Having just read a blog on RightsWriter.com about the looming shellacking the USA stands to take resulting from Obama's fawning and obsequious apology to Guatemala for experiments conducted on some of their citizens in the 1940s, the specter of an additional problem with the choice to be a willing slave arose.
There is no doubt that US administrations have been bad actors - very bad in many cases. To this point the moral arguments may go back and forth based in the various theoretic foundations and assumptions. So-called "hawks" on the one hand will often argue the usual claptrap of manifest destiny, often disguised under thin veils of more modern sounding rhetorical composition. The so-called "doves" respond with their typically weak-wrist reasoning of bunnies and light, thereby assassinating what credibility they may ever have held. Both sides hold elements in which they are correct and that are otherwise.
What each side of the moral argument aisle appear to miss is one of the practical risks of our little intrigues: popular culpability. The United States is, at least technically speaking, a representative government. That means that everything our elected officials and their agents do is technically representative of our wishes. Forget about repudiations, because in courts of law those have a long history of failure where very serious supporting evidence is absent. Bear also in mind that courts are run by nothing better than other, utterly fallible human beings whose integrity cannot always be counted upon to prevail when one may need and want it most.
The result of Obama's ill-considered apology has been threats of litigation by Guatemalans who have caught the scent of an opportunity for a free ride on the gravy train. In such a case the only immediate danger might appear to be that the taxpayer will be called upon once again to pay for the sins of administrations past. However, further consideration reveals how this somewhat innocuous appearing result opens doors to risks of a far greater magnitude and gravity.
Because we are a representative government, one of the stipulations of the implied contract between the people and that government is that the latter acts with the consent of the former. This, of course, may be effectively argued against when a government acts extraordinarily and beyond the limits of its delegated powers and moral rectitude, or covertly. But what about when it does so on an ongoing basis, the people being generally aware of such behavior, yet taking no substantive action to put an end to it? Where this can be established, so can be demonstrated the consent of the governed and with it the establishment of equal partnership in the actions of those directly involved. In other words, we share equal culpability for the illegal, immoral, and criminal actions undertaken by those elected official and the agents we directly or otherwise employ when they act with our knowledge and tolerance. In this case, tolerance is minimally tantamount to acceptance and in some cases may even be established as outright agreement.
By knowingly tolerating the criminal activity of government officials, employees, and agents, in the international arena, we assume equal responsibility for the results of their actions as if they were our own because, in fact, they are. Those agents act on our behalves and we know about it. We may be able to claim innocence for the crimes committed in the 1940s where awareness of the utterly criminal our government was in so many facets was generally and very effectively kept from the people. That justification becomes vanishingly thin when we consider the contemporary situation.
Ever since the truth about Watergate broke, public awareness of the corrupt nature of government in general, and the US government in particular, has grown with every passing day. This has become especially so as the internet has grown ubiquitous.
The scandals have been endless, implicating presidents, cabinets members, congressmen, captains of industry, and position holders at just about any level and office of government one may care to name. Unless one has been living in a cave atop a wilderness mountain, there is precious little credible basis for claiming ignorance of the truth. Given this, the question that most prominently arises is: "if you knew, why did you not act to stop it?" This was the essence of many of the questions posed to the defendants at Nurnberg - the questions that, having not been adequately answered in most cases, lead to multiple executions for "crimes against humanity". Indeed, an entire nation had its feet held to the fire for many decades thereafter and to this very day bears the marks of those times upon itself and shall continue to do so for a good time to come.
If the great superpower that was Germany could be held as a nation to account for its general complicity in the actions and policies that lead to the nearly universal destruction of an entire continent and the murder of tens of millions of people, what in principle precludes the same circumstance from befalling the good people of the United States?
We now live in a time of ever increasing "globalization", which translates into ever decreasing levels of national sovereignty, further implying an ever weakening ability to defend against charges brought by international tribunals. Thus far the only thing that has saved us from being held accountable has been our superior military strength. That notwithstanding and the questions of right and wrong aside, the facts are that with every new administration since Bill Clinton (at the very least), we have seen our sovereignty whittled away as each successive president has been more than happy to put his signature to agreements that further dissolve and dilute the meaning of "The United States Of America" and that place us further under the rule of foreign powers. This is REALITY. It is fact that cannot be controverted by mere verbal claims to the contrary. Piecemeal are we being dissolved in the concentrated acidic solution of globalist "unification" and hegemony.
This slow, yet now accelerating sublimation of our nation into the fabric of the greater whole opens vistas of possibilities that most people have failed to so much as imagine, much less consider with care. As our sovereignty dissolves, so goes our power as a nation, and with that our ability to stand alone, freely, and immune to the results of the crimes that we have tolerated in our elected representatives and their hired agents. As that ability and power falls below a threshold, there is nothing in principle that prevents foreign parties from raising the issues of the "sins" of our past, real or contrived, and holding us accountable.
If perchance this can be done successfully, the American people as a whole may then be held accountable for the actions of our manifold administrations; many of those actions being heinously criminal in nature, often involving acts of mass murder on scales that would have brought proud tears to the eyes of the likes of Stalin and Mao. It would be an "international" body calling the shots in such cases, thereby rendering the ways in which we might be held to account potentially limitless. The international "community" has demonstrated in spades that its rules and regulations are formulated not on the basis of a sound and principled moral foundation, but rather on the bankrupt and capricious emotionalism so very reminiscent of the great socialist movements of the twentieth century.
It is clear that the rest of the world does not share the principled view of governance held in the USA. Europe has been long- and well-trained to accept the capricious and arbitrary changes of the rules of the games, so long as they are labeled as being "for the greater good". Who, other than Americans, routinely question the actions of government? Few, if any.
Americans do not, however, do enough to check the actions of their government, most particularly and significantly in the arena of foreign affairs where administrations have indulged in all manner of intrigue and outright criminal action including murder by the millions, the destruction of national economies, "scientific research" on the unwitting subjects of foreign nations, and a whole litany of other equally heinous criminal enterprises. We can legitimately claim ignorance of those undertaken in decades far past, but of the past forty years our excuses become precariously untenable, most especially those of the past twenty and the torrents of information with which the internet has provided us.
We as individuals and as a nation in America have no viable excuses for the tolerance of governmental corruption that we display in 2011. This truth poses particular threats to our sovereignty and liberty where our foreign policy is concerned. We can no longer naively claim that government is warring here or stealing there without our knowledge or that it is morally justifiable for the good of the nation. Such claims are wholly non-credible at every level and in every manner imaginable.
We know all too well what is going on, yet we sit idly back and let is all happen, most often justifying it under the similarly bankrupt claim that there is nothing we can do - that there is no choice. There is always a choice. That we choose by default is not just a shame upon us - it is a threat and a risk that we now face very directly and imminently as the world around us solidifies into a single, universal political mass. As our government continues to rob, plunder, and murder its way across the face of the planet in the context of an ever strengthening trend toward a world government and the dissolution of nations as sovereign entities, our knowing complicity through the consent implicit in our tolerance heaps equal measures of guilt upon us in the eyes of the world.
So long as out military might enables us to continue, we might choose to do so. But when that might is no longer sufficient to ward off the judgments of foreign powers, whether they be right or wrong, we then stand to be called to account for that which have tolerated. Innocence becomes irrelevant if the authorities and powers over us judge otherwise. It should also be noted that while the "international community" may be wholly antagonistic to the notion of national sovereignty, there is precious little doubt that they will use the issue as a lever to accomplish their ends against the American people if it proves useful.
In short order we shall see the end result of this Guatemalan attempt at shaking us down. If it meets with success for the plaintiffs, you may rest your money on the expectation that more will follow, particularly if there shall be left a wake of apologies from our esteemed leaders moving forward upon which other such parties might use to good advantage.
If we continue on this death march toward the utter dissolution of our nation, the sky will become the limit for foreign looters of every stripe. As Americans continue to resist, those limits will rise arbitrarily until either we capitulate into a new status as bald-faced chattel, or we take up our arms and fight these invasions to the bitter end. Either way the results stand to be terrible. Is this what we want? Why allow things to come to such a pass when today there still remains abundant opportunity to reverse this deplorable situation? Do not, however, conflate abundance of opportunity with that of time, for the latter is in short supply as the former rapidly evaporates before our eyes.
What shall we think if international suits against the American people for the crimes of its government become an accepted standard of remedy by not only the so-called "international community", but our own government? If we hand that much of ourselves over the the global authority, what does anyone think will be the result when we lose in those courts of questionable character and with whom no appeals shall be forthcoming? What will befall us when the amounts of the arbitrarily determined reparations far outstrip our ability as a nation to pony up? The answer is abundantly clear to any student of history and of human nature: the pound of flesh will be taken through collateral means. Perhaps they will "forgive" a crushing debt incurred as the result of international litigation if the people of the United States agree that they never really held any right to keep and bear arms and to surrender all their holdings.
Or perhaps we will be offered forgiveness in exchange for the acknowledgement that the concept of private property is invalid and always has been. Perhaps it will be offered in exchange for some other fundamental right with the explicitly expressed agreement that such a right never really existed in the first place. Desperate people will often make poor decisions when finding themselves between a rock and a hard place.
If perchance the Americans were to demonstrate an unfortunate level of pluck in response to these formally legitimized extortions, there are always military options on the table. Let it not come to anyone's surprise if the first waves of troops turned out to be wearing the uniforms of the American armed forces, including police. The enemy is inside the gates and we put many of them there via the ballot box. Let there be no illusions in our minds about that.
We are being very purposely painted into a corner and the avenues of escape shrink with every passing day. Given all of this, we may then see the nature of the threats posed to us - of the likely results of the more fundamental problem of our tolerance of a criminal cadre in government and of the devolution of our sovereignty as individuals and as a nation to the status of modern day serfdom.
What, then, is the solution?
The practical solution is to remove ourselves from all international intrigues and treaties, bar none, and as a people begin to clean the American house and keep it that way, making our displeasure and intolerance unequivocally clear to all who assume the mantle of the public trust. This is most critically important on the international front. Our foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster of criminal activity that has exposed each and every American citizen to potentially grave harms that threaten our posterity far beyond the foreseeable future.
Culturally and practically speaking, our salvation requires we become a warrior nation where our politics are concerned - ever vigilant and active in the battle between what is right and decent and those who seek to betray the trust of the people, usurp and arrogate to themselves power to which they have no moral claim, trespass upon our sacred liberties and their attendant rights, and dissolve our nation into the undifferentiated mass of the globalist mob.
The time is upon us - right here and right now - to choose. What are we to be? A nation of willing slaves placing ourselves squarely in the cross hairs of the international looters, or one of warriors for our personal liberties, national sovereignty, and principled morality in how we live amongst each other and with other nations? Bear in mind that as the willing slaves of our masters we share in the guilt of those who trespass against our international neighbors and we thereby expose ourselves to the dangers that such trespass risks. As our sovereignty piecemeal fails, we may be called upon to bear the selfsame accountability for the direct actions of those in command and would therefore be in no way immune to the consequences. Is this not enough to spur us to choose the life of the warrior over that of the willing, lazy, and cowardly boot licker?