The Monroe Doctrine of 1823

Note: The Monroe Doctrine was expressed during President Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress, December 2, 1823: The Monroe Doctrine was articulated in President James Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress on December 2, 1823. The European powers, according to Monroe, were obligated to respect the Western Hemisphere as the United States' sphere of interest. 

President James Monroe’s 1823 annual message to Congress contained the Monroe Doctrine, which warned European powers not to interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere.

Understandably, the United States has always taken a particular interest in its closest neighbors – the nations of the Western Hemisphere. Equally understandably, expressions of this concern have not always been favorably regarded by other American nations.

The Monroe Doctrine is the best known U.S. policy toward the Western Hemisphere. Buried in a routine annual message delivered to Congress by President James Monroe in December 1823, the doctrine warns European nations that the United States would not tolerate further colonization or puppet monarchs. The doctrine was conceived to meet major concerns of the moment, but it soon became a watchword of U.S. policy in the Western Hemisphere.

The Monroe Doctrine was invoked in 1865 when the U.S. government exerted diplomatic and military pressure in support of the Mexican President Benito Juárez. This support enabled Juárez to lead a successful revolt against the Emperor Maximilian, who had been placed on the throne by the French government.

Almost 40 years later, in 1904, European creditors of a number of Latin American countries threatened armed intervention to collect debts. President Theodore Roosevelt promptly proclaimed the right of the United States to exercise an “international police power” to curb such “chronic wrongdoing.” As a result, U. S. Marines were sent into Santo Domingo in 1904, Nicaragua in 1911, and Haiti in 1915, ostensibly to keep the Europeans out. Other Latin American nations viewed these interventions with misgiving, and relations between the “great Colossus of the North” and its southern neighbors remained strained for many years.

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.

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

Source: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=23
. . . 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 has 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 results have 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 fellow-men 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 to do so. 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 maintain 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 judgement 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 shew 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 of them 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 hope that other powers will pursue the same course. . . .

United nations monitoring of US elections is a violation of the Monroe Doctrine, an affront to national sovereignty, states rights, and an act of treason on the part of illegal President Barack Obama.

Wednesday, 24 October 2012 12:00

Texas Warns UN Affiliates Monitoring U.S. Election of Prosecution Risk

Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/13336-texas-warns-un-affiliates-monitoring-us-election-of-prosecution-risk

Written by  Alex Newman

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott sent a strongly worded letter warning United Nations-affiliated“elections monitors” that if they fail to obey state law by going in or even near a polling place, the
UN-linked observers risk criminal prosecution and serious penalties. The international observers, he added, have absolutely no jurisdiction to interfere with voting in the Lone Star State.  

The UN partner known as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) came under fierce criticism across the country in recent days after it announced plans to deploy “elections monitors” throughout the United States to observe the November election. Among other efforts, the international observers are being charged with seeking out conservative groups and jurisdictions allegedly engaged in “voter suppression” activities. Mostly, analysts say, the supposed concerns are about voter ID laws.  

When news of the controversial scheme exploded and became a national scandal this week, activists slammed the organization and ridiculed its half-baked plans, as well as the far-left groups calling for international observers in the first place. Responding to the uproar, state Attorney General Abbott warned any monitors who are supposed to be deployed in Texas that they must follow state elections law. Otherwise, they could end up in jail.

“The OSCE’s representatives are not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place. It may be a criminal offense for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance,” the state attorney general said in his letter to the organization’s mission chief, adding that elections and monitors, including OSCE representatives, are governed by the Texas Election Code.

“Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE’s representatives to criminal prosecution for violating state law,” Abbot concluded.

Even before making the letter public, Abbot was already warning the self-styled “elections” monitors that any unlawful antics would not be tolerated in his state. “UN poll watchers can't interfere w/ Texas elections,” he tweeted before releasing the full letter. “I'll bring criminal charges if needed.” The attorney general closed his message on Twitter with the words “Come and Take It,” a famous battle cry from 1835 when Mexican officials tried to disarm rebellious Texan settlers. A later post said: "My message to UN related poll watchers: Don't Mess with Texas Elections!"

The Lone Star State’s top law enforcement officer also criticized the OSCE for listening to a radical splinter group affiliated with the tax-funded, Obama-linked organization ACORN, “which collapsed in disgrace after its role in a widespread voter-registration fraud scheme was uncovered,” he wrote in the letter. Earlier this year, the international organization reportedly met with a coalition of activist groups, including Project Vote, challenging efforts in Texas to bring integrity to elections. 

Those activists expressed concerns about efforts to prevent vote fraud being used to “disenfranchise” people who were for some reason incapable of procuring an ID. In meetings and a letter to OSCE, the organizations — groups such as the ACLU and the NAACP — claimed there was a “coordinated political effort to disenfranchise millions of Americans — particularly traditionally disenfranchised groups like minorities.”

The coalition asked the OSCE to follow up on the charges and keep an eye on conservatives. Apparently oblivious to reality, the OSCE promised that it would do so. But in Texas, at least, that will probably not be happening, at least in terms of questioning laws requiring voters to present identification prior to voting. 

“In September, a federal appeals court rejected Project Vote’s challenge to the State’s voter-registration regulations and allowed Texas to continue enforcing laws that were enacted to protect the integrity of the voter-registration process,” Abbot explained in the letter. “The OSCE may be entitled to its opinions about Voter ID laws, but your opinion is legally irrelevant in the United States, where the Supreme Court has already determined that Voter ID laws are constitutional.”

The dozens of elections monitors being deployed in the United States come from countries such as Russia, Serbia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and others — more than a few of which are ruled by tyrants famous for brazenly fraudulent elections and wanton human rights abuses. The irony, of course, has not escaped critics or the Texas attorney general. 

“It remains unclear exactly what your monitoring is intended to achieve, or precisely what tactics you will use to achieve the proposed monitoring,” Abbot remarked in the letter, suggesting that OSCE members might actually learn something by observing American elections. The OSCE, for its part, has offered vague comments about what the alleged purpose of its observer mission actually is.

According to a statement released by the organization online, the observers will be in America to “assess” the elections “for compliance with international obligations and standards.” The mission will also supposedly “analyze the legislative framework and its implementation” while following campaign activities, the administration of elections, voter registration, and the “resolution” of election disputes, the OSCE added. 

On top of that, the monitors will be looking for alleged conservative “voter suppression” schemes, which critics say are largely the product of wild imaginations. Still, Abbott graciously offered to help OSCE governments learn how to conduct proper elections in their own countries; elections in nations such as OSCE member Belarus, for example, a nation ruled by a brutal communist dictator, have essentially become punch lines around the world.

“If OSCE members want to learn more about our election processes so they can improve their own democratic systems, we welcome the opportunity to discuss the measures Texas has implemented to protect the integrity of elections,” he explained without directly referencing the widespread problems found among many OSCE member governments. “However, groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas.”

The attorney general also took the opportunity to briefly remind OSCE officials about election safeguards and laws used in Texas. “This State has robust election laws that were carefully crafted to protect the integrity of our election system,” he wrote. “All persons — including persons connected with OSCE — are required to comply with these laws.”

Analysts praised the Texas attorney general and the state in general for standing up to international organizations and far-left fringe groups seeking to involve self-styled global “authorities” in U.S. elections. While a few states have laws specifically authorizing international elections monitors, legal questions about the OSCE’s dubious “mission” continue to be raised.  

“These activist groups sought assistance not from American sources, but from the United Nations,” explained President Catherine Engelbrecht with True the Vote, a Texas-based citizen-led effort to restore the integrity of U.S. elections by preventing fraud. “The United Nations has no jurisdiction over American elections.”

Despite the furor that erupted this year, the OSCE claims to have been monitoring U.S. elections for the last decade. The mission this year will be led by Dutch diplomat and former leader with various UN organs Daan W. Everts. It will be conducted under the auspices of the OSCE “Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.”

There have, of course, been quite a few legitimate concerns about the integrity of U.S. elections raised in recent years — dead people and illegal immigrants voting, massive ACORN voter-registration fraud, dubious electronic voting machines that are easy to compromise, and much more. Ironically, perhaps, many of the groups seeking UN elections supervision in America have themselves been caught up in voting fraud scandals.

Still, the notion that American states would need help from the OSCE or any other international organization — especially one affiliated with the UN, which analysts refer to as the “dictators’ club” — has been described by critics as ludicrous and comical. State lawmakers should indeed use constitutional means to ensure the integrity of elections. If anything, however, the OSCE monitors would be well served simply taking notes and insisting on fair elections back home.

My comments: Obama is whittling away at our God-given rights by the hour. Remember patriots, "SILENCE is consent. WHEN are we going to step-up and tell them where to stick their treasonous acts?