Monday, 31 October 2011 12:27
New Book Asks: Sovereignty or Submission?Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
In his new book, Sovereignty or Submission, John Fonte identifies globalism as the latest evolutionary iteration of the “multiculturalism-diversity” that once infatuated the American elites.
Just as they once promoted ethnic-racial-gender group consciousness as the antidote for all the ills associated with following the path of freedom and individual rights as set out by our Founding Fathers, the elites now proffer transnationalism and “global citizenship” as the newest cure-all.
Fonte rightly recognizes both movements as antithetical to the core American concepts of republicanism and individual liberty.
It is important to emphasize that the main threat to American sovereignty comes, not from the UN or other international institutions, but from American globalists themselves. The UN and international law per se, can not force us to do anything, but many, among our elites, are promoting American subordination to global authority.
I’ll give you a few examples. Leading American "human rights" groups including Human Rights Watch, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Arab-American Institute, La Raza, Mexican American Legal and Education Foundation (MALDEF) and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights have called for the United States to accept all UN human rights treaties without any reservations (including First Amendment, Second Amendment and Tenth Amendment, i.e., federalism, restrictions on international law). This would effectively subordinate the American constitution to UN-made "global rules." The "global rules" these American human rights groups demand include: racial and gender preference quotas in all aspects of public and private life; official multilingualism; the ending of any serious border enforcement; the abolition of capital punishment; the payment of U.S. reparations for slavery; and much more.
The first are the ideological leftists ... whose argument is simply that the broad leftist agenda represents real substantive rights (equality of result), as opposed to the individual rights of a capitalist democracy.
The second group of American globalists are often foreign policy specialists who believe that America is in decline. This group of globalists argue in Orwellian fashion that the United States should exercise “leadership” and “engagement” by promoting a new global governance system over national sovereignty. They maintain, unrealistically, that if Americans agree to limit their own sovereignty and submit to global rules, the Chinese will be persuaded to do the same, thus "protecting American interests" in the future as China becomes stronger. This reveals the global governance project to be both naïve and dangerously suicidal, placing American security in the hands of an untested and unaccountable global system.
Global governance is not consist[ent] with American democratic principles. Our highest political principles rest on the maintenance of our constitutional self-government. How is ceding democratic decision making to non-citizens in supranational bodies outside of the American constitutional process consistent with our principles and values? The argument is an oxymoron.
In Federalist No. seven, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Divide et impera [divide and conquer] must be the motto of every nation that either hates or fears us.” The anti-American globalists have reckoned that the fall of the United States is facilitated by the fall of other formerly self-governing nations. In Europe, the plan is working. Fonte points to Europe as a cautionary tale:How long until there is the same ratio to laws applicable to the citizens of the United States? Dr. Fonte predicts that the speed of the permeation of the globalist ideology into the groundwater of American self-determination will determine the pace of the withering of the tree of liberty planted so long ago by our Founding Fathers.Americans are blessed in that time yet remains for us to resist the subjugation of our military to multinational commanders, to resist the surrendering of the legislative power to supranational congresses populated with lawmakers unaccountable to the American people, to resist the eradication of state sovereignty and the protection of republican government provided thereby, and finally to resist the chronic disregard of constitutional principles on the part of our elected leaders.
Over the past sixty years the European Union has slowly evolved into a post-national, post-democratic, and post-liberal type of regime. Power has shifted from national parliaments (e.g., British House of Commons) in democratic nation-states to unaccountable bureaucratic institutions in Brussels. The EU Deputy Ambassador to Washington told me that 60-80 percent of European laws today are initiated in Brussels.
Login to post comments