The International Criminal Court claims authority over Americans for actions that the United States does not define as "crimes." In short, the Twenty-First Century is witnessing an epic struggle between the forces of global governance and American constitutional democracy. Transnational progressives and transnational pragmatists in the UN, EU, post-modern states of Europe, NGOs, corporations, prominent foundations, and most importantly, in America's leading elites, seek to establish "global governance." Further, they understand that in order to achieve global governance, American sovereignty must be subordinated to the "global rule of law." The U.S. Constitution must incorporate "evolving norms of international law." Sovereignty or Submission examines this process with crystalline clarity and alerts the American public to the danger ahead. Global governance seeks legitimacy not in democracy, but in a partisan interpretation of human rights. It would shift power from democracies (U.S., Israel, India) to post-democratic authorities, such as the judges of the International Criminal Court.Global governance is a new political form (a rival to liberal democracy), that is already a significant actor on the world stage. America faces serious challenges from radical Islam and a rising China. Simultaneously, it faces a third challenge (global governance) that is internal to the democratic world; is non-violent; but nonetheless threatens constitutional self-government. Although it seems unlikely that the utopian goals of the globalists could be fully achieved, if they continue to obtain a wide spread influence over mainstream elite opinion, they could disable and disarm democratic self-government at home and abroad. The result would be the slow suicide of American liberal democracy. Whichever side prevails, the existential conflict?global governance versus American sovereignty (and democratic self-government in general) will be at the heart of world politics as far as the eye can see.

The International Criminal Court claims authority over Americans for actions that the United States does not define as “crimes.” In short, the Twenty-First Century is witnessing an epic struggle between the forces of global governance and American constitutional democracy. Transnational progressives and transnational pragmatists in the UN, EU, post-modern states of Europe, NGOs, corporations, prominent foundations, and most importantly, in America’s leading elites, seek to establish “global governance.” Further, they understand that in order to achieve global governance, American sovereignty must be subordinated to the “global rule of law.” The U.S. Constitution must incorporate “evolving norms of international law.” Sovereignty or Submission examines this process with crystalline clarity and alerts the American public to the danger ahead. Global governance seeks legitimacy not in democracy, but in a partisan interpretation of human rights. It would shift power from democracies (U.S., Israel, India) to post-democratic authorities, such as the judges of the International Criminal Court. Global governance is a new political form (a rival to liberal democracy), that is already a significant actor on the world stage. America faces serious challenges from radical Islam and a rising China. Simultaneously, it faces a third challenge (global governance) that is internal to the democratic world; is non-violent; but nonetheless threatens constitutional self-government. Although it seems unlikely that the utopian goals of the globalists could be fully achieved, if they continue to obtain a wide spread influence over mainstream elite opinion, they could disable and disarm democratic self-government at home and abroad. The result would be the slow suicide of American liberal democracy. Whichever side prevails, the existential conflict?global governance versus American sovereignty (and democratic self-government in general) will be at the heart of world politics as far as the eye can see.

Den internationella brottmålsdomstolen hävdar att den har rätt att åtala amerikaner för handlingar som Förenta staterna inte betraktar som brott. Kort sagt står det tjugoförsta århundrandet inför en episk kamp mellan å ena sidan de krafter som verkar för global styrning, och å andra sidan amerikansk konstitutionell demokrati. Transnationella progressiva och transnationella pragmatiker, i FN, EU, Europas postmoderna stater, ickestatliga organisationer, i företag, prominenta stiftelser, och viktigast av allt, i Amerikas ledande eliter, försöker etablera "global styrning". De inser att för att uppnå global styrning måste Amerikas suveränitet underordnas ett "globalt lagstyre". Förenta staternas konstitution måste inkorporera "den internationella rättens framväxande normer". I Suveränitet eller underkastelse granskas denna process, och den amerikanska allmänheten varnas för den fara som ligger framför oss. 

 

Global styrning får sin legitimitet inte från demokratin, utan från en politiserad tolkning av mänskliga rättigheter. Den flyttar makten från demokratier (som Förenta staterna, Israel och Indien), till postdemokratiska institutioner, som domarna i den Internationella brottmålsdomstolen. Global styrning är en ny politisk gestalt (och en rival till den liberala demokratin), och den är redan en betydande aktör i världspolitiken.

 

Amerika står inför allvarliga utmaningar från radikal islam och ett allt mäktigare Kina. Samtidigt står Amerika inför en tredje utmaning, global styrning, en utmaning som kommer inifrån den demokratiska världen. Det är inte ett hot som bygger på våldsmakt, men det hotar ändå den fria världens konstitutionella självstyre. Även om det framstår som osannolikt att de utopiska globalisternas mål kan uppnås fullt ut, riskerar deras påverkan på opinionsbildningen i elitkretsar att underminera demokratin, såväl i Förenta staterna som i andra länder. Konsekvensen av detta skulle i så fall bli den amerikanska liberala demokratins långsamma självmord. Oavsett vilken sida som segrar, kommer den existentiella konflikten mellan amerikansk suveränitet (och demokratiskt självstyre i allmänhet) att utgöra kärnan i världspolitiken under överskådlig tid.

The International Criminal Court claims authority over Americans for actions that the United States does not define as "crimes." In short, the Twenty-First Century is witnessing an epic struggle between the forces of global governance and American constitutional democracy. Transnational progressives and transnational pragmatists in the UN, EU, post-modern states of Europe, NGOs, corporations, prominent foundations, and most importantly, in America's leading elites, seek to establish "global governance." Further, they understand that in order to achieve global governance, American sovereignty must be subordinated to the "global rule of law." The U.S. Constitution must incorporate "evolving norms of international law." Sovereignty or Submission examines this process with crystalline clarity and alerts the American public to the danger ahead. Global governance seeks legitimacy not in democracy, but in a partisan interpretation of human rights. It would shift power from democracies (U.S., Israel, India) to post-democratic authorities, such as the judges of the International Criminal Court.Global governance is a new political form (a rival to liberal democracy), that is already a significant actor on the world stage. America faces serious challenges from radical Islam and a rising China. Simultaneously, it faces a third challenge (global governance) that is internal to the democratic world; is non-violent; but nonetheless threatens constitutional self-government. Although it seems unlikely that the utopian goals of the globalists could be fully achieved, if they continue to obtain a wide spread influence over mainstream elite opinion, they could disable and disarm democratic self-government at home and abroad. The result would be the slow suicide of American liberal democracy. Whichever side prevails, the existential conflict?global governance versus American sovereignty (and democratic self-government in general) will be at the heart of world politics as far as the eye can see.

The International Criminal Court claims authority over Americans for actions that the United States does not define as “crimes.” In short, the Twenty-First Century is witnessing an epic struggle between the forces of global governance and American constitutional democracy. Transnational progressives and transnational pragmatists in the UN, EU, post-modern states of Europe, NGOs, corporations, prominent foundations, and most importantly, in America’s leading elites, seek to establish “global governance.” Further, they understand that in order to achieve global governance, American sovereignty must be subordinated to the “global rule of law.” The U.S. Constitution must incorporate “evolving norms of international law.” Sovereignty or Submission examines this process with crystalline clarity and alerts the American public to the danger ahead. Global governance seeks legitimacy not in democracy, but in a partisan interpretation of human rights. It would shift power from democracies (U.S., Israel, India) to post-democratic authorities, such as the judges of the International Criminal Court. Global governance is a new political form (a rival to liberal democracy), that is already a significant actor on the world stage. America faces serious challenges from radical Islam and a rising China. Simultaneously, it faces a third challenge (global governance) that is internal to the democratic world; is non-violent; but nonetheless threatens constitutional self-government. Although it seems unlikely that the utopian goals of the globalists could be fully achieved, if they continue to obtain a wide spread influence over mainstream elite opinion, they could disable and disarm democratic self-government at home and abroad. The result would be the slow suicide of American liberal democracy. Whichever side prevails, the existential conflict?global governance versus American sovereignty (and democratic self-government in general) will be at the heart of world politics as far as the eye can see.

Den internationella brottmålsdomstolen hävdar att den har rätt att åtala amerikaner för handlingar som Förenta staterna inte betraktar som brott. Kort sagt står det tjugoförsta århundrandet inför en episk kamp mellan å ena sidan de krafter som verkar för global styrning, och å andra sidan amerikansk konstitutionell demokrati. Transnationella progressiva och transnationella pragmatiker, i FN, EU, Europas postmoderna stater, ickestatliga organisationer, i företag, prominenta stiftelser, och viktigast av allt, i Amerikas ledande eliter, försöker etablera "global styrning". De inser att för att uppnå global styrning måste Amerikas suveränitet underordnas ett "globalt lagstyre". Förenta staternas konstitution måste inkorporera "den internationella rättens framväxande normer". I Suveränitet eller underkastelse granskas denna process, och den amerikanska allmänheten varnas för den fara som ligger framför oss. 

 

Global styrning får sin legitimitet inte från demokratin, utan från en politiserad tolkning av mänskliga rättigheter. Den flyttar makten från demokratier (som Förenta staterna, Israel och Indien), till postdemokratiska institutioner, som domarna i den Internationella brottmålsdomstolen. Global styrning är en ny politisk gestalt (och en rival till den liberala demokratin), och den är redan en betydande aktör i världspolitiken.

 

Amerika står inför allvarliga utmaningar från radikal islam och ett allt mäktigare Kina. Samtidigt står Amerika inför en tredje utmaning, global styrning, en utmaning som kommer inifrån den demokratiska världen. Det är inte ett hot som bygger på våldsmakt, men det hotar ändå den fria världens konstitutionella självstyre. Även om det framstår som osannolikt att de utopiska globalisternas mål kan uppnås fullt ut, riskerar deras påverkan på opinionsbildningen i elitkretsar att underminera demokratin, såväl i Förenta staterna som i andra länder. Konsekvensen av detta skulle i så fall bli den amerikanska liberala demokratins långsamma självmord. Oavsett vilken sida som segrar, kommer den existentiella konflikten mellan amerikansk suveränitet (och demokratiskt självstyre i allmänhet) att utgöra kärnan i världspolitiken under överskådlig tid.