Facets: A means to take our country back: The Monroe Doctrine

5James-Monroe1-640

A means to take our country back: The Monroe Doctrine

By TLB Contributing Writer: Ken LaRive

On December 2nd, 1823, President James Monroe gave his 7th annual message to Congress. It was coined The Monroe Doctrine, and it resonated all around the world. In this address, he warned European powers, including bankers, not to interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere, and with that end in mind, implicitly stated that America would not influence or be involved in any way with the internal affairs of another country. In essence, the United States would live and let live, so long as there was no overt threat. (The doctrine is below.)

In essence, it was a surprise statement of policy, obscurely buried in what some thought was a mundane and routine message to Congress; it became the bulwark of a new foreign policy. It warned, without mincing words, that the United States would not tolerate further colonization or puppet monarchs by European Nations. It was designed not only to address the concerns of the moment, but to make it a permanent U.S. policy in the Western Hemisphere. 

But as the years progressed, a document unprotected, untaught, and exposed, can deteriorate slowly, increment by increment, for other selfish and opportunistic designs. Below you will find the original document still intact, and quite possibly discover the very answer to our American dilemma, in her final hour. 

Twisted interpretations

In 1865 The Monroe Doctrine was invoked when the U.S. Government exerted both diplomatic and military pressure in support of the Mexican President Benito Juarez, which led to a successful revolt and expulsion of the Emperor Maximilian. Maximilian was installed into power by the French Government to serve their interests. To the America of that time, however, that was intolerable, and yet, amazingly, America uses The Monroe Doctrine to exact that same scenario on the world today… our CIA disposes of duly elected presidents, assassinates and coerce, destroy economies who do not participate in central banking, and orchestrates and finances war for profit, under the umbrella of a Monroe Doctrine interpretation. 

Thirty-nine years later, in 1904, European creditors representing several Latin American countries threatened armed intervention to collect debts. Acting under the Monroe Doctrine, President Roosevelt responded with assertion, exercising what was called an “international police power’ to curb such “chronic wrongdoing,” and U.S.. Marines were sent to Santo Domingo in the year 1903, Nicaragua in 1911, and Haiti in 1915, basically to keep Europeans out. This strained relations with our southern neighbors, but protected America from foreign intrusion. And yet, amazingly, international banking cartels, who govern American, now uses the Monroe Doctrine as justification to police the world… 

“In 1962, the Monroe Doctrine was invoked symbolically when the Soviet Union began to build missile-launching sites in Cuba. With the support of the Organization of American States, President John F. Kennedy threw a naval and air quarantine around the island. After several tense days, the Soviet Union agreed to withdraw the missiles and dismantle the sites. Subsequently, the United States dismantled several of its obsolete air and missile bases in Turkey.”

“Cold War”

During the Cold War, the Monroe Doctrine was applied to Latin America by the framers of U.S. foreign policy.[24] When the Cuban Revolution (1953–1959) established a Communist government with ties to the Soviet Union, it was argued that the Monroe Doctrine should be invoked to prevent the spread of Soviet-backed Communism in Latin America. Under this rationale, the United States provided intelligence and military aid to Latin and South American governments that claimed or appeared to be threatened by Communist subversion. This, in turn, led to domestic controversy within the United States, particularly among the left who argued that the Communist threat and Soviet influence in Latin America was greatly exaggerate. In the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, President John F. Kennedy cited the Monroe Doctrine as grounds for America’s confrontation with the Soviet Union over the installation of Soviet ballistic missiles on Cuban soil. 

The debate over this new interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine burgeoned in reaction to the Iran-Contra affair. It was revealed that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency had been covertly training “Contra” guerrilla soldiers in Honduras in an attempt to destabilize and overthrow the Sandinista revolutionary government of Nicaragua and its President, Daniel Ortega. CIA director Robert Gates vigorously defended the Contra operation in 1984, arguing that eschewing U.S. intervention in Nicaragua would be “totally to abandon the Monroe Doctrine”.

The Kerry Doctrine

Further information: Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration#Americas

President Barack Obama‘s Secretary of State John Kerry told the Organization of American States in November 2013 that the “era of the Monroe Doctrine is over.” Several commentators have noted that Kerry’s call for a mutual partnership with the other countries in the Americas is more in keeping with Monroe’s intentions than the policies enacted after his death.[29]

Criticism

Critics of the Monroe Doctrine, such as Noam Chomsky,[30] argue that in practice the Monroe Doctrine has been used as a declaration of hegemony and a right of unilateral intervention over the Americas: a sphere of influence “to leave America for the Americans” that would expand with the Roosevelt Corollary. Chomsky points to the work of filibusters, most notably William Walker, who tried to conquer and annex various countries in Latin America.[31] Walker acted on his own in defiance of official U.S. policy.”

Taking back America using the Monroe Doctrine

Today we are being enslaved by a corporation called the Federal Reserve, along with an international central bank cartel promoting and backing international corporations operating beyond our constitution and international law. 

Unaccountable money is being printed out of thin air and put on the back of our heritage as debt slavery, without the consent of the people, and is indeed unconstitutional. They are working collectively, and in collusion, to both buy up and influence media, lobbying congress with threats and coercion, and in the process have virtually picked our presidents for their own selfish agendas for decades. 

They come from countries that openly spy on us, threaten our sovereignty, our constitution and civil liberties, and lobbies our Congress to do their bidding unchecked and unimpeded, as they possess vast economical resources that stem from our debt. They have allowed themselves dual citizenship, and placed themselves in the highest of offices, making decisions for our future with super computers and scientific think tanks. At their bidding, we fight their wars, and with our tax money, supply arms to both sides, and though international law has deemed them both terrorists and imperialists, they remain protected in the folds of our flag. They have created a vacuum of lies, obscuring and rewriting history, with an imaginative wealth of deceit and taboo to hide behind, including the Monroe Doctrine. With this tool, they blatantly and willingly commit crimes against humanity in our name, and operate above the law. So powerful and savvy, they have confiscated what assets we have in Fort Knox, and refuse to let it be audited for over 55 years. It is even suggested that the gold and silver we are buying as a hedge against inflation, promoted by them to instill fear, is actually our own national treasure. So guarded, these accusations go unproved, just as our national forests are said to be used as collateral for our unsustainable debt, and the reason for the violence in Oregon, as by our Constitution, when a acquired territory becomes a state, all land should revert to the state. 

Let us, as Patriots, invoke the Monroe Doctrine, and scatter these insiders to the four winds. Let us take this country back by rule of law, and bring back our Republic based on Constitutional Law to the light of truth. Let us regain our civil liberties as given to us by God, as acknowledged by our beloved Bill of Rights and insightful founders who knew that no one can grant us what God has already ordained every person with free will to have, Liberty from tyranny. 

(Information excerpted from Milestone Documents [Washington, DC: The National Archives and Records Administration, 1995] pp. 26–29.) 

—————————————————————————————————-

The Monroe Doctrine 

… At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable negotiation the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal had been made by His Imperial Majesty to the Government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. The Government of the United States has been desirous by this friendly proceeding of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his Government. In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers….

It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked that the result has been so far very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellowmen on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. 

The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgment of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security.

The late events in Spain and Portugal show that Europe is still unsettled. Of this important fact no stronger proof can be adduced than that the allied powers should have thought it proper, on any principle satisfactory to themselves, to have interposed by force in the internal concerns of Spain. To what extent such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a question in which all independent powers whose governments differ from theirs are interested, even those most remote, and surely none more so than the United States. Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new Governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in the hope that other powers will pursue the same course….

Source: J.D. Richardson, ed., Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 2 (1907), 287.

—————————————————————————————————-

Hope for Liberty

The Monroe Doctrine has and is used today as justification for constant aggression and the profits it manufactures, subverted from a benign declaration to live and let live, has become the inspiration to subdue the word by any means necessary. Let us use the doctrine as it was originally meant to inspire, and wrest these usurping and tyrannical claws from the very throat of our beloved America.

You are wrong Mr. Kerry, the Monroe Doctrine can be used one more time. 

Blue skies America, with Liberty and justice for all. 

Read featured article here

Ken LaRive: Facets

Ken LaRiveIt’s a simple but beautiful metaphor. Our soul is likened to an uncut diamond, pure, perfect, and unrealized. Each learned experience cleaves a facet on its face, and leaves it changed forever. Through this facet, this clear window, new light, new questions and ideas take shape and form. This process is our reason for being…

 

 

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*