ahead of the North Korean threat.4 The Secretary of Defense direct research, development, test and evaluation into advanced IAMD capabilities leveraging all domains, including land, sea, air, and space. These activities should focus on sensor architectures, integrated command and control, interceptors, cruise and hypersonic missile defenses, and area or point defenses. The DOD should urgently pursue deployment of any capabilities that prove feasible. The Secretary of Defense and the Military Departments transfer operations and sustainment responsibility for missile defense to the appropriate Military Departments by 1 October 2024. This will allow the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to focus on research, development, prototyping and testing. ALLIES AND PARTNERS The Commission believes it is in the U.S. national interest to maintain, strengthen, and when appropriate, expand its network of alliances and partnerships. These relationships strengthen American security by deterring aggression regionally, before it can reach the U.S. homeland, while also enabling U.S. economic prosperity through access to international markets. Withdrawing from U.S. alliances and partnerships would directly benefit adversaries, invite aggression that the United States might later have to reverse, and ultimately decrease American, allied, and partner security and economic prosperity. Further, the Commission believes that our defense and the defense of the current international order is strengthened when Allies can directly contribute to the broader strategic posture, and the United States should seek to incorporate those contributions as much as possible. The Executive branch should recognize that any major change to U.S. strategic posture, policies, or capabilities will have great effect on Allies’ perceptions and their deterrence and assurance requirements. As a result, any changes should be predicated on meaningful consultations. RISK REDUCTION The Commission believes it is of paramount importance for the United States to work to reduce strategic risks. This involves activities and programs across the U.S. government, including in nonproliferation and arms control, as well as maintaining strong, viable, and resilient military forces. The Commission recommends that a strategy to address the two-nuclear-peer threat environment be a prerequisite for developing U.S. nuclear arms control limits for the 2027-2035 timeframe. The Commission recommends that once a strategy and its related force requirements are established, the U.S. government determine whether and how nuclear arms control limits continue to enhance U.S. security. The Commission recommends that the United States continue to explore nuclear arms control opportunities and conduct research into potential verification technologies in order to support or enable future negotiations in the U.S. national interest that seek to limit all nuclear weapon types, should the geopolitical environment change. Where formal nuclear arms control agreements are not possible, the Commission recommends pursuing nuclear risk reduction measures to increase predictability and reduce uncertainty and the chances for misperception and miscalculation. The 2009 Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States reported that the United States was at “a moment of opportunity, . . .but also a moment of urgency” – because the security environment had improved and the threat of nuclear proliferation was the principal concern. Since 2009, the security environment has dramatically worsened and new existential threats have emerged. This Commission concludes that the United States now faces a highstakes challenge that requires urgent action. Nevertheless, the Commission has not seen the U.S. government demonstrate the urgency and creativity required to meet the challenge. Nothing other than synchronized steps taken by the Executive and Legislative Branches will craft the strategy and build the posture the nation requires. The challenges are unmistakable; the problems are urgent; the steps are needed now. Photo: An Air Force Global Strike Command unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile launches during a test at Vandenberg Space Force Base (DoD)