In one of the most significant events in the modern history of the West, the U.K. voted on Thursday to sever itself from the European Union.
The Leave campaign’s rallying cry was to “make June 23rd Independence Day.”
“If we vote to Leave, and take back control, we believe that this Thursday could be our country’s Independence Day!” former London mayor and Brexit advocate, Boris Johnson, declared earlier this week.
Many have argued that this November—two hundred forty years following America’s fight for independence— the United States will be presented with a similar opportunity to cast off the globalist ideology that has dominated U.S. policies for decades.
As nationally syndicated talk radio host Laura Ingraham tweeted on Wednesday:
America's #Brexit-style vote is in Nov.– Will USA remain a free, independent & sovereign nation or cede more control to a global order?
— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) June 22, 2016
Sen. Jeff Sessions wrote in a USA Today op-ed, in which he laid out the case for Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton:
For the first time in a long time, this November will give Americans a clear choice on perhaps the most important issue facing our country and our civilization: whether we remain a nation-state that serves its own people, or whether we slide irrevocably toward a soulless globalism that treats humans as interchangeable widgets in the world market.
In his article, Sessions described Clinton as a “committed globalist.”
Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly has described this election as America’s “last chance.”
Echoing the nationalist themes of Brexit leaders, Trump has similarly framed this election as a referendum on U.S. sovereignty.
“We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism,” Trump said during a recent foreign policy address.
“Our country lost its way when we stopped putting the American people first,” he said in a speech laying out what is at stake in the 2016 election, adding:
We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism – focusing on what’s good for America’s middle class – to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy.
As Schlafly has explained, the two most significant issues threatening national sovereignty today are the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and our expansive immigration policy.
Conservatives warn that entering the TPP agreement— which has been championed by the globalist caucus in Washington including Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama— will come at the expense of U.S. sovereignty.
As Sessions has pointed out, Article 27.1 of the TPP agreement will ensnare the U.S. in a global governing commission similar to a “nascent European Union”— which had similarly begun as an economic agreement.
“This nation has never seen an agreement that compares to the TPP, which forms a new Pacific Union,” Sessions said. “This is far more than a trade agreement, but creates a self-governing and self-perpetuating Commission with extraordinary implications for American workers and American sovereignty.”
“These 5,554 pages [of the TPP] are like the Lilliputians binding down Gulliver. They will enmesh our great country, and economy, in a global commission where bureaucrats from Brunei have the same vote as the United States,” Sessions declared.
As Trump has similarly explained, “If [Hillary Clinton] is elected President, she will adopt the Trans-Pacific Partnership … [and] we will lose our country.”
Indeed, a review of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s record reveals that perhaps no one represents the “false song of globalism” better than the Clintons.
As former counselor to the secretary of Commerce, Clyde Prestowitz, has explained, much of the trade globalism that has come to define our current trade policies began in the 1990s under the Clintons’ rule.
“In the 1990s, international trade morphed into the far broader and more complex phenomenon of globalization,” Prestowitz wrote:
In 1992, the United States, Mexico and Canada essentially extended the 1988 U.S.-Canadian Free Trade Agreement into the North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA. … The agreement was essentially for an economic union, looser than but similar to the EU arrangement. Then in 1993, President Clinton hosted the first meeting of the leaders of twenty-one nations of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), who committed to greater economic integration of their nations. Finally in 1994, the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations concluded by turning the GATT into the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Prestowitz explained that the WTO had significant implications for U.S. sovereignty—namely, its establishment of “compulsory dispute settlement … essentially cut the United States off at the knees and made the WTO perhaps the most powerful international governing body.” It meant that U.S. could no longer “act as its own policeman on global economic issues.”
“It really should have been called the World Globalization Organization,” Prestowitz added.
Under President Clinton, the U.S. also negotiated China’s entrance into the WTO, which Prestowitz described as one of “America’s dumbest deals … [that] reduced American influence and power, and constrained its future wealth-creating ability.”
Prestowitz explained that Clinton was motivated by his globalist ideology: “[He] embraced the notion that globalization and Americanization are more or less the same thing and saw globalization as the way to make the Chinese more like us.”
This ideology continues to dictate the Clintons’ worldview. Hillary Clinton played a major role in championing the TPP. In 2012, she declared that TPP “set the gold standard in trade agreements.”
Clinton’s decision to promote the TPP demonstrates her underlying support for the international structures that underpin globalism. In other words, a politician can look at the text of the final product of a trade deal and say that she would like to see tweaks to certain provisions of the deal; however, someone who fundamentally opposes the idea of binding the nation to an international commission would not be able to support the TPP in any form.
Clinton’s aggressive TPP boosting illustrates her support for international governing structures, in which foreign countries are given equal weight to determining aspects of U.S. economic policy and decision-making.
Yet Clinton’s globalist ideology is not limited to her views on trade. Clinton’s immigration policy similarly is guided by an internationalist worldview, and she has put forth an immigration agenda that would essentially result in the erasure of U.S. borders.
Every year, the U.S. currently admits more than one million foreign nationals on green cards, one million foreign workers, dependents, and refugees, in addition to half a million foreign students.
About nine out of every ten new immigrants brought into the country on green cards are from non-Western countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia, or the Middle East.
Yet Clinton has pledged to increase this historic rate of immigration. She has said she will expand President Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesties, freeze deportations for aliens who have not yet been convicted of a crime, and dramatically expand U.S. refugee resettlement. Clinton has also rejected vetting processes that would prevent migrants who hold views that are antithetical to liberal Western values from entering the country.
Moreover, given how U.S. voting rights work, Clinton’s policy will not only dissolve borders, but it will disenfranchise millions of Americans by essentially flooding and canceling out their votes with the votes of imported foreign citizens.
In an exclusive 2014 interview with Breitbart News, UKIP’s Nigel Farage discussed the state of American politics and its parallels to the UK Independence movement. Farage observed that in the U.S., “there’s lots of will and energy to turn these things around, but, of course, the difficulty is money is very dominant in American politics, and a lot of the big donors probably want the Party to play safe whereas the activists don’t.”
Farage described this political moment as America’s “own battle,” as Breitbart reported two years ago:
“It’s not easy, it’s not easy, because the big parties have become part of the establishment with the donors and patronage and with government contracts–all of this actually working hand in glove, so it’s not easy,” Farage said. But the answer is actually pretty simple: Courage. Courage. You need a leader of the Republicans who’s prepared to say: “You know what? We’ll live without this. We’ll get our money somewhere else. We’ll do this differently. We’ll engage the people.” It has to be done and it’s going to take courage.
Indeed, in recent weeks, Hillary Clinton has resorted to fear-mongering as part of her effort to combat Trump’s nationalist movement. She has made grave predictions about the U.S. reducing its foreign military entanglements, she has warned that Trump’s desire to crack down on the illicit practices of foreign trading partners will spark a “trade war,” and she has suggested that the U.S. cannot enforce its immigration laws—and that attempting to do so is “bad economics.”
This is not dissimilar from the rhetoric of global elites who sought to stoke fear about leaving the EU. As Boris Johnson explained, “There is a very clear choice between those on their side who speak of nothing but fear of the consequences of leaving the EU, and we on our side who offer hope.”
Since Ted Kennedy’s immigration rewrite was passed in 1965, the U.S. has added 59 million immigrants. The U.S middle class has shrunk ten percentage points since 1970, and real average wages are lower today than they were in 1973, shortly after the nation’s green card gusher began.
America traces its lineage to centuries of British history and millennia of Western history, and yet, in just a few short decades since the immigration caps were removed in 1965, the U.S. has become demographically and ideologically representative of all nations of the earth, and it now faces the challenge of whether it will Balkanize or remain a self-governing country.