Madeline Allbright was on Medved's show pushing her book, 3 Oct.
When asked by a caller would she surrender any of our sovereignty she first said no -- BUT, she kept talking and revealed that she would give away our sovereignty IF IT MADE US SAFER. People give up rights to have police protection, she said!
That is why I despise today's Democrat party and the left in general. They run on traditional issues -- though now with a strong emphasis on hate with the purpose of destroying ANOTHER wartime administration. But despite their election on "traditional" issues they view their election as an opportuntity to dilute our sovereignty and to entrust our inalienable rights to international police and courts.
Today's Democrats have moved beyond being Americans. They are internationalists proposing a "new social compact" between the world's progressive governments and the masses. Actually, the compact may be among the governments, to hell with the masses. After all people of this ilk murdered 100 million of their fellow citizens last century.
THAT IS TREASON against our sovereignty and Constitution -- even though some Democrats feeeeeeeel it is best for America. Such things should not result from the outcome of general elections. They should be decided by means that clearly express their purpose.
Writing for National Review Online, Rich Lowry talks about the way that the current herd of Democratic presidential hopefuls, through their debates and their efforts to pander to what some have called "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party", have begun to codify the basic philosophy and program advocated by the most leftwing portion of this nation.
He comments that "This credo is often nonsensical and hypocritical, but it is clearly discernible." And he then lists a series of bullet points which seem to make no sense. On one level he's trying to be humorous (and succeeds) but like all great humor there's a strong element of truth in what he says.
But I'm not so sure that many of them actually are nonsensical or internally contradictory. What's rather going on is that they flow quite naturally from a combination of Transnational Progressivism and the mean green meme. In essence, the deep ideology is a combination of neo-Marxism, idealism, elitism (i.e. anti-populism), post-nationalism and, it turns out, a form of compassionate neo-racism. Competition is bad, cooperation is good. Greed is bad, altruism is good. Inequality (of results) is bad, equality (of results) is good. Motives are important, and good acts induced by bad motives are worse than bad acts induced by good motives.
Transnational Progressivism is an international movement, with adherents all over the world, but most of its power is concentrated in Europe and North America. In the US, its adherents are the most influential part of the activist left wing of the Democratic party (when they're not abandoning it outright to support Nader and the Greens) and it is they who the Democratic presidential candidates are trying to convince. So the emerging consensus among those candidates is something of a codification of Tranzi hot-buttons.
Their long term program at the highest level diplomatically is post-nationalism.
If nations can be deemphasized, then the newly-enlightened citizens of the world will no longer be willing to accept such things, and this will necessarily mean there will be no more wars, no more exploitation, no more misery. By deemphasizing nations and nationalism, a world utopia becomes possible.
It is the most powerful nations where nationalism represents the most profound danger to this idealistic new world order. When there is a single superpower whose people strongly identify with their nation and are proud of its achievements, then they represent a profound threat to the process of creating a post-nationalist one-world utopia.
The new utopia is clearly right, but it cannot be brought into being by honest participation in democracy. The enlightened Tranzi elite will have to work on establishing this new utopia subtly, surreptitiously, in small steps, without ever admitting how each such step supports their true goal. They cannot let the incorrect but unavoidable opposition of the majority prevent it.
The Tranzis have to operate within the realm of democracy now, and so they have to make arguments for candidates and policies they favor which are calculated to influence the masses. But those public arguments are rhetorical weapons which have nothing to do with the real program. It doesn't matter to the Tranzis whether they're hypocritical; the only thing that matters is whether they might be effective at deceiving the masses into voting the way the Tranzis want them to vote.
The Tranzis don't believe in democracy, and see no problem with trying to subvert it to achieve their ends. It's a barrier but not an insurmountable one, as long as they're crafty and patient. They will use whatever means are available within it to defeat their opponents and elect their allies. This isn't inconsistent, it's just good tactics. -- Steven Den Beste
Thought y'all might appreciate this. The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party is the Transnationalist Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party.