afghanistan. >> next, a presentation of this year's book award dinner. this year's recipient is author of "sovereignty and submission: the struggle of global governance and america's constitutional democracy." during the dinner, he delivered a lecture based on his book. it's a little over app -- an hour. [applause] >> thank you, mark. i'm very honored, and it's very flattering to be in such good company in the previous winners of the award. it's also a great honor to receive the award from the intercollegiate studies institute, an organization which for more than 60 years has done wonderful work in sustaining the core principles of american civil life. i also wish to extend

condolences to the community for the recent loss of a great lady and great scholar, ann, and i'd like to acknowledge, henry was a stall ward defender of american national sovereignty. i hope that he would have been pleased in presenting this award to me as pleased as i am in receiving it. i'm going to proceed as follows. first, i'll talk about what i call philadelphia sovereignty. second, i'm going to examine the ideas of the global governance project which challenges philadelphia sovereignty, and third, move from ideas to action, and talk about the activities of the globalists, and then, fourth, examine the significance of the conflict between constitutional government and global govern nans. now, sovereignty is define by

most scholars and others as going back to 16 # 48, and that's true to an extent, but when i was working on the book and thinking of writing, coming up with concepts, i realized americans don't think of themselves as west -- americans think of sovereignty in the sense that 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, the term "philadelphia sovereignty," but what is philadelphia sovereignty, of course, the people are sovereign, but through a constitution. the core of the twin pillars of that are liberty and consent so we have majority rule, but majority rule is limited through a constitution, and the whole system of separation of powers and federalism of limited

government. this is philadelphia sovereignty. a lot of times people get hung up on being a republic or a democracy. we're a compound regime. a regime that is both liberal and democratic or constitutional and republican or liberal and republican. you can use any of the terms. alexander hamilton used the term "representative democracy," we're 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 colonist raised was he, george the iii, combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws giving assent to take acts of pretended legislation. now, of course, the constitution he was referring to in 1776 was

the british constitution. the and sent constitution, but that con cement is the same. there was foreign jurisdiction that was going to have authority over us. we're going to examine now the ideas and practices of those who, in our time, have combined with others to subject us or attempt to to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution. well, ideas have consequences as we learned long ago from an early isi scholar, richard weaver. let's examine the ideas. the global governance project. these are not hard to find. you don't have to be invited to a secret meeting or the trilateral commission or any of this stuff. it's out in the open. it's up on the websites of u.n., european union, the american bar association, the deans of most law schools in american universities, leading american

foundations. it's all there on the internet. people are not talking about world government anybody, but world governance, a form of transnational governance. look at four people, quick views, and talbot, the president of the brookings institution, a major think tank in washington. the former secretary of state, and as a journalist for time magazine in the 1990s, they wrote an article in which he welcomed super national political authority. he said, quote, "i'll bet within the next hundred years nationhood as we know it will be obsolete and all states will recognize a single global authority." he concluded saying "the devra davis luges of power upwards of units of administration is basically a positive phenomena."

coe, currently, today, the chief legal adviser of the u.s. state department, in other words, he advises the president on what the law is, was gave a major speech last week at georgetown law, a major figure in international law writing, 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 developments of a well-functions international judicial system." well, think about that for a minute. american courts can't coordinate the law from international law. they won't have influence over international law and foreign law, but they can coordinate american law. they can only coordinate american law. in other words, by definition,

if this is true, if we coordinate american law with foreign international law, he would have to sub board nate american law. it's the only way this would logically work. the fourth person i'm going to talk about for a minute is ann marie slaughter, head of the office of policy and planning -- or the third person -- at the u.s. state department in the first two years of the obama administration. she wrote that she argued that nation states should see the degree of sovereignty to what she calls transnational networks. vertically, this is a direct quote, nations should seed sovereign authority to supernational institutions like the international criminal court, vertically, something above the nations, supernational institution. she maintains such transparent networks, quote, can perform many of the functions of a world

government, legislation, administration, and adjudication without the form thereby creating an effective global rule of law." well, she was the person, policy planning, the key think tank of the state department the first two years of the obama administration. a republican i'll mention, currently the president of the council on foreign relations, a special assistant to president george hw bush, and during the administration of the george w. bush, was directer of policy and planning, and richard says it's time to rethink sovereignty. he argues that they are not weaker in reality, but it needs to become weaker. states should be want to resovereign in order to protect themselves. okay. those are some of the ideas. now, before proceedings, i want to make one thing absolutely clear, i'm not talking against international law in general or

against international relations, and i draw a distinction in the book and there's nothing wrong with having international treaties. "international" means inter between nations. we have a treaty, nato with western europe, a treaty, defend ourselves, nothing wrong with that. there's plenty of trade treaties. i criticize supernational or transnational, across or within. think of the transcontinental railways, across nations, transnational is used distinguished from international. well, those are some of the ideas. let's dig into the we's now. global or transnational laws, not international laws, okay, what do laws need in we need global rules for this. we're the twin pillars.

liberty consent. where do they come into this? one example, national security policy and one example from domestic policy. let's look at the laws of war. united states is a party to the gee knee that conventions of 19 49. the original geneva conventions, laws of war, radically altered in 1977 by the addition of additional protocol one to the geneva conventions. protocol one was supported in negotiations by the third world block, the group of 77, the soviet block at the time, the sweeds, the swiss, human right groups, ngos, non-governmental organizations, including the international committee of the red cross. protocol one recognized irregular forces, guerrillas,

and terrorists as operating without uniform and without clear command structures as legitimate combatants, working under the regular geneva convention. they changed the rules of war to favor regular forces over other forces. two examples. under protocol one, regulars and terrorists are permitted to hide in civilian population with concealed weapons before an attack. at that point, they are considered civilians. they jump out. they fire. they are combatants, and the conventional forces can fire at them. they jump back into the crowd. they are a civilian again. you cannot pursue them. what does this do? it, obviously, gives the terrorists and irregulars an advantage over the conventional forces, but that endangers civilians. human rights group saying it's a great advance, they are actually

bringing civilians into greater danger by the rules of poet coal one. another rule of protocol one is that it requires before a bombing raid, you have to warn civilians in the air attack that it's coming. imagine that in berlin in 194 # #3. clear the propaganda ministry of civilians, air attack is on the way. they do not follow this, but israelis, to their regret, warned people before some attacks, and they received more casualties because of this. now, under the reagan administration, united states repudiated president carter's signature and said we would not ratify protocol of war. most of the world has. most of western europe, canada, the allies, most democracies not israel, india, and other countries, but most are protocol

one. in the mid-70 -- mid-80 #s, they used protocol one, the other didn't, changed sides and so on. the side you followed the rules, guess what? they lost the war game. during the 1990s, american lawyers and human rights watch and amnesty international charged the united states air force with serious violations of the laws of war during the bombing campaign in kosovo and yugoslavia bringing these before the tribunal for the former yugoslavia using one as the rules. amnesty internationals cry the failure to give effective warning before bombing. human rights watch complained the u.s. air force was too concerned with ensuring pilot safety. these are american writers

writing this, complaining about the american air force, too worried about the safety of american service members. these are the global rules. people talk about global rules, these are the global rules. it's an example of transnational politics, a new kind of politics. the violations of the law of war were based on protocol one. during the afghan war, the current war, also, american lawyers from amnesty international, human rights watch charging americans with war crimes again, this time bringing it to the international criminal court, which the u.s. is not a member and doesn't recognize, and also on the basis of protocol one rules. if you're following the geneva conventions, you have to know which ones. conventional ones like the world war ii or new rules of 1977 which privilege terrorists? what we just described, what i just described are

transnationallists, some of them americans, waging what we call law fare against american liberal democracy. lea fare could be defined as the misuse of law for purposing of litigation, harassment, propaganda to achieve a political strategic purpose. what's the purpose of human rights watch? what do they want to achieve? well, they say this in all the literature. they want to achieve the supremacy of global law over national law. ..

and the united states of america. well, what the disgrace. how can the united states be a world leader on women's rights and not sign this treaty clocks let's take a look. what would ratification mean? we don't have to guess what it means. the american bar association has a book on their web site report, 200 pages explaining exactly what american compliance would mean. the aba report is based on the work of the u.n. monitoring committee to go to the countries when they ratified the treaty so when they went to britain or australia or canada the report. what were they telling these countries to do? how would you follow the treaty? well, the report opposes thousands of questions all of them potential lawsuits.

the aba explains first of all the treaty is not about equality of opportunity. it's not about equal the under the law. it's about the fact of the quality that is of results and statistical quality, the state's gender are not voluntary and creates an obligation for the system, just going to run through a few of these questions from the american bar is a seizure on their website, in the united states or any country joins what are you supposed to do? what training programs exist to educate judges about the president's over the national all? is there a mechanism to promote the defacto equal the? if so does it promotes the use of temporary special measures? developing policies can the legal professionals initiate lawsuits for the lack of measures? if so how many cases have been

filed? what were the results or specific goals regarding? if so what are they? are their targets being met in the national machinery to track the budget expenditures have much money is being spent on the women's programs and social issues and family programs? what are the results khator deutsch, specifics? etc., etc.. to the gender quotas exist for increasing the number of women elected to the bodies? are there public education programs conducted by the states to emphasize the importance of balance representation in all elective body is the? they are not universal human rights under the law. are they the partisan political positions of western progressives? to serve their political agenda come out all the sudden they're universal human rights? the u.n. monitoring committee went to france in 2008 and said okay you are doing a good job on

political parity. but, you don't have 50% of the women on corporate boards or the financial institutions if you have a problem there the suggested the financial sanctions against companies that did not address the differences. the u.n. committee went to germany in 2004 if the federal poverty the government conducted a study on my father's or not reluctant to use the parental leave? first you have parental leave, that's good it's not just a state policy is a national policy but there are not many men taking advantage of this. they start having equality of result in the actual family leave process to. the common response would get the secretary and say so what.

the u.n. treaty have no enforcement power. the black helicopters are not going to arrive. the u.s. isn't going to come out and enforce those laws. so what's the problem? well, the problem is the reality is the legal including the american bar association and many other groups which is promoting the global human rights law. they say they want a global world law to be spirited and the national the there's a global will look all that has to be superior. the american bar association assessment tool, quoting from this 200 page book makes it very clear that if the united states ratifies there'll be hundreds of lawsuits and it's not just see dhaka. there are many other human rights treaties, the rights of a child, there's currently the rights of the disabled before the senate as we speak because they get up and set up against

the right but has all these hidden measures and so on within them so they are about a political agenda and it also includes the migrant rights treaty, economic and cultural rights and so on the whole range of the treaty has been about politics and not about human rights. so what's wrong with this is it distorts the constitutional process. it takes a foreign political actor outside of the constitutional and enters the process and puts one side against another's we have a foreign body entering the space that's one problem. another problem is it aims to shrink the area of space decision making at a national level, congressional level, democratic it shrinks federalism because the federal system is always trumped, civil society,

the business sector and parental rights and the rights of a child where decision making me that the individual family or even the individual level. all of this is shrunk or there's an attempt to shrink it by the global governance movement and what's called the global human-rights movement these days it shrinks liberty and consent and liberalism and democracy and constitutionalism and republicanism. the forces of global government's claim authority over a wide range of issues people have traditionally decided for themselves. true space legislatures or the federal system. these issues include budget practices, all enforcement, curriculum, textbooks, criminal sentences, employment, immigration, border enforcement, health care, parental leave, the supply of children within the family to have a government more bilingualism some ethnic and

gender composition of bodies and so on coming u.n. human rights treaties explicitly digress all of these issues. so what does this mean in my fourth and final point what is the significance of a global governance? well, first of all, this is a major actor in world politics today. it has and it the logical base, an idea base and material base, it has a social base and part of for a call the party of global governance in this book includes leaders of a major american universities, american law schools in particular. the leading american divisions, the ford foundation, the rockefeller foundation, the global corporations. the elite of the european union. the elite of leadership of the united nations. all of these are part of what i

would call the global governance movement, the powerful political movement. so, point number one, plant number two there is a conflict going on between the global governance and of the forces of the liberal state. this is a political conflict. point number three, this means we need to rethink world politics, the narrative of world politics. we think of it today in terms of there are these nations and maybe ngos on this test board of world politics. well, we have to take the party of the global governance and put it on the chessboard of the republicans. it's a major actor. it's an actor adversarial to american interests and american values and adversarial for the liberal dhaka izzie congenital, certainly and adversarial to the nation states such as israel. we think in terms of foreign policy as liberal internationalism, realism, neoconservatism but we haven't thought of global politics which

is now transnational. american lawyers are going to international courts to try to indict american airmen for transnational politics. the new face of politics we need a rethinking of world politics. we have to recognize the global governance is a player and a hostile player. now, a few points and closing, one thing i want to say is that the american trend, there's many american trans nationalists and we may see america as to lead the way to sort of adopt the global project as their own project and have america share as the determining the european union. so sharing sovereignty with others and demonstrate leadership. how? by subordinating the supranational legal regime. america's got to lead globally. everything is subordinated. everything is falling the global leadership. but those that promote, americans that promote the

global governance say this is in our interest in its consistent with our values because we are the strongest power today but we are not always going to be the strongest power. the other nations are coming up so what we want to do is establish these people talking. we want to establish global rules now so 30 years from now or so when we are not as strong the rules will be in place and the others will have internalized it. they will be following the global rules and they will be practicing it and learn how to practice it and they will be good global stewards and citizens, so at that point when we become week we won't have anything to worry about. we support this general line of argument and she says, and this is a quote from her, what goes around comes around. principles that could constrain us today may well guarantee our freedom to mauro. the argument that global governance is an american

interest is pulled both on pragmatic and principal. first of all of course, our freedom will not be guaranteed by the school rules or any other global rules or institutions will not be guaranteed freedom. i would be guaranteed by a military as a lotion or second to none is the only thing that will guarantee. then of course, let's say they try this and what say china says yes we will lex at these and china or some other politics why would they stick to these roles once they become top dog? but was fined 30 years ago when you were the number one power. why should we do that anymore? most countries are opportunistic and circumstances change they will change and bill walsh or the international rules were good 30 or 40 years in the past will no longer be valid so it's naive to establish a stable

international order on the utopian promise because the united states agreed to subordinate its sovereignty with global authority when it was a leading power that others will do the same sometime in the future. of course this also feels on the ground of democratic self governance. we hear a lot of talk about the final rule of the vital interest in the united states. well, the most vital interest of the united states are securing the pri defeat the perpetuation of the self-government of liberty has life and if we supported the global rules we've already given up our vital one tryst -- interest. it's in our interest and consistent with our values to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to the constitution as the declaration of independence put it to commit democratic suicide and my final chapter in

the book is called the suicide of liberal democracy and i say suicide because it is unlikely these people will achieve the regime they want. they are powerful forces, there is a real system to the world and they are not going to achieve the global piece that they would like but they certainly can contribute to our downfall by making us too weak to defend ourselves by shrinking the liberty at home with the regulations so they can contribute to the suicide dhaka as a boat in the security and domestic policy without actually achieving the kind of regime he. savitt more or less committed suicide so maybe they'll come

back and be resuscitated but they've given up sovereignty to the european union said they are initiated not by the space parliaments and the house of commons. they initiate 60 to 80% of the wall and this was told to me by the deputy ambassador of the european union in washington. i'm not making this up. as of the conflict between the self-governing regime and a global government is going to be with us for a while. i would say its perennial long after the 20th century because it concerns the oldest issue of politics going back to plato and aristotle. the question is who governs and what regime and i have a chapter discussing the history of the global governance and they had

an opinion there were invited on the side of the independent sovereignty and against brinza national governments. over their imperial overseas third, the roman republic over the entire, the english republican, sydney or the stuart kings, the british parliament over the british market and also of course american self governance and of the late will more kendal no in the virginia declaration of right and the founders' view it was an emphasis on the greatest right of all, their light of the people to govern themselves and hint of and the sovereignty versus the local governments will continue to those rivers century develops. their sales of governance is

obsolete the roles of global governance say that americans and other people do not have the moral right to govern themselves. my book argues americans to have a moral right to rule themselves as do other free people and those that aspire to self-government and have the capacity for self-government explain why the independent self-government for the sovereign liberal space nation states is referred to all forms of the global governance. and i am going to end buy simply actually reading the final chapter of my book which goes back to 20 massachusetts, june 3rd yes, 1826, john adams receives a group of visitors in his upstairs library the town leaders of quincy organizing the upcoming anniversary of the declaration of independence and

they are known from out as the office for independence. they asked him for a toast to be read to the celebrants on july july 4th from 1826 and adam replies independence forever. he says not a word. so i have nothing more to say except independence forever. the united states seems to be leading the charge of looking at

liberal democrats such as hillary clinton and also the neocons and the invasion of iraq and most recently the globalist obama and the invasion of libya so my question is here we have the united states tonight and the sovereignty of other nations and that is a problem when we have two parties with both essentially are war parties. >> in my book i distinguish between sovereignty in general which would be the sovereignty currently of the burmese or any autocratic state and i call them the philadelphians but there are

other democratic sovereign states that make that distinction to be the democratic sovereignty has a great moral authority in generals of the cases you are referring to in the they are overflowing the autocratic sovereignties and it's also a policy question. my book has concerned the regime questions of political science professor james caesar one of the books in the liberal democracy and political science are two types of questions. one is the regime that includes what type of government you have and that's what i'm talking about. the regime in the form of the government of the culture and the government and actual politics what should be the foreign policy in libya and keeping the power in the opposition of american interest. i don't get into those type of issues in the book as the policy

issues to take your point i am making a distinction between the mattocks sovereignty and the sovereignty in general so i don't have an objection to build the burmese government. i wouldn't have an objection as policy mrs. italy to try to change every country in the world. i'm not advocating that in every sense or in any sense. we can argue about different policies, and i am saying that as a form of government, the liberal space nation state is superior to other forms of government one will be global governance and others is the autocratic regime. i talk a little bit about russia and china as the autocratic regime in the book and i don't see them proportion those countries in the democratic not by force.

we could do it or not do it as a policy decision and other radical islam to establish sharia as the constitutional structure so there are different types of political sense. but i'm saying is the philadelphia sovereignty. thank you for your presentation. the was excellent. contrasting subjects and submission that will further weaken the sovereignty or cause us to be submissive some wouldn't even know what you're

talking about, 60, 70% probably but you get into the people in this room that probably do know what you're talking about and that get elected in two years and maybe this the department that might understand this is the use of your offer action or something i thought. i am doing that and i can talk about that a little bit. that is a good question. yes, there is a new work in washington and from some of the think tanks that started the sovereignty caucus and. there are members and some senators that have worked on speeches for senator kyl and some other people but there are

new members of congress and interesting sovereignty on the radar screen there is a couple of treaties. there is the u.n. treaty until all of the sea to do direct taxes that actually collect the money that from the member states could actually not collect money from the transactions in the see if so they worked with members who are opposing vlore and sea treaty that have questions about that if there is a disabled rights treaty that sounds great which is also a problem, so there is activity in congress where people are being very aware of this in fact the new senators -- the new senator from texas who will probably be elected was the attorney general from texas, and was the major figure in the case

which was a major case in the international law which is the state of texas defied both president bush and the state department and the u.n. and executed the attorney general as the u.s. senator senator cruce probably in the global governance movement it was a strongly elite movement. you mentioned the presidential foundations and universities of all schools, international lawyers. and so, my question would be a little more specific. what is the social base for the sovereignty movement. particularly what are the eletes

in america for example that could be mobilized in order to resist and assert a sovereign view? >> i suppose the social base would be the counter elite in places such as this in the right think tanks and the activists and for example phyllis schlafly has been and is delete the interested who was probably the first effort on the movement back in the 1950's which failed by one vote and was promoted on the amendment was the american bar association which was the leading defender of american sovereignty at that time. they were close to the center in ohio who introduced this amendment as fairly complicated, but basically it's the treaty's couldn't trump the constitution and any treaty isn't self executed. wouldn't automatically be the law if the congress would pass the law implementing the various things of the executive orders.

so it would be giving talks around the country, activists or counter activists and they think there is an over reached by the global environmentalists and families coming into groups that are also concerned, so there is a line in israel concerned about the attempt to limit the sovereignties there is a broad coalition i guess center right activist groups and counter intellectuals performing the social base you're talking about, and i had a local chapter in the book on the european union and very interested in that and we see what is happening in europe and there is

a pushback in europe and there's political groups that look to reagan and thatcher and the european conservatives that have spoken and there's many people that have returned on the principles of ronald reagan and thatcher and president and the czech republic and the pro free enterprise and sovereignty simply to fight back against the european within the elements of central and eastern europe to push back so it is an array of hope you didn't use the word insidious. >> i'm waiting for you to bring about.

>> the example of why it won't work is the european union. >> you can organize the countries in the same continent that are supposed to be the same civilization how are you going to reconcile the this civilizations that it shouldn't stand. and it gets to double down now. now we need them in charge of all of the banks. in charge of all economic policy all budget policies. this is what the leaders are saying. so even though it doesn't work and doesn't -- the soviet union didn't work from 1917 to 1971.

>> would you comment on any connections that you see between the groups that appear to have less concern about protecting the national borders and issues of sovereignty clacks >> i'm not quite following what you mean. >> do you have any thoughts about the group's? >> absolutely. in fact i have a chapter on this in the book. >> absolutely. yes, it is the same group, the same people, the american civil liberties union with mexico and they've signed an agreement with mexico to work against the u.s. government and work against the formal agreement with the government of mexico and the

american group, american civil liberties union and how we get around american border enforcement and what do we do to undermine american sovereignty in the quarter on emigration and the assimilation and the national identity and civic education and we have the patriotic assimilation as opposed to the multiculturalism and the whole sections of the book on this and yes it is the very same groups. in fact there was the u.n. rapid sure that happens to be the professor then no third name -- notre dame. but he met with amnesty international, so yes they went for the global all working with the governments and there's a total connection. you are absolutely right.

>> i agree with the sentiment here that losing sovereignty for america to the transnational entities is a very dangerous thing so i will last a theoretical question which is what is so great about the nation states? it seems like some of the arguments you are advancing could, you know, also be in favor of state sovereignty against the state's or the nation states. so what is it that is so special other than the fact that it's what we happen to have? >> that is a good question. and the founders of course that's where i go from -- that's what they start with. they were thinking of the ancient republics as madison said it has to be broad and by having a broad regime, we permit certain types of diversity and

we permit greater strength for liberty. so i say in the modern age it doesn't have to the nation state exactly. if theoretically they could exist as a nation as long as they celebrated peacefully if they establish the democratic republic of flanders as some people are discussing now this could work. it could happen. it isn't even theoretical at this point and you call that a nation state i think in the modern world this is the best institution for liberty to come up with better ones and i haven't seen better around the global governance. it wouldn't be world governments but it would be a form of governance in which there are these structures which is

superior to the national mall. i don't see anything superior to that. and i see and 40 and consent i am basing this on many american founders as precious and going back to the declaration of independence and the constitution from god and how these rights are protected by the government, so it could be a smaller form of government. but, it would be some form of the state's. i think that answer your question. i don't see anything in the moderate that has come up with something better than the nation states that could be smaller. >> to more questions. possibly i will add one. >> york short version is --

[inaudible] >> it seems jeanne kirkpatrick looks at things in the right way. >> jeanne kirkpatrick did look at things and the look like tenet anderson and the u.s. policy towards the u.n. should be we can do a number of things. one of the best things to do and john suggested that is to make the u.n. dues voluntary so we only pay for the things we want. it's doing good jobs fighting disease. it's the human rights council. but we don't want to fund that. if it is unesco as an nonparty

human rights council as iran played a major role we don't want to fund that its demint 22% we should move to a voluntary payment in the u.n.. some of you may disagree but i don't think that we should say we are walking out, probably not weech we would pay for the things we want, voluntary basis the security council there are some benefits as long as we have a veto in the security council we don't want to reform the security council which means ending the veto we can put some members on that but certainly putting no basis never going to the u.n. about anything serious this would be done by the group powers cutting back the funding

and having them do a few things they do okay, paying for that, that's fine, having them talk they can talk. but for cutting back and not taking them seriously to all of those things we can do i don't think a big saying we are out is probably a good thing or would make much sense or wouldn't be in our interest but certainly cutting back and not taking them seriously would be the main thing. >> thanks very much for your talk. going back to your up there is something that concerns me when we talk about the nation state. is the choice only between the nation's states as they exist right now and global governance? from my research and whatever we do, the problem of the european union is not that the integration is a bad idea. it is precisely because the europeans haven't created an actual federal state that europe

is in the trouble that it is in and this is actually an argument for more. basically they should have started building in 1962 and it's tougher to do now in 27. but now you have nation states that wanted somehow the advantages of a larger organization but they didn't want to pay the price. we have 1786 this is the problem when you create an article of confederation you have a government that is it doesn't have the strength that it needs. i'm not saying you have to agree with me to read a lot of the people you speak with don't agree that the problem is we are not simply talking about a choice between the national sovereignty and global governance. aren't there larger sovereignties that could be that at least theoretically could be practical and workable and could protect the sovereignty and prosperity of the people who live in them?

>> okay. you raised a good point there could be something as you just pointed out. it's not global and it's not national. something in between the you could have a regional government of some type. yes, you could have that. i don't think that would foster liberty or consent. as i disagree with you there. the people here were american colonists. yes, they were virginians, but they all read the same books. they were to books in all the colonies and there's the can james bible and shakespeare. there was a dmos waiting for the people and the czech republic says there is no european crothers french and we can see that now. they're the most pro german.

they have no affection for some of the other people and they were tired of paying for this. but eletes got some benefits, some economic benefits for a while. they are going to have benefits they keep bailing everybody out. but in terms of consent, in terms of popular consent, no. the british certainly -- it's not the house of commons. the house of commons, the british democracy this is the day that they suffered a setback 68% of the walls are in the shade in brussels so yes you could have this regime. it wouldn't be space as i call in the book post democratic. you could have this regime. they exist. you may come out with some type. you'd be a post liberal regime because it won't be based on individual rights bill on group rights it will be post liberal. they will be post democrat working anti-democratic in the

sense that russia or china is today or burma or some place like this but will be post democratic otherwise it wouldn't be a dmos, it wouldn't be the government based on consent or liberty or a space regime, but it could exist for awhile. i don't think it will exist forever. >> i will last the last question and that is that your talk is very illuminating. it casts light on things that are not often open to public inspection or at least not commonly in our politics, and what seems insidious about the global governance movement is precisely that it is the sort of technical elite movement which proceeds without implicating itself too much in the space process these. so i'm wondering how is it that you structure it politics to oppose it? it seems that it's -- these are

the things that viscerally generate hostile reactions in everyday americans and yet they are never brought to their attention to get. how is it that you package this kind of an issue so that you can get a political action in america? >> very good point and that is why i was talking about the sovereignty caucus, but the members are driven by specific issues so they are interested when something comes up when there's a disabled rights treaty or something that is when to begin the sovereignty or cause problems and react but you're right it's very hard to organize this in a general way but we have to look devotee of the problem is that as i try to point out with a mengin testifying against the disabled treaty were against the women's treaty. a friend of mine testified against some of the favors an

favor of it said okay these are the countries, sudan, syria, iran. that's where we want the united states to be so you try to injure someone in ten seconds and you have to go to the web site and do this and that. so yes it is difficult on that score but as far as the answer to your question i don't think if you organize the general opposition but if you can wait for the big items to come up, currently there is an initiative in california launched by the american bar association to promote the international criminal court and to get the u.s. to join the international criminal court and they are paying for members of the court to come here and meet with american judges. they see this as a long-term process. this is a long-term thing even after they die they hope this is a goal that they will someday reach and we should look at that in protecting the american republic and sometimes it is

disturbing to people on our side that says, i mean those that would like to see the american republic survive as long as it possibly can. nothing is forever, so this republic is also not going to last forever. i don't know if that is true because we don't know the future and i will stick with john adams it's rare to last forever and i went to try to make it that way. [applause] >> you are watching book tv on c-span2. joining us now in the studio is malcolm, the founder and the chairman of the foundation of the american writers museum. very quickly, what is the american writers museum? >> the american writers museum

may be a future home for book tv studio is among other things. but seriously, it can be a place where people will come and engage with writers and writing in ways that they have never been able to do before. it will be the first national museum dedicated to celebrating our writers and helping people understand the impact it's had on our culture and our history and our daily life. >> we spoke to you about two years ago when the concept was just getting off the ground. what is the progress that you have made in the last two years? >> first let me thank you for having me back on. i very much appreciate that and have welcomed the opportunity to bring people up to date on the project. we have made a lot of progress. and i judge that not by what we say but by what others say. they are very impressed. we have -- starting off we have pretty much established beyond a

doubt that this is a very worthy endeavor that the concept has followed. we have very enthusiastic support that is reflected in the endorsements from meeting people across the country, and your viewers will see these endorsements on the web site. we have an executive planning team in place, the national advisory council, we have created a literary council in chicago to help us there that will be the venue for the museum we have just completed the initial concept plan for the museum. we have a business plan in place we have received grants from the national endowment for the humanities and the developing concept plan. we have engaged one of the experts to help finalize the

business plan and analyze the potential sites in chicago and the fund-raising consultant to help develop the funding strategy. >> why chicago? why is that going to be the physical home? >> we set a criteria that would be a destination city, the city that is an philanthropy that has a strong literary heritage and many places need that but chicago has the other of a vintage of being central and it is a wonderful city and most people when we indicate that they think that is a pretty good choice. everybody acknowledges that chicago makes a lot of sense. >> when you see the ground being broken on the physical location? >> our business plan calls for a phase of development, and as you know many start small and grow

over time. the more likely scenario for us is that we will start in an existing location and for example that could be at the cultural center in chicago which is a superb then you to be a lot of traffic close to the institute and the symphony and it has been empty for a couple of other museums as well. one scenario is that we would be housed for a number of years while we develop the ultimate home whether that is a stand-alone building which ideally we would love to have for house with some other institutions or some other multipurpose complex. >> in your plan you have areas slash author type. is that correct? >> our initial concept plan i

would urge your viewers to go there so they can see the details we will have as you currently envisioned, you will find a large and fountain splashing letters on the ceiling and walls in these letters to form words for important sentences, titles of books, whenever. and that will immediately engage people with the word coming in from their you will go into what we call the writers hold, and it will have a series of vignettes that will deal with different topics and it could be american families, american towns, and in each of these areas we will have a very engaging and interacting exhibit and will feature works that are appropriate for that particular topic.

it could start with lewis and clark and he would be able to trace and understand the context how they develop them and most importantly what is significant about that particular work. how was he thinking about who we are. then we would have a series of special exhibit holds where obviously very exciting one for children and you will hear lots of laughter and squeals of delight as they engage with their favorite characters from the children's books. we would have a poetry corner and one way that could play out it could be a dark room that you enter and all of a sudden you hear the poet's voice and images on the context in which that poem has been set. for example, that wonderful

voice you could be sitting there in all of a sudden you hear that and you are in the pool hall with him so these are the sort of ideas we want to make it engaging and fun and inspirational. >> what about nonfiction? >> absolutely. we are a country that is founded on the written word starting with we hold these truths to be self-evident with the gettysburg address and the great speeches of martin luther king and others. these are fundamentally important to defining the country and who we are and inspiring words and biographies the very inspiring and history, so all of these forms of

writings will be featured. who and how will be determined by people much more knowledgeable and carried it in time by creative and knowledgeable people. >> what is your background and how did you get started? >> i'm an engineer by training i've spent my career in business. i have a lot of literature and after retiring i had a chance to pursue my passion which is literature and i found when visiting ireland the museum is engaging and found the counterpart does not exist here so that is what got me started, peter, down this path and people felt that it was a worthy idea and they encouraged us to go forward. i'm wearing my marathon tied to

remind me i from a member of marathons' and there are times you say why am i doing this? i want to quit but then the people around the way are cheering you on and that is what is happening. >> who are some of those people letter sharing? >> we started with of the community service society of america, the poetry foundation, the center for fiction in new york, the new york public library, all of the major institutions in chicago, the presidents of the major institutions have all endorsed it. the mayor rahm emanuel was very enthusiastic with the idea and just yesterday i got a nice endorsement from the governor of illinois from david mccullough, the chairman of the national endowment for the humanities, a wonderful endorsement. i think it really gets to the essence of why this is

important. he says in a country established as an idea in the written documents and embellish by generations of the critics the case for commemorating the written word of self-evident. after all what is written describes the people and what is celebrated describes their values. >> who wrote that? >> this was the chairman of the national endowment for the humanities. the long term congressman from iowa cities to the custody. >> how much money do you predict this project will cost? >> ultimately the current plan projects about 90 million it will be developed in phases. the first phase budget is 35 million, and that is to develop the initial space. it will be about 30,000 square feet. an additional 15 million, so

another 15 million, and then 20 million for the endowment to ensure the museum is sustainable. that is the issue today. you can start with a bank but then you can go out. so we are determined that this museum is going to be around for a very long time and part of the planning has to ensure that. >> 30,000 square feet can you give us a comparable space to give us an idea of how big that is? >> of the 30,000 square feet part of that is exhibit space and half of it is for the social areas and so on. i would say that is comparable to the history museum here in washington probably the international spy museum which is one of the models because that is such a funny and engaging place for people to go

to so that would lead to a couple examples. >> it's october, 2012 and we are taking this interview. where are you in the process right now? >> we have just about all of the sort of foundation documents in place with the business plan, the concept plan. by the end of the year we will have the analysis completed. by the end of the year we will have the fund-raising strategy in place and we will be ready to move forward with the next phase which of course is the fund-raising. funding to develop the exhibit ideas and more concrete terms. and i should have mentioned that actually on the web site, we have our first on-line exhibit and we very much encouraged them to go there. this is inspired by the fact we have been leading in the united states in the spring and we thought that it would be very interesting to look at what the

american writing has influenced that and some surprises. there are basically three parts to the exhibit so that is one. second, with 38 of the leading authors that we've asked them what american work they would recommend to the american leaders to help them better understand america's recommendation and why we've asked them with the authors have influenced their work and we also asked them how were they originally inspired to write? so you've got jonathan and the writers are featured in not and i urge your viewers to check it out and also they can make your own recommendations on what they think the foreign leaders should read. >> americanpredatorsmuseum of organic you also tweet on a regular basis and we will put

out your twitter handle as well. can people donate to the american writers museum at this point? >> when we talked to years ago, peter, they could not. we didn't have a donate button so that is one of the other developments that has occurred. yes we have a donate button and we would be very much encouraged to make a donation. it is a wonderful opportunity to do so and it's a wonderful opportunity to show they think this really is a good 80 a pity and why that is important as we go out to the major funders would be very helpful to be able to ask to show and hear a lot of people have already donated and have shown their interests and how important this is through their donation so i would encourage all of your viewers to do that no matter if it is 50, 25, it doesn't matter. the numbers are more important at this point.

>> or current. >> i have children and grandchildren that ask me who is my favorite child or grandchild. there are so many. and we are blessed that there are so many. i certainly haven't grown up in ireland. and as a student reading hemingway they would always remain the favorites in the nonfiction area, david mccullough i must say in recent times i've gravitated more towards the poets. i love the great poets. i have it sitting on my night stand that i turn to every night and every morning, and so there are so many. i hate to single out one or two. >> malcolm o'hagan is the founder of the american writers museum. this is book tv on