Ready to Submit?
Or are you in for the fight for sovereignty?


LOPEZ: What does it mean to act transnationally and post-constitutionally?

FONTE: I’ll give you one example. During the negotiations in Rome that created the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the mid-1990s, American human-rights groups openly worked against American diplomats. Our official delegation was attempting to limit the authority of the ICC prosecutor and preserve the Bill of Rights guarantees of American military and civilian officials who could be charged by a global prosecutor with alleged “war crimes” (such as not warning enemy civilians before an American air attack). American citizens in the human-rights NGOs were writing rebuttals and lobbying against our diplomats’ efforts to defend our soldiers and officials. That is an example of acting transnationally and post-constitutionally. Upon reflection, perhaps I should have used stronger language.

LOPEZ: Why is Durban worth dwelling on?

FONTE: It is important to remember the shameful role played by American human-rights groups and American foundations (particularly Ford) when anti-Semitism ran rampant at the U.N. Durban conference. However, Durban was not simply an assault on Israel, but an attack on the U.S. and the West in general. One year before the conference even started, leaders from major U.S. rights groups. including the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, La Raza, NAACP, MALDEF, the Arab-American Institute, and the National Council of Churches. called on the U.N. Human Rights Commission to investigate “racism” in the U.S. because, in their view, we couldn’t do the job domestically. This is another example of acting transnationally and post-constitutionally, that is, acting outside of (and, indeed, in opposition to) to our constitutional process.

LOPEZ: Why are you still complaining about CEDAW (the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women)?

FONTE: Recently, the Hoover Institution’s Policy Review published an article supporting U.S. ratification of CEDAW. Unfortunately, the treaty is not dead. In the book I detail how CEDAW is bad in principle as well as in practice. The treaty endorses “substantive” or “de facto” equality (equality of result, i.e., group quotas) and openly disparages equality of opportunity and equality under the law. As the American Bar Association has revealed, if the U.S. ratified the treaty, it would trigger hundreds of lawsuits attempting to impose widespread gender quotas into practically every segment of the market economy and even private life. In terms of political philosophy, CEDAW is a root-and-branch rejection of classical or traditional liberalism. It is reminiscent of the type of group-conscious “corporatism” imposed by European fascists in some states in the 1930s. In a way, it’s an example of Jonah Goldberg’s liberal fascism.