Henry Ford, years ago, used to joke that you could have another color of car, as long as it was black. We now we have three candidates for the Presidency, all of whom are globalists. What a choice.

3 candidates for global governance

Posted: March 15, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

World Net Commentary

© 2008 

The Revolutionary War was all about establishing the independence of, and bestowing national sovereignty upon, the United States of America. The U.S. Constitution created a system of limited government that championed individual freedom, which produced the most prosperous and productive civilization the world has ever known. This unique position in the world is rapidly waning. The next presidential election will surely accelerate the rate of descent into global mediocrity.

Barack Obama, the current Democrat front-runner, is a globalist of the first sort. His recent legislative proposal (S. 2433) is ample evidence. The legislation would comply with the U.N.'s recommendation that the U.S. commit 0.7 percent of GDP to the U.N. for relief of global poverty. The United States already gives far more aid to other nations than any country on earth. The U.N., however, thinks this is not enough, and that the U.S. should nearly triple its giving. Obama agrees. And he agrees that the U.N. is the mechanism through which U.S. tax dollars should flow.

Hillary Clinton, author of "It Takes a Village," has a clear history of promoting the U.N. and even world government. She went out of her way to congratulate Walter Cronkite upon his receipt of the 1999 Norman Cousins Global Governance Award from the World Federalist Association. Cronkite told the group:

"It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict, we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government. … To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty."

Hillary appeared at this gathering by remote TV to applaud Cronkite for not only "telling it like it is," but for "telling us how it could be."

John McCain is reaching out for the green vote by promising to impose some sort of U.N.- approved, Kyoto-type global warming remedy, despite the growing evidence that manmade carbon dioxide has little or nothing to do with climate change. He is also a proud promoter of NAFTA and other so-called "free-trade" agreements that trade only American prosperity for mounting deficits. He was an open-borders advocate, until he realized his position was a brick wall between him and the presidency. Now he says border security must be first, before granting amnesty to more than 12 million illegal aliens.

Regardless of which of the three candidates the voters choose, the next president will take the nation into the global village, not as a sovereign nation in pursuit of national excellence, but as a nation seduced by the U.N.'s idea of sovereign equality under its supreme authority.

Sovereign equality is the idea that all nations are equal – as defined and enforced by the U.N.

The U.N.'s idea of sovereign equality requires 35 developed nations to impose energy restrictions, while 150 developing nations are free to use as much fossil fuel energy as they wish. This is the same idea that would allow the International Seabed Authority to require technology transfer from developed nations to developing nations under the Law of the Sea Treaty – a treaty for which Barack Obama voted. This is the same idea that says the United States should be governed by the International Criminal Court, should abandon the death penalty and should allow abortions on demand. According to the U.N., the United States should become a submissive member of the global village.

The United States is about to abandon 220 years of national sovereignty, which recognizes no nation or institution as a superior authority, to submit to the U.N.'s concept of sovereign equality, under which all nations "voluntarily" yield sovereignty to global governance.

Like Walter Cronkite, Hillary, Barack and John, many Americans believe that it is time to move toward an international regulatory regime. After all, national sovereignty is a dirty word – jingoism – as described by globalists. National sovereignty is the cause of international conflict – according to globalists. National Sovereignty must give way to international cooperation under the purview of global governance – according to the progressives who are rapidly becoming the majority in America.

Not much can be done to avoid this inevitability for the next four years. If there is to be a reversal, those people who still hold the U.S. Constitution dear, who value individual freedom and free enterprise and private property rights, must develop an effective educational campaign. Children must learn at home and at special summer camps. Adults must learn on their own initiative and through community organizations. Leaders must emerge to take over existing political parties – or create new ones – to present candidates who want to preserve America's greatness, and prevent the complete global governance that lies just beyond the horizon.