It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Huckabee's foreign policy advisor would forfeit sovereignty

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:41 PM
Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere. I'm new to this forum and not sure what has and hasn't been posted.

If you're considering voting for Huckabee, please read this article.

Huckabee Exposed as NWO Puppet

Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the WTO because on balance they benefit from an international trading order even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.

Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the US, China, and India, accept emissions limits or adopt common standards because they recognize that they would be worse off if no country did.

All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization. At its core, globalization entails the increasing volume, velocity, and importance of flows -- within and across borders -- of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, e-mails, weapons and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty's fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.

Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.

I can't vote for someone who will be advised to forfeit our national sovereignty. Can you? And if he will do this on a global level, what will he do on a national level? Bye-bye what states' rights we have left.

posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 11:34 PM
Two questions.

First, aren't "state's rights" generally fought over issues where said states want to oppress or disenfranchise a group (such as Jim Crow or sodomy laws)? Given that the most ardent supporters of States Rights that I've met (your results will vary, of course) tend to be of the racist-yet-so-oppressed-for-being-white variety, I'm not sure how well these work.

Second, given that globalization won't stop until the oil flow does, do you think the United States' best interest lies in extreme isolation or increase belligerency to prevent other powers from rising, rather than actually become part of a more fluid global community?

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 02:11 PM
reply to post by GirlNextDoor

Well, for one, the Huckster has already shown that he has aligned with some of the NWO because of his pro-amnesty stance. He talks-the-talk of the NAU and the SPP and as his position and beliefs begin to become more obvious, his ratings will fall. The entire illegal immigration is too large an issue for America and it will cost him just as it cost McCain on his position.

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 01:04 AM
reply to post by Zoltan

I have to admit, it's hilarious watching the Republicans crown a candidate, just to eviscerate him a few days later. It's like watching a Britney marriage.

Republicans, ask yourselves, what the hell do you want for a candidate?
Do you want a strongarm police state thug like Giuliani?
Do you want a christofascist theocrat like Huckabee?
Do you want a gun-waving seminazi like Tancredo?
Do you want a clueless isolationist like Paul?

Can't have it all, guys!

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:21 AM
reply to post by The Walking Fox

It's amazing to see how much money is being spent in Iowa. Personally, I love knowing that there are so many "Independents" and "undecided" folks that are driving the talking heads bonkers right now. What a hoot. At least it gives them all a decent day's work for their wages, though.

Walking, I'm not a Republican, so I can't answer those questions as a die-hard. I learned today that Huckabee has aligned with Jim Gilchrist (of the Minutemen) and is now riding the Huckabee media bus. What's Huckabee thinking -- his bedfellows are becoming a motley crew!

FYI -- Tancredo is no longer running -- he pulled out. Giuliani -- good description of him (can you believe we actually agree on something?!) Ron Paul is not clueless at all, in fact, he's generally positioned himself through his own principles and the instrument of our Constitution.

I'm betting on Obama, but it's so close bet. Huck and Romney that I'm on the fence there. What about you? Care to put in your 2-cents?

new topics

top topics

log in