{"id":640,"date":"2007-12-31T20:30:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-31T20:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arkansasfreedom.net\/?p=640"},"modified":"2007-12-31T20:30:00","modified_gmt":"2007-12-31T20:30:00","slug":"huckabee-exposed-as-new-world-order-puppet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/arkansasfreedom.net\/?p=640","title":{"rendered":"Huckabee Exposed as New World Order Puppet"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

 <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.nationalexpositor.com\/News\/840.html<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Huckabee Exposed as New World Order Puppet<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Mike Huckabee recently named Richard
\nHaas (the President of the CFR) as his advisor on foreign policy. CNN’s WOLF
\nBLITZER asked “Who are your principal foreign policy advisers,
\nGovernor?” Mike Huckabee responded: “Well, I have a number of people
\nfrom whom I get policy. I’m talking to Frank Gaffney, I talk to Richard
\nHaas” <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

So what does Richard Haas believe
\nin? Here’s an article below which was written by Haas for the Tapei
\nTimes. It basically states the Bill of Rights and Constitution should
\nbe given up in favor of a cooperative world body run by elite consensus. Who
\nneeds individual rights in the techno-futuristic world police state? And you
\nthought liberty was in jeopardy now? Just wait till you see what your children
\nwill have to deal with. Get activated folks, These police state freaks want to
\nshape your future into a control grid enforced through the fear based
\nreaction to state sponsored false flag terror. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

State
\nSovereignty Must be Altered in Globalized Era<\/span><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

In the age
\nof globalization, states should give up some sovereignty to world bodies in
\norder to protect their own interests<\/span> <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

By Richard Haass<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Taipei Times<\/a> – For 350 years, sovereignty — the notion
\nthat states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are
\nessentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not within
\nthe territory of other states — has provided the organizing principle of
\ninternational relations. The time has come to rethink this notion. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

The world’s 190-plus states now
\nco-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly
\n(and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to
\nnon-governmental organizations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels,
\nfrom regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The
\nsovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it
\nis able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign
\nentities is being eroded. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

As a result, new mechanisms are
\nneeded for regional and global governance that include actors other than
\nstates. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman
\nSachs be given seats in the UN General Assembly, but it does mean including
\nrepresentatives of such organizations in regional and global deliberations when
\nthey have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges
\nare met. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Less is more <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover,
\nstates must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the
\ninternational system is to function. This is already taking place in the trade
\nrealm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the WTO because on balance
\nthey benefit from an international trading order even if a particular decision
\nrequires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.
\n<\/span><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Some governments are prepared to
\ngive up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change.
\nUnder one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012,
\nsignatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor
\narrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the US, China, and
\nIndia, accept emissions limits or adopt common standards because they recognize
\nthat they would be worse off if no country did. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

All of this suggests that
\nsovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization. At its
\ncore, globalization entails the increasing volume, velocity, and importance of
\nflows — within and across borders — of people, ideas, greenhouse gases,
\ngoods, dollars, drugs, viruses, e-mails, weapons and a good deal else,
\nchallenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control
\nwhat crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly measure
\ntheir vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Globalization thus implies that
\nsovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become
\nweaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect
\nthemselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on
\nelsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

This was demonstrated by the
\nAmerican and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan’s Taliban government,
\nwhich provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power.
\nSimilarly, the US’ preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was
\nthought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no
\nlonger provides absolute protection. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Imagine how the world would react if
\nsome government were known to be planning to use or transfer a nuclear device
\nor had already done so. Many would argue — correctly — that sovereignty
\nprovides no protection for that state. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Necessity may also lead to reducing
\nor even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of
\ncapacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its
\ncitizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and
\ngenocide can lead to destabilizing refugee flows and create openings for
\nterrorists to take root. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

The NATO intervention in Kosovo was
\nan example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of
\nanother government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. By contrast,
\nthe mass killing in Rwanda a decade ago and now in Darfur, Sudan, demonstrate
\nthe high price of judging sovereignty to be supreme and thus doing little to
\nprevent the slaughter of innocents. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Conditions needed <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Our notion
\nof sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than
\nabsolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring
\nterrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or
\nconducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and
\nopens itself up to attack, removal or occupation. <\/span><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

The diplomatic challenge for this
\nera is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a
\nprocedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

The goal should be to redefine
\nsovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of
\nfully sovereign states and an international system of either world government
\nor anarchy. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

The basic idea of sovereignty, which
\nstill provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be
\npreserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main
\nchallenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what
\ngovernments do to their citizens rather than from what states do to one
\nanother. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Richard Haass is president of the
\nCouncil on Foreign Relations and the author of <\/span><\/em>The
\nOpportunity: America’s Moment to Alter History’s Course. <\/em><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/o:p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

  http:\/\/www.nationalexpositor.com\/News\/840.html   Huckabee Exposed as New World Order Puppet Mike Huckabee recently named Richard Haas (the President of the CFR) as his advisor on foreign policy. CNN’s WOLF BLITZER asked “Who are your principal foreign policy advisers, Governor?” Mike Huckabee responded: “Well, I have a number of people from whom I get policy. I’m … Continue reading Huckabee Exposed as New World Order Puppet<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[17,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-640","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-huckabee-shameful-record","category-presidential-candidates"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/arkansasfreedom.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/640","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/arkansasfreedom.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/arkansasfreedom.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arkansasfreedom.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arkansasfreedom.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=640"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/arkansasfreedom.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/640\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/arkansasfreedom.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=640"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arkansasfreedom.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=640"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arkansasfreedom.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=640"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}