Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS      
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Monday, April 28, 2008
Brown's Global Ideals Threaten U.S. Sovereignty
By Phyllis Schlafly
Poll
Will Hillary Clinton fight for the nomination past June 1st?


It's a good thing that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's U.S. visit was upstaged by the dramatic reception Americans gave Pope Benedict XVI. Brown might have been booed if he hadn't delivered what aides called his "signature" speech within the cloistered walls of Harvard's Kennedy Center.

Brown's tedious, hour-long speech impudently demanded that we issue a "Declaration of Interdependence" in order to submit to global governance. That's another way of calling on the United States to repeal the Declaration of Independence.

No thanks for the advice, Mr. Brown. Brave Americans rose up and rejected Britain's royalist rule in 1776, and we've gotten along mighty well without trans-Atlantic interference in our government for more than two centuries. We certainly don't want to reinstate any foreign supervision today.

The redundancy of Brown's outrageous semantics was oppressive. His speech used the word global 69 times, globalization 7 times, and interdependence 13 times. He referred to Kennedy 19 times, lavishing fulsome praise on John F. Kennedy ("his influence abides everywhere"), Robert Kennedy (he sent forth "ripples of hope"), and Edward "Ted" Kennedy ("one of the greatest senators in more than two centuries").

Brown rejected the traditional concept of national sovereignty, which means an independent nation not subservient to outside control, telling Americans to replace it with "responsible sovereignty," which he defined as accepting what he calls our global "obligations." Hold on to your pocketbook.

Brown admitted that his "main argument" is that the United States must accept "new global rules," "new global institutions" and "global networks." Brown's global rules include massive U.S. cash handouts and opening U.S. borders to the world.

Brown's use of well-known American political phrases was tacky. He tried to morph Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal into a "New Global Deal," and JFK's New Frontier into "the New Frontier is that there is no frontier."

Brown even slipped in an attempt at thought control: "Americans must learn to think inter-continentally." He declaimed, "We are all internationalists now."

Using the rhetorical device of inevitability, Brown warned Americans that his vision of the globalist future is "irreversible transformation." He wants to "transcend states" and "transcend borders" as he builds the "architecture of a global society."

Brown peddled the nonsense that the peoples of the world "subscribe to similar ideals." He tried to tell Americans that all religions (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists) have "common values" and "similar ideals." No, they certainly do not.

Brown wants to increase the power of the United Nations to become the source of "an international stand-by capacity of trained civilian experts, ready to go anywhere at any time," and even be able to exercise "military force." Americans do not intend to cede such authority to the corrupt United Nations. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Phyllis Schlafly is a national leader of the pro-family movement, a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Feminist Fantasies.

Be the first to read Phyllis Schlafly's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

You had your chance, conservatives
You could have nominated Rep. Ron Paul, a real Republican, a Constitutionalist, and a champion of our sovereignty against EVERT kind of globalist: whether they wear socialistic clothes such as prime minister Brown, or environmentalist ones such as McCain and Newt Gingrich.

You could have listened to the Founding Fathers, who told us a country the size of a continent was big enough, and that we should mind our own back yards (including drilling in them for the fuels we need) and leave foreigners to mind theirs.

You could have heeded the Founders' dread of standing armies, "entangling alliances" and the paranoia and graft they inevitably engender, turning the State into a worse tyrant over us than any alien dictator or terrorist movement could begin to be: snooping on us, picking our pockets for welfare doles to others and "defense" against the threats it provokes, importing cheap-labor interlopers into our land, torturing, mailing and kidnaping Americans or holding them without trial for years.

All these warnings you spurned. After 20 years of RINO Republicanism, you blundered further down the same path in a panic, steered by the MSM. You rejected the "maverick" Paul, the greatest living legislator, and saddled yourselves with Mad Dog Johnny.

You deserve what you'll get, but don't blame us. Even in the PA primary, 15pc of registered Republicans voted for Paul. Not all of us have given up yet.


So what?
England can surrender its sovereignty if they want, but America has a constitution so the elites in Washington can't surrender ours without amending it. Such a proposal will receive the same enthusiasm as the Amnesty Bill did last year.

Brown's rhetoric carries no more weight in this country then any other foreign idiot.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation: