So first...what is a "sovereign nation?"

The short definition

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... eign+state

The bit longer definition
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sovereign+nation

A longer discussion is found here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/

So...there's your question and a few definitons...The Sovereign Nation Thread breathes...GO!!!!!

Well, that clears things up. . . .

I'd say we're currently sovereign, but much more national debt and we'll be under IMF rules or worse. . . .

As I have been traveling down my road of enlightenment, sovereignty has been an interesting "new" idea I've discovered.

Starting with individual sovereignty,, that being the Natural Rights to Life, Liberty and the right to property. State sovereignty, understanding that the States, their individual sovereignty from the union of the United States, and how that was the bases of setting up our Federal government. How up until the War for Southern Independence or the War against Southern Independence, the people of the individual States were very much observant of Federal violations as it related to States issues and the 9th and 10 amendment. As I understand it to date, this is the period where the Feds, became the focus and center of power and has incrementally become more powerful since.

Presidents and government since have taken actions to increase the executive branchs power and reach. Policies allowing national and international banking to expand such that we now feel the government is no longer really in control. The Federal Reserve, the IMF and dozens of other international bodies having tremendous controls on our economies.

My first exposure to international governance was learning about Wilson and the League of Nations, then the formation of the UN. I vaguely remember President Bush the 1st, talking of a new world order..." "We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order . . .. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders."
Even BushII gets into the act:"commitment to hemispheric integration and national and collective responsibility for improving the economic well-being and security of our people."

And then I read this, "the goals of the global elite have been publicly stated. Back in 1991, the founder of the CFR, David Rockefeller praised the major media for their complicity in helping to facilitate the globalist agenda by saying, "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

"Even Gideon Rachman, the chief foreign affairs commentator for the Financial Times, wrote an editorial expressing his support for world government. In his column he said, "I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. . . . But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

"A 'world government' would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.


I could quote more similiar statements by people of power,,, but it leads me to ask this question, is this what the people of the United States of America want? This is not what our country was built on. Do we get a choice? Are we going to get to change our Constitution to allow this, or will it happen thru Treaty?

What I've "enjoyed" most about my awakening is the study of the human condition through our history and how it relates to governance. I've come to question how important or how understood the term Liberty or Freedom means to the individual in this country? I'm fascinated by what people will tolerate and defend in the name of government involvement in their lives.

Do I believe we have national sovereignty? yes. Can we and should we maintain and strengthen it, yes. I look forward to other insights.
BTW,, the Packers suck!

I love Tommy's late Sunday evening political rants ....... just like fireside chats of ex-presidents.

*sighs* I want to be involved here, but so far, nothing to comment on.

We're a sovereign state. No question of that. Do I believe that the UN, the EU, or otherwise are negatives? No.

Do I believe that we can afford to avoid closer cooperation with the other nations of the world? No. Our economies have become too linked, travel to easy, information crosses boundaries even when people try to stop it.

This is a good thing, in my mind.

I missed the part on alien abductions, though. Why did he skip that?

Somewhat divergent - but one of the many examples of why being involved in the world is a positive, as discussed by the amazing Josh Lyman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi4ih3T9wtc

You do understand that this was from a TV show??? it.... wasn't ... really ... real.....

But as long as we are into posting YouTube links,, here's something also somewhat divergent..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy3KDYE5 ... r_embedded

Yea,,, it's a sweet thing our government does, "because we can.." - Josh Lyman

We've done bad things. Lots of people have. It does not mean we should not cooperate because we are all men and women created equally.

YEs, yes I do Tommy. I happen to believe that lessons from words can be draw from any type of written or spoken word

And yes, there we go - an example, one of MANY of larger countries meddling in the affairs of others. Not saying that it's a good thing. Although again the video is only a part of the history of Iran. In fact, I've written briefs for policy makers on the history of Iran - and the MANY overthrowing of governments that occurred in Iran, through both eternal and internal means.

But just because bad things have occurred, does not mean we should stop being engaged in international affairs... instead, we need to be careful with it. Which is something anyone can agree on.