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.
This notion explains a lot of otherwise unexplainable behavior to me.
When I get back next week, I can look more closely.
In the meantime, I’m wondering what you all think of this. (tinfoil optional)
Anything from Frank Gaffney can be counted on to edify and enlighten. Thanks.
Thanks for the ping.
These “trannies” are the modern-day equivilents of Ishmael...selling our heritage for a mess of pottage - a mere bowl of soup.
Genesis Chapter 25
29 Now Jacob cooked a stew; and Esau came in from the field, and he was weary. 30 And Esau said to Jacob, Please feed me with that same red stew, for I am weary. Therefore his name was called Edom.[d]
31 But Jacob said, Sell me your birthright as of this day.
32 And Esau said, Look, I am about to die; so what is this birthright to me?
33 Then Jacob said, Swear to me as of this day.
So he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob. 34 And Jacob gave Esau bread and stew of lentils; then he ate and drank, arose, and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.
That would have made for a much more interesting thread than this one will be . . . |
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
you can probably find such an article on a lib site. ;-)
Thanks.
Thank you for the ping, I appreciate it!
Thanx for the ping.
Thanks!
Thank all of you for being vigilant.
Any president supporting such a scheme is in breach of his oath of office. Simple as that.
PING
I'm kind of confused about it. If the President is just going to surrender to the Cesspool of Mexico anyway, why are we fighting in Iraq? Just send in the Mexican army.
I mean, what is the point of fighting a war on terror to preserve American ideals if he's just going to sign America away?
More and more it seems like the argument between the Democratics and the President is who to surrender to. The President wants to surrender to Mexico while the Democratics want to surrender to Mexico, Al Qaeda, Cuba, Venezuela, the USSR, Red China, etc.
This doesn’t even take into account all the other ‘working groups’ working to destroy American culture and our government of indivdiual rights and equal justice.
Mostly NGOs unaccountable to the American people. Much different when elected officials are involved. I consider breach of oath of office a very serious matter, especially when the top level of government is involved. Anyone working to cede American sovereignty to some unaccountable shadow government is a traitor and deserves the harshest of treatment.
Man, I really have to start arming myself soon...
I wonder if the Transie club includes the five black-robed imbeciles who just ruled that the EPA has the power to regulate CO2 emissions from automobiles?
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.