Assault of the 'Transies'(North American Union)

Military.com ^ | 4-2-2007 | Frank Gaffney

[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 O’Sullivan 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 SPP’s 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 Gore’s 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.

[Paul Ross]

Consider: Bush didn't declare himself the candidate of open borders in 2000 until after he'd won South Carolina and had the nomination locked up, then he gave a speech in which he informed the voters that they'd given him their mandate.

Bump! Nice recall!

(Uh, don't think so, Dubya.)

Agreed. No one however has aggressively disabused him of his self-appointed license to "lie, cheat, and steal" electoral mandates however... and laws are apparently, as with the Xlintons...meant to be broken.

What remains to be done is what Jim McDougal, before he died, said about the Clintons. The question is whether we can expose these people faster than they can lie about it.

Sigh. Sandy Hamburglar walking around scot-free...evinces this extremely clearly. FOX News Special (in a really pleasant change this weekend) actually pointed the finger of complicity in his kid-glove treatment squarely at the current occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

And of a piece with this was the whole ABLE DANGER cover up...all to protect the Xlintons again!

Someone needs to get Donald Rumsfeld to talk...really talk...and on the record about the coverup he was ordered to perform by the White House...

I no longer believe this was all done by Xlintonista moles who were under the radar of an inattentive and negligent GOP Administration. Or at least it wasn't done exclusively by them. I don't think Rumsfeld was inattentive. They may have been left as an ultimate scape-goat if necessary ...but it wasn't under the radar.

[Czar]

"This appears to be a growing "pattern and practice" -- the U.N. has a habit of employing NGO's generously to leverage their personnel, budgets, and research capabilities."

Every politician's wet dream, is it not? How to get rid of those pesky voters "who think we work for them". They fantasize about having the freedom to operate under the radar, completely insulated from observation and accountability. Damn few of that Gang of 535 is doing the job we hired them to do. At least 300-350 of them deserve to be dragged out of their offices into the streets and horsewhipped by the voters.

[James W. Fannin]

Americans should be loyal to principles, not party. A party can be corrupted.

[lentulusgracchus]

Bump! Nice recall!

Courtesy of an "open-borders" thread right here on FR, on which someone produced the post-primary statement verbatim.

No one however has aggressively disabused him of his self-appointed license to "lie, cheat, and steal" electoral mandates however.....

That kind of claim of an "implicit mandate" and "well, everybody has always known that I supported....." claim of mandate after-the-fact is as old as lying, but our problem right now is the inability of the politically literate public to nail the wriggling jello to the wall, it seems.

Only occasionally does a candidate get steered, anymore, into shallow waters on issues he doesn't want to discuss. The art of "staying on message" is what the public has to learn how to break. I think it will require wresting format control away from campaign organizations and empowering the issue-literate literally to badger candidates so that their evasions become transparent, engendering reflective thought among the electorate. The press used to perform this function, but nowadays they are a miserable, forsworn lot, loaded down with their own agitprop agenda.

First, we have to purge the J-schools......start where the Communists started back in the 1920's and give all those institutions they infested a good old-fashioned chicken-coop cleaning with shovels and blowtorches.

[lentulusgracchus]

I have always been leery of Medved. And his over-the-top screeching against those concerned about NAU/SPP activity strikes the proverbial "thirteenth stroke of the clock".

Isn't he a neocon? Their intellectual paternity, it has been pointed out, is the old Trotskyite movement. Internationalist, globalist, antinationalist, anticapitalist, "social progressive".... but with a defense policy, and a yen to use U.S. power to project the globalist dream.

Very closely subparallel to the big-government Republican/Hamiltonian dream. Lincoln always thought the really bad thing about slavery was that it gave the American moral exemplar a black eye. It scandalized our national(ist) propaganda. It would be an interesting ticket, to listen to Harry Jaffa and, say, Calvin Trillin discuss whether Abraham Lincoln would have gazed with favor on the idea of exporting U.S. trade and politics on the deck of a gunboat to the benighted realms of the Old World. Which is what the Clintonistas like Maddy Albright and the neocons like Dick Cheney (although I think he's a National Greatness Republican, come to think of it) and Paul Wolfowitz have essentially been trying to do.

[B-Chan]

1. Continue to raise awareness online and with the people around you.
The average person will neither understand the issue, nor care to understand it.

2. Write authors, analysts, think tanks, etc that are Nationalist minded... and urge them to report about the issue.
Only academics read such journals. The average American reads the sports page or the latest offerings from Oprah's Book Club, if they read anything at all.

3. Call local, regional, and national talk radio.
Talk radio is a way for broadcast license holders to fill airtime cheaply. Such programming may entertain, but does nothing to create political change.

4. Write and call your senators and reps.
A pointless waste of time, as they are almost all bought and paid for by the same interests that want to see a unified North America.

The pending legislation to stop the NAFTA Superhighway/Trans-Texas Corridor will fail. The state's highway system is already obsolete ind in dire need of augmentation, and Austin knows it. Some form of TTC will be built. As for the 13 state legislatures that are proposing legislation against a SPP/NAU, they are subject to the interstate commerce laws of the federal government, which supersede state laws. Any attempt by a state or group of states to legislate themselves out of the program will be ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts.

Sorry, but it's too late to stop this. The integration of nations into a New World Order is the inevitable end result of the past five hundred years of the West's post-Christian social experiment. Later, when the whole house of cards comes down, will be the opportunity for a true conservative movement to arise. For now, however, we should concentrate on surviving and preserving traditional faith, knowledge and culture.

[B-Chan]

the argument going on amongst the Dems and Pubs has nothing to do with the ultimate objectives of either group. What they are battling over is who is going to control the loot.

100% correct.

[lentulusgracchus]

They fantasize about having the freedom to operate under the radar, completely insulated from observation and accountability.

That's where Clinton went with his Chinese reptile money in 1995, to test-market his 1996 campaign pitche(s) in the "C" and "D" markets like Jackson, Miss., and Laurel and so on. I seem to recall he did that in 1992 to an extent, and he did it again in 1998, when he and Kweisi Mfume ran a stealthy get-out-the-vote campaign in the black community to try to get the House of Representatives back from the GOP. It almost worked. If they'd pulled it off (which would have allowed them to stuff the impeachment articles back down the House Republicans' throats on the very first day Congress came back into session in 1999), it would have been one of the biggest political coups in U.S. history.

[lentulusgracchus]

Talk radio is a way for broadcast license holders to fill airtime cheaply. Such programming may entertain, but does nothing to create political change.

I disagree, and so would Rush Limbaugh -- and his detractors.

[lentulusgracchus]

Americans should be loyal to principles, not party. A party can be corrupted.

Lucidity bump. Need to teach this in first grade.

[B-Chan]

Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. He's no more an agent of political change than is Jon Stewart of The Daily Show.

[lentulusgracchus]

Someone needs to get Donald Rumsfeld to talk...really talk...and on the record about the coverup he was ordered to perform by the White House...

And not just about this. Chinagate, which is a huge coverup.

And moving from the transcendent to the banal, they also covered up and hushed up Hillary's stealing everything that wasn't nailed down, and the petty-spiteful vandalism in the White House basement offices as the Clinton accessories and enablers cleared out.

I myself, if I'd been in W's shoes, would have refused to occupy the White House until the carpets and draperies had been stripped and burned at the Pennsylvania Avenue curb, the Clinton china broken on the sidewalks, and the Kennedy desk piled atop the pyre of burning carpets and likewise consigned to the flames; and I'd have waited for the White House itself ritually purified by Buddhist, Shintoist, Orthodox, and Catholic priests before entering it.

I'd have burned Clinton's portrait, too. New American tradition -- get impeached, watch your official portrait get publicly burned by your successor on the public curbstone.

I no longer believe this was all done by Xlintonista moles who were under the radar of an inattentive and negligent GOP Administration.

We keep hearing whispers, intimations, and accusations of a nonpartisan, general corruption in the upper reaches of Washington society. Everything from procuring children to massive drug-smuggling and other forms of moral and legal depravity and depredation. Sibel Edmonds is supposed to be one of the people who have stumbled into solid evidence that these things are going on. Certainly Barney Frank's boyfriend was running rent-boys out of Frank's apartment. (Oh, but we're supposed to be "cool in school" for that and not narrow-minded little bigots!) The evidence is being suppressed, "they" say. How would I know, if the suppression is successful? And am I paranoid and delusional until the moment it's proven true?

[lentulusgracchus]

I respectfully disagree. Samuel Adams and Tom Paine were agents of political change in their day, and William Lloyd Garrison was an agent in his. So were Kinsey and Rachel Carson. Limbaugh, although we may quibble over the dimensions and depth of his impact, is their successor.

[lentulusgracchus]

The explanation I've most often heard about why Clinton got a pass on both Chinagate and his grand jury lying is that the new Administration feared his ability to suck all the air out of the room. They didn't want him hogging the limelight while the President was trying to establish his own agenda and leadership mano.

I thought there was something to that at the time.

[RSmithOpt]

PING!!

BTTT!

Elite power, elite control, public perceived security, collective loss of liberty aligned with perceived 'victim hood', total acceptance of lack of self responsibility, the elites dreams of government modern day slavery to fuel the self-consuming machine called government?

Did I miss anything?

[Paul Ross]

Their intellectual paternity, it has been pointed out, is the old Trotskyite movement. Internationalist, globalist, antinationalist, anticapitalist, "social progressive".... but with a defense policy, and a yen to use U.S. power to project the globalist dream.

Bump. Agreed. Wolfowitz, and the whole crowd at Goldman Sachs are on board with that.

...discuss whether Abraham Lincoln would have gazed with favor on the idea of exporting U.S. trade and politics on the deck of a gunboat to the benighted realms of the Old World.

No way of knowing. He seemed to be pretty dedicated during his times, of course, to keeping Old World manipulative influence out of the New.

As for trade, he was a dedicated mercantilist, U.S.-First-industrialist. [ Some in he Von Mises crowd go so far as to allude to this as an alternate explanation for the Civil War. ]

[Paul Ross]

...the new Administration feared his ability to suck all the air out of the room. They didn't want him hogging the limelight while the President was trying to establish his own agenda and leadership mano.

Ironic, eh? By so caving in preemptively...with an inanely naive-appearing "New Tone"...he established a LACK of mano... Anyways, as we all know, his big-spending non-defense agenda, such as it was, should have been promptly flushed down the toilet.

By prosecuting the SOBs he could have created real mano and not just an illusion. He would have stood up for our laws, hence our Constitution and thus, the recognition that the powers our government wields in fact comes from the people, their consent thereto. So long as laws are so brazenly flouted, they are more or less saying that the People are irrelevant...and their consent is no longer required.

Those would have been seen as "JOB #1" And all the political chest-thumping about trojan horse big-spending compassionate governance "accomplishments" would have been totally unnecessary to re-election.

Instead he has established a reputation of non-mano, and leaves the clear impression of impropriety...if not outright corruption...and collaboration... which the Congress could not...and would not... call him on even catching Berger red-handed., and the DOJ rolling over for Berger.

[antisocial]

Thanks for posting this, good article.

[B4Ranch]

Let’s change the names to the Communists and the Dictators.

[James W. Fannin]

Yes, but it’s important to have a choice.