Nobody’s freedom is safe right now – the United Nations General Assembly is in session. And it wouldn’t be a success without a rousing pro-globalism, anti-American speech by an American president. Mr. Obama fits that bill perfectly.
What were some of the main points of Mr. Obama’s farewell speech to the UN?
Well, for starters, we must give up some freedoms to achieve security. (Can’t he be a bit more original than that? What a let-down.)
To give him some credit for originality, he has expanded the concept of trading freedom for security from the individual level to that of nations. In other words, nations must surrender some of their autonomy to world bodies if a measure of security is to be achieved.
Of course, this is precisely the kind of talk we’ve come to expect from Obama and his ideological soul-mates. No doubt Hillary is chomping at the bit to take over where Barack has left off.
The U.N. General Assembly is in session. Obama is addressing it. Therefore, the American Republic has its neck on the chopping block. Words like freedom and liberty are all redefined to fit a world order where nations recognize the authority of supra-national bodies in making for a better world for us all. Restrictions on the rights of individuals are as much of an imperative as are restrictions on their national governments. To question the veracity of these statements is considered to be the mortal sin of our time.
Let’s listen in to get an idea of the vision that Mr. Obama and his allies have for us:
Advertisement - story continues below...
We have to put our money where our mouths are. And we can only realize the promise of this institution’s founding to replace the ravages of war with cooperation if powerful nations like my own accept constraints. Sometimes I’m criticized in my own country for professing a belief in international norms and multilateral institutions, but I’m convinced in the long run giving up some freedom of action, not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests but binding ourselves to international rules, over the long-term, enhances our security.
Pretty standard stuff for Mr. Obama. And whether she likes him or not, Hillary has to be cheering.
But wait, that last phrase doesn’t even seem to make any sense. Reading it again, “…not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests but binding ourselves to international rules, over the long-term, enhances our security.”
Presumably, nations will define their “core interests” in ways that, well, that suit their interests. What happens, Mr. Obama, when a nation’s “core interests” are thought inconsistent with “international rules?”
Now we see. It does make sense after all. Just redefine “core interests” and “autonomy” to meaninglessness, and a world government emerges as individual nation-states dissolve. Dare I say it? A New World Order.
Source: Washington Free BeaconTo get more good news like this one, check out and LIKE our Facebook page: SourcesNews