Hillary Clinton: “I was proud to help the president begin reimagining and reinforcing the global order”

George H. W. Bush may have brought the term “New World Order” to prominence in political discourse, but the idea of world government has been around for a very, very long time.  Much more recently, the term has been attached to the thinking and positions of individuals such as George Soros, Ted Turner, Henry Kissinger, Barack Obama, and both Clintons.  In fact, Hillary penned an article in the Washington Post back in 2014 showing her alignment with Kissinger’s thinking.

It would be nice to just write this piece off as “typical liberal gobbledygook.”  The problem with that is the author, in just a few days from now, might get herself elected as the next president.  So it’s necessary to take her words seriously.

A quick comment about words.  In “Clintonspeak,” words do not have clear meanings — even obvious ones like “is” as Bill Clinton famously illustrated.  So as you read these excerpts, what appears obvious might not be the meaning Hillary attaches to particular words and phrases.  What is obvious is that she has confirmed her position in the Henry Kissinger tradition of a globalist or New World Order ideology.

Hillary writes:

… as Kissinger puts it, “Are we facing a period in which forces beyond the restraints of any order determine the future?”

For me, this is a familiar question. When I walked into the State Department in January 2009, everyone knew that it was a time of dizzying changes, but no one could agree on what they all meant. Would the economic crisis bring new forms of cooperation or a return to protectionism and discord? Would new technologies do more to help citizens hold leaders accountable or to help dictators keep tabs on dissidents? Would rising powers such as China, India and Brazil become global problem-solvers or global spoilers? Would the emerging influence of non-state actors be defined more by the threats from terrorist networks and criminal cartels, or by the contributions of courageous NGOs? Would growing global interdependence bring a new sense of solidarity or new sources of strife?

“Courageous” NGOs such as the Clinton Global Initiative, perhaps?

Watch out for words like “reimagining” below to discern Hillary’s real beliefs.

I was proud to help the president begin reimagining and reinforcing the global order to meet the demands of an increasingly interdependent age. In the president’s first term, we laid the foundation, from repaired alliances to updated international institutions to decisive action on challenges such as Iran’s nuclear program and the threat from Osama bin Laden.

The crises of the second term underscore that this is a generational project that will demand a commitment from the United States and its partners for years to come. Kissinger writes that foreign policy is not “a story with a beginning and an end,” but “a process of managing and tempering ever-recurring challenges.”

Put far more bluntly than Hillary would, it’s clear that she and Obama have a plan for every part of the world. In the case below, the Far East is the target of her thinking.

In my book “Hard Choices,” I describe the strategy President Obama and I developed for the Asia-Pacific, centered on strengthening our traditional alliances; elevating and harmonizing the alphabet soup of regional organizations, such as ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and APEC (the ­Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation organization); and engaging China more broadly — both bilaterally, through new venues such as the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, and multilaterally, in settings where regional pressure would encourage more constructive behavior and shared decision-making on matters from freedom of navigation to climate change to trade to human rights. Our “pivot to Asia,” as it came to be known, is all about establishing a rules-based order in the region that can manage the peaceful rise of new powers and promote universal norms and values.

Hillary goes on to discuss the close cooperation she and Mr. Kissinger shared while she was secretary of state.  She then asserts that there is no “viable alternative” to US global leadership.  What she means by that becomes clear only after examining her other statements and observing the positions she supports, all of which betray her dedication to a “neocon” agenda and all the costs that would impose on America.

Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state. He checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels. Though we have often seen the world and some of our challenges quite differently, and advocated different responses now and in the past, what comes through clearly in this new book is a conviction that we, and President Obama, share: a belief in the indispensability of continued American leadership in service of a just and liberal order.

There really is no viable alternative. No other nation can bring together the necessary coalitions and provide the necessary capabilities to meet today’s complex global threats. But this leadership is not a birthright; it is a responsibility that must be assumed with determination and humility by each generation.

As an aside, it is a bit amusing to see Hillary praise the virtue of humility, a concept that is as foreign to her as is the truth.  But there is nothing amusing about Hillary’s vision for the world or for America.

For Hillary, America is just a tool to be used to create a world order of the sort envisioned by her and her political soul-mates such as Soros and Kissinger.  It’s an order that is utterly opposed by any plain interpretation of the US Constitution or Declaration of Independence.  Which is why those documents are as dangerous to Hillary and her vision as she is to the republic known as the United States.

Source:  Washington Post