Skip to comments.Assault of the 'Transies'(North American Union)
Posted on 04/02/2007 1:32:59 PM PDT by Trupolitik
Most thoughtful observers of the contemporary American polity are astonished that the highly partisan fight over the future of Iraq has almost entirely obscured the larger problem of which the Iraqi theater is but one front: the truly global conflict against Islamofascist ideologues and their enablers that is best described as the War for the Free World.
If the ominous nature of this wider struggle to the death -- and the potentially grave implications for our society should we fail to wage it successfully -- are being lost on too many Americans, practically none of them is paying attention to yet another, in some ways even more insidious, threat to our country: the assault on our sovereignty by the transnational progressives.
This term was coined by one of the most thoughtful defenders of American sovereignty -- that somewhat intangible, yet indispensable ingredient in a nation of the people, by the people and for the people -- Hudson Institute scholar John Fonte. In October 2002, he wrote a seminal essay in Orbis entitled, Liberal Democracy vs. Transnational Progressivism: The Future of the Ideological Civil War within the West. In it, he warned of the emergence of a new challenge to liberal democracy and its traditional home, the liberal democratic nation-state.
Fonte depicts the latter as a form of government Americans take for granted: self-governing representative systems comprised of individual citizens who enjoy freedom and equality under law and together form a people within a democratic nation-state. In our case, constitutional arrangements provide inherent individual rights, democratic representation (with some form of majority rule) and national citizenship.
As Fonte trenchantly observed, the challenge is coming in the form of a new transnational hybrid regime that is post-liberal democratic, and in the context of the American republic, post-Constitutional and post-American. He notes that this alternative ideology [of] transnational progressivism constitutes a universal and modern worldview that challenges in theory and practice both the liberal democratic nation-state in general and the American regime in particular.
Three examples of the agenda being pursued at the moment by what John OSullivan deprecatingly calls the Transies illustrate the progress of their assault on American sovereignty:
*The Bush Administration has launched some two-dozen working groups to develop a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) with Canada and Mexico. Loosely modeled after the Transies favorite supranational organization -- the European Union -- and evolving in much the same way (namely, under the rubric of an economic common market agreement, in this case NAFTA), the SPPs architects are busily crafting sweeping new rules to develop a North American Union (NAU).
Such rules are intended to govern tri-national trade, transportation, immigration, social security, education and virtually every other aspect of life in North America. There are new institutions being proposed, too, such as a North American Tribunal which will have the authority to trump rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. If Congress persists in paying no attention to the emerging SPP/NAU -- which seems likely given that most in the Democratic leadership are sympathetic to transnational progressivism, if not rabid Transies themselves -- it will soon find itself effectively out of a job.
Think that unimaginable? Consider this fact: By some estimates, as much as 85% of the rules, regulations and laws that currently govern everyday life in the U.K. have never been considered, let alone enacted, by the British Parliament. Instead, they have been handed down as edicts by the unelected, unaccountable Transies who run the European Union from Brussells.
*According to the respected on-line service STRATFOR, a long-standing objective of the transnational progressives, U.S. ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), is now just a matter of time. Already, parochial business interests, U.S. Navy lawyers and Condoleezza Rice have embraced the Transies bid to compel the United States to submit to a treaty Ronald Reagan rightly rejected, one that would make decisions affecting the use of the international sea-beds and the waters above them the exclusive purview of an international organization. Apparently, the decisive argument will be that only transnational bureaucrats will be able to contend with the implications of the melting Arctic ice caps induced by global warming.
*Al Gores hobby horse is also breathing new life into the ultimate Transie project: the imposition of international taxation (globotaxes) to finance the various causes and institutions favored by transnational progressives. Under the rubric of taxing carbon emissions (and/or airline travel, energy flows, international commerce, arms sales and currency transactions) untold billions -- perhaps even trillions -- of dollars can be raised to pay for UN agencies and their activities. Although the Bush Administration has professed opposition to such ideas, it has done nothing to discourage them. Such passivity may permit the final nail to be applied to the coffin of a nation-state founded on the proposition of no taxation without representation.
At a splendid retreat held over the weekend in Santa Barbara by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, one of the Transies nemeses, former UN Ambassador John Bolton, shed helpful light on why even Republican politicians seem so unphased by the sacrifice of our sovereignty. He observed that, under our Constitution, it is we the people who are the sovereigns, not our government. Unless we are insistent that the latter not surrender the powers we voluntarily confer on it to the Transies unrepresentative supranational bureaucracies, however, we will inexorably find ourselves neither sovereign, secure nor free.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy and lead-author of War Footing: Ten Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World. Mr. Gaffney formerly acted as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy during the Reagan Administration, following four years of service as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy. Previously, he was a professional staff member on the Senate Armed Services Committee under the chairmanship of the late Senator John Tower, and a national security legislative aide to the late Senator Henry M. Jackson.
Can someone PING the anti-NAU folks?
Trotskyists regard themselves as working in opposition to both capitalism and Stalinism as embodied by the leadership of the Soviet Union after Vladimir Lenin's death. Trotsky advocated proletarian revolution as set out in his theory of "permanent revolution", and believed that a workers' state would not be able to hold out against the pressures of a hostile capitalist world unless socialist revolutions quickly took hold in other countries as well. This theory was advanced in opposition to the view held by the Stalinists that "socialism in one country" could be built in the Soviet Union alone.
Not the trannies?
Fancy term for traitor.. because its exactly what the term means.. a camouflage term..
Bump for later
1) My quote is from wikipedia.
2) Stalin was a socialist who wanted socialism in one country. Which is to say, National Socialism. He had an alliance with Adolf Hitler (another National Socialist).
3) Trotsky thought Stalin didn't go far enough in his communist beliefs. The folks who think Hitler was "right-wing" are folks who were further Left than Stalin. That's Trotsky.
4) The Fourth International carries the banner of Communism today and they are far more active and influential than people think. They promote Trotsky's belief's.
People shouldn't pay attention to Marx. Marxism is truly dead. But Trotsky, Gramsci, and the Frankfurt School are (sadly) alive and kicking.
While we support President Bush in the war on terror in Iraq, he is taking our freedoms through his push for an American Union. People need to speak out.
read tonight BUMP!
That is definitely correct. President Bush is not securing the border and he signed the SPP agreement because he is most definitely a "transnationalist".
I prefer Nationalism as enumerated by our Constitution.
Socialism shows its effects in the USA, because there is a demand for labor that is not filled it own natives.
Trouble with SSP/NAU is it's painstakingly slow implimentation. (probably by design) Most Americans have no idea anything is happening.
What steps, other than buying airtime, can the average American take to fight this thing??
I would suggest the following:
1. Continue to raise awareness online and with the people around you.
2. Write authors, analysts, think tanks, etc that are Nationalist minded. (Such as the Center for Security Policy which has just entered the fray) and urge them to report about the issue.
3. Call local, regional, and national talk radio.
4. Write and Call your Senators and Reps.
If we all do this, we will eventually reach critical mass. Already there is some effect as several peices of legislation has been written to stop SPP.gov, the NAFTA Superhighway/Trans-Texas Corridor, etc.
Also, 13 state legislatures are proposing legislation against a SPP/NAU. Even if symbolic, it demonstrates that serious analysts and serious representatives and servants of the People of the United States and the Constitution are against the SPP/NAU.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.