George Rebane

Former Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) was recently interviewed about a significant piece on ‘American sovereignty and its enemies’ he co-authored in a recent issue of Foreign Affairs.  In there he details the thrust and progress that US transnationalists (nee globalists) have made in bringing the America we know and love to its knees in the community of nations.  In short, Senator Kyl corroborates the oft made case in RR that the real goal of our progressives is to deliver the US as a weakened and compliant nation into the arms of a new world order based on the collectivist ideology that currently underpins the European Union.  The objective is to eradicate the sovereign nation state as a viable institution on the world scene, and replace it with an overarching global government.  I think of it as sharia without Allah (but Allah will work if it speeds up the process).

Again, lest the leftwing starts its usual howls, transforming toward transnationalism is not a conspiracy, but is precisely the “fundamental transformation” promised by President Obama.  Recall that I have long held that all of Obama’s actions and initiatives can be explained and also predicted simply on the basis of his seeking to be the first post-American president (here and here).  Senator Kyl puts more meat on the bones of this proposition by citing the efforts of three recent Team Obama academics – Navi Pillay (UN High Commissioner for Human Rights), Howard Koh (Yale Law School), Anne-Marie Slaughter (Dean, Princeton’s School of Public Affairs).

These individuals form the vanguard of “a group of powerful legal scholars trying to make an end run around the Constitution” through changing US laws to put the country under the aegis of international bureaucracies instead of our constitutionally constituted representative government.  Formally, their movement is known as ‘legal transnationalism’, an initiative with “advocates (who) are making major strides under an Obama administration that is itself a hotbed of transnational legal thinking.”

The perniciously effective tactic used by transnationalists in the US is to advocate the adoption of broadly worded, high sounding international treaties and agreements promoting social justice such as the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Cedaw), the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, and, of course, Agenda21 (here and here).  The main thrust is to get the undersigned nations to agree to have their internal laws and regulations be adjudicated and modified by international bureaucracies that answer to no one within the nation’s borders.

As Professor Slaughter argues, “International law must expand to include domestic choices previously left to the determination of national political processes”, the enforcement of which laws will then “be able to alter domestic politics.”  Senator Kyl’s response to this is, “When your society is regulated to that extent by someone who has no accountability to voters, something is very, very wrong.”

So as push comes to shove, how are the transnationalists going to pull this off in the United States?  Readers of this blog have been exposed to the actions of our federal and local governments that have put together the infrastructure to accomplish this American Anschluss no matter what other expectations the voters may have had.  How?  In case you haven’t noticed, the militarization of federal bureaus and agencies down to local constabularies has already taken place, and is now proceeding to the level of the Civilian National Security Force that candidate Obama promised to form and fund to par DoD levels.

In the 20jul13 WSJ author Radley Balko argues in the ‘Rise of the Warrior Cop’ that “SWAT teams were once rare, but they now operate at every level of government, from federal agencies to small towns”, and makes the case “Why it may be time to reconsider the militarization of American policing.” (photo from article)

Balko presents an excellent summary of how this militarization has already taken place and is ramping up even more with the introduction of combat vehicles, aircraft, drones, … into urban settings to make quick work of any opposition to government diktat (more here and here).  Along with these statistics he cites the sorry history of using overzealous SWAT teams that today operate contrary to laws passed by Congress.  (Did you know that the Dept of Education now has SWAT teams, and here I thought they just recently bought riot guns to soften opposition to Common Core curriculum.)  The litany of innocent people killed by aggressive use of military firepower is already long, growing, and studiously ignored by the lamestream.  And some good-hearted light thinkers still wonder why law abiding Americans have cleared the shelves of semi-auto rifles, and what little ammunition the government has left to local retail outlets (see par force).

The odds are stacking against us as we head for something for which the federal government has seen fit to fund and equip police departments of all sizes with unheard of firepower that is justified by no conceivable threat of crime or terrorism.  The only pervasive opposition the feds appear to be preparing for is the confrontation of large and dispersed populations of armed US citizens in their cities, towns, and villages.  And what could they possibly use as an excuse for such comprehensive, coordinated, and overwhelming use of deadly force?  It’s as if they have something planned for us that they know we will not willingly accept.