A few weeks ago another globalist creation known as the International Criminal Court made its "official" debut onto the world scene.
But far from its modest-sounding name, the ICC isn't simply an innocuous and impotent United-Nations-sponsored empty suit, established as a permanent tribunal designed only to put "war criminals" behind bars (whose bars, by the way?).
Rather, this entity is just another tool created by multinational internationalists that will eventually be used to usurp our sovereignty. It joins the World Bank, the World Health Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, the World Organization Against Torture, and the World Organization of Energy Healers.
It gets worse. There's no guarantee, as Pat Buchanan pointed out a few weeks ago, that the Bush administration will even oppose this globalist outrage, foisted upon us by the signature of former President Bill Clinton.
You know, if this were 1776, I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for the lives of most of today's leaders. The men of our Revolutionary War would have strung them up as traitors to the cause of liberty – as treasonous "loyalists" who supported King George's continued tyranny over the masses.
Back then, new Americans understood that there came a time when compromising with tyranny was no longer an option.
For much of our history most of our leaders also understood this. That's why we fought global tyranny – right or wrong - in World Wars I and II; Korea, and Vietnam. It's why, supposedly, we are fighting a war against terrorism even now.
But this is 2002 – some 226 years after our experiment in freedom known as the United States was born out of rebellion. Because of our successes, some of our leaders today are looking for bigger and better things. They want to be a part of that elite cabal that they hope will eventually make decisions for the entire planet. To them, playing a leadership role in the greatest, most powerful nation on earth isn't enough.
Lord John Acton once wrote: "Liberty is the prevention of control by others." That's what our revolutionary brothers and sisters were doing – preventing England's repressive control so they could live in freedom.
But they didn't sacrifice their fortunes and lives so that generations hence could become "citizens of the world." They didn't fight the tyranny of their age so present-day Americans could be subjected to the tyranny of a global government. They didn't fight for independence so future leaders could surrender it to a globalist faction.
As part of a world government, Americans will be subjected to a host of anti-U.S. attitudes. Since American values are not shared universally, they aren't likely to prevail in a court of global opinion.
I think it's safe to say that most people believe America can and should be a force for good in the world. We should try to promote the values that made our nation great.
But in order to do that, we've got to remain an independent and sovereign nation. America cannot be folded into some global community and a) expect to remain a force for liberty; and b) expect to remain a beacon of hope opposed to tyranny.
It's unbelievable that American politicians who dare suggest surrendering any American independence to an international entity can even endure a single term in office.
Perhaps it's more proof that in the realm of "mainstream" politics, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the major parties. Personally, I believe the issue is more serious than simple partisanship. I think it's literally one of national survival.
Americans who were angered by the Sept. 11 attacks will see much more damage done to our way of life if the globalists in our midst achieve their goals.
Â