P. M. And midnight. Those are just a few of the programs we bring you this weekend. Visit booktv. Org for a complete schedule. Next on booktv, a presentation of this years paolucci bagehot book award winner, john fonte, author of sovereignty or submission. During the dinner mr. Fonte delivered a lecture based on his book. Its a little over an hour. [applause] thank you, mark. Im very honored, and its very flattering to be in such good company in previous winners of the paolucci bagehot award. Its also a great honor to receive this from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute which has done wonderful work in sustaining the Core Principles of american civic life. I also wish to extend condolences to the isa community for the recent loss of a greaptd lady and scholar, ann paolucci. Finally, id like to acknowledge that Henry Paolucci was a stalwart defender of American National sovereignty, and i hope that he would have been pleased in presenting this award to me, as pleased as i am in receiving this. Im going to proceed as follows. first, im going to talk a little bit about what i call philadelphia sovereignty. Second, im going to examine the ideas of the Global Governance project which challenges philadelphian sovereignty, and third i will move from ideas to action and look at some the actual activities of the globalists. And then, fourth, i will examine the significance of this conflict between Constitutional Government and Global Governance. Now, sovereignty is defined by most scholars and most people as westphalian, embodied in the nationstate and going back to the treaty of westphalia, 1648, and thats true to an extent. But when i was working on the book and thinking of writing, coming up with some concepts, i realize that americans dont think of themselves as westphalians. Theyll say, oh, were defending westphalian sovereignty. [laughter] americans think of sovereignty in the sense of we, the people of the United States of america. The opening words of the constitution of the United States written, of course, in philadelphia. Hence, i came up with the term philadelphian sovereignty. Also, of course, rhymes with westphalian. But what does philadelphia sovereignty mean, of course . The people arent sovereign but through a constitution. And the twin pillars are liberty and concept. So we do have consent. So we do have majority rule, but it is limited through a constitution, and the whole system of separation of powers, of federalism, of limited government. So this is philadelphia sovereignty. A lot of times people get hung up on are we a republic or a democracy. Were a compound regime, a regime that is both liberal and democratic or constitutional and republican or liberal and republican. You could use any of these terms. Alexander hamilton used the term representative democracy. So were a government that is based on majority rule and consent, but that is limited by a constitution. Hence, this compound regime. Now, one of the major charges that the american colonists raised against king george iii in the declaration of independence was about sovereignty. Ill read that charge. He, thats george iii, has combined with others to summit us to a jurisdiction to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. Now, of course, the constitution he was referring to, obviously, in 1776 was the british constitution. The ancient constitution. But they were looking for some foreign jurisdiction that was going to have authority over us. Were going to examine the ideas and practices of those who in our time have combined with others to subject us or to attempt to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution. Well, ideas have consequences as we learned long ago from an early isi scholar, richard weaver. So lets examine some of the ideas. Lets start with that, of the Global Governance project. These ideas are not hard to find, you know . You dont have to be invited to a secret conspiracy meeting or a trilateral commission, any of this stuff. Its right out in the open. Up on the web sites of u. N. , European Union, the American Bar Association, the deans of most law schools at american universities, leading american foundations, its all there on the internet. And people are not talking about world government anymore, theyre talking about global gore nance governance, this form of transnational governance. So lets look at four people, quick views of theirs, who have given ideas about this. Strobe talbot is currently the president of the brookings institution, hes former secretary of state and as a journalist for Time Magazine in the 1990s, talbot wrote an article in which he welcomed supernational political authority. He said, quote ill bet that within the next hundred years nationhood as we know it will be obsolete, and all state will recognize a single Global Authority. He concluded by saying that this devolution of power upwards toward the supernational and downwards toward autonomous units of administration is basically a positive phenomena. Harold coe is currently today hes the chief Legal Adviser of the u. S. State department. In other words, he advises the president on what International Law. Hes the american spokesman on International Law. He was the dean of yale law school. He gave a major speech last week at georgetown law. Harold coe wrote, quote domestic courts must play a major role in coordinating u. S. Domestic constitutional rules with the rules of foreign and International Law to advance the Broader Development of a wellfunctioning International Judicial system. Well, think about that for a minute. American courts cant coordinate the law from International Law. They wont have much influence over Bear National law and foreign law, but they can coordinate american law. Thats the influence american courts have. So in other words by definition, if this is true, if we coordinate american law with Foreign International law, he would have to subordinate american law to Foreign International law. Its the only way this would logically work. The fourth person im going to talk about for a minute is anne marie slaughter. She was head of the office of policy and planning or the third person at the u. S. State department during the first two years of the obama administration. Anne marie thought wrote that she argued that nationstates should see the degree of sovereignty to what she called transnational networks. Vertically, this is a direct quote, nations should cede Sovereign Authority to supernational institutions such as the International Criminal court. So vertically. Thered be something above the nation, supernational institution. Slaughter maintains that such transparent networks, quote this is a quote from slaughter can perform many of the functions of a world government; legislation, administration and adjudication without the forum. Thereby creating an effective global rule of law. Well, she was the person and policy planning, the key think tank of the state Department First two years of the obama administration. But theres also a republican im going to mention here, richard haas. Hes currently the president of the council on foreign relations, and he was a special assistant to president george h. W. Bush, and during the administration of george w. Bush, he served as the commissioner of policy and planning, same position as slaughter. He argues that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but it needs to become weaker. States should wont a weakened sovereignty, he says, ford to protect himselfs in order to protect themselves. I want to make one thing absolutely cheer clear. Im not talking against International Law in general or against international relations, and i draw a clear distinction between transnationalism and globalism and nationalism. Theres nothing wrong with having international treaties. That means between nations. So the United States has a nato treaty. We get together with western europe, were going to defend ourselfves, theres nothing wrong with that. Same thing. I am criticizing in the book supernational, something about the nationstate or transnational, across or think of the transcontinental railway, something across nations, goes within nations. So the term transnational is used, and thats distinguished from international. Those are some to have ideas. Lets dig into a weeds a little bit. Okay, so what do global laws and global rules mean . People are always saying we need global rules. And what are the twin pillars of liberty and consent . Where do they come into all of this . Okay, ill give you one example from National Security policy and one example from domestic policy. Lets look at the laws of war. The United States is a party to the geneva conventions of 1949. The original geneva conventions, thats the traditional laws of war, they were radically altered in 1977 by the addition of Additional Protocol i to the geneva conventions. Protocol i was supported during negotiations by the third world bloc, the group of 77, the soviet bloc at the time, be swedes, the swiss, many human Rights Groups, many ngos nongovernmental organizations including the International Committee of the red cross. Protocol i recognized irregular forces, guerrillas and terrorists as operating without uniform and without clear command structures as legitimate combatants. They werent under the regular geneva conventions. So they changed the rules of war to favor regular forces over conventional forces. Ill give you two examples. Under protocol i irregulars and terrorists are permitted to hide this in a civilian population where concealed weapons before an attack. At that point theyre considered civilians. Then they jump out. At that point theyre a legitimate combatant, and the conventional forces can fire at them. Then they jump back into the crowd. At that point theyre a civilian again, and you cannot pursue them or fire into the crowd. So, obviously, what does this do . It, obviously, gives the terrorist and irregulars an advantage, but it also, of course, endangers the civilians. So all the civil Rights Groups who were saying this was a great advance, theyre actually bringing civilians into greater danger by some of the rules of protocol i. Another rule of protocol i is that it requires, before a bombing raid, youre required to warn civilians in the area that an air attack is coming. You can imagine that in berlin in 1943, requiring the joseph goebbels, you better clear the Propaganda Ministry because an air attack is on its way. Although the israelis, to their regret, did warn people before some attacks, and they received more casualties because of this. Now, under the reagan administration, the United States repudiated president carters signature and said we would not ratify protocol i. Most of the world has. Most of western europe, canada, most of our allies, most democracies not israel, india and some other countries but most countries are due to adhere to protocol i. During the 80s the United States conducted a series of war games, they changed sides and so on and the side that you follow protocol i rules, guess what . They always lost the war game. During the 1990s at Amnesty International charged the United Nations charged the United States air force with serious violations of the laws of war during the bombing campaigns in kosovo and yugoslavia. They brought these charges before a u. N. Sponsored International Criminal tribunal for the former yugoslavia which uses protocol i, so Amnesty International decried the consistent failure to give effective warning to civilians before bombing. Human rights watch complained that the u. S. Air force was too concerned with insuring pilot safety. These were american lawyers writing this, complaining about the american air force, too worried about the safety of American Service members. So these are the global rules. When people talk about global rules, these are some of the global rules. This is also an example of transnational politics. Its a new type of politics. So these socalled violations of the laws of war were based on protocol r. During the current afghan war, also there were american lawyers from human rights watch, Amnesty International charging americans with war crimes once again, this time bringing it to the International Criminal court which the u. S. Is not a member and doesnt recognize and also on the basis of protocol i rules. So when someone says youre following the geneva conventions, you have to know which ones. Is it the 9, the traditional 49, the traditional rules, or is it the new rules of 1977 which privilege terrorists . So what we just described, what ive just described are transnationallist, some of them americans, waging what we could call lawfare against american liberal democracy. Lawfare could be defined as the use or misuse of law for purposes of litigation, harassment, propaganda to achieve an ideological purpose, a political, strategic purpose. What is the purpose of human rights watch, Amnesty International . What do they want to achieve . Well, they say this in all their literature, they would like to achieve the spectrum i of global supremacy of global law over national law. Theyre doing this for the purpose of establishing global law as superior to american constitutional law and promoting protocol i. Okay. Thats, that was National Security. Im going the give you one example from domestic politics. There is a United Nations convention for the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. Signed by most countries in the world,170 countries in the world have signed it. There are a few countries who have not joined; sudan, syria, the Islamic Republic of iran and the United States of america. Well, harold coe says, what a disgrace. How can the United States be a world leader on womens rights and not sign this treaty . Well, lets take a look. What would radification mean . We dont have to guess what ratification means. The American Bar Association has written a booklength report, 200 pages, explaining exactly what american compliance would mean. The aba report is based on the work of the u. N. Monitoring committees. They go to the countries when they ratify the treaty. So when they went to britain or australia or canada, they wrote a report. What were they telling these countries to do, how would you follow the treaty . Well, the aba report opposes thousands of questions, all of them potential lawsuits. The aba claims, first of all, its not about equality under the law, its about de facto equality; that is, equality of result, statistical equality. The aba states gender quotas are not voluntary, it creates an obligation for a quota system. So im just going to run through a few of these questions from the American Bar Association on their web site. This is if the United States or any other country joins cdau, what are you supposed to do . What Training Programs exist to educate judges about cdaus precedence over national law . Is there a National Mechanism to promote de facto equality . If so, does it promote the use of temporary special measures in developing policies . Can legal professionals initiate lawsuits for the lack of temporary special measures . If so, how many cases have been filed . What were the results . Are there quotas, targets or specific goals regarding compliance . If so, what are they . Are they being met . Does the National Machinery track National Budgetary expenditures . What percent of money is being spent on womens programs, on social issues, on family programs . What are the results . Are there quotas, targets, specifics . Etc. , etc. Do gender quotas exist for increasing the number of women elected to government bodies . Are there Public Education programs conducted by the state to emphasize the importance of balanced representation in all elected bodies . And so on. Well, these are the global rules. I condemn they are not universal human rights, they have little to do with equality under the law. There is actually the partisan political positions of western progressives, of the western left. Their political agenda come out as all of a sudden theyre universal human rights. When the u. N. Monitoring committee went to france in 2008, they said, okay, youre doing a good job on political parity. Yo