Pages: 1 2
FP: Share with us the meaning behind the phrase “manic multilateralism” that you use in your book to describe President Obama’s disposition to the Muslim world.
Klein: What in Lethal Engagement I call “manic multilateralism” is an uncritical deference to global norms and international consensus, irrespective of the consequences- a mania for treaties and deference to the will of international bodies like the United Nations that make our national sovereignty subservient. The pursuit of international approval, particularly approval in the Muslim world, is putting American lives and liberties at risk.
For example, President Obama has said that the U.S. has a “moral responsibility” to lead the way towards ‘a world without nuclear weapons’ even as he permits Iran to continue developing its nuclear arms capability. When he made his annual pilgrimage to the United Nations last month to address the General Assembly, he renewed his naive and dangerous calls for ‘a world without nuclear weapons’ and promised to keep the door ‘open to diplomacy’ with Iran, which is advancing its nuclear arms program every day without any real consequences.
Obama wants to engage with our enemies like Iran and Syria while coming down hard on one of our closest allies, Israel. He said that he wants to “re-engage” with the anti-Western United Nations. Indeed, he promised to address America’s “priorities” in the UN and warned that not following “the United Nation’s demands” (sic) would make “all people less safe.”
In that spirit, and as a troubling demonstration of his desired partnership with the Muslim world, President Obama has lent legitimacy to the worst body of all in the United Nations, by joining the UN Human Rights Council. Even the hopelessly liberal New York Times called the Human Rights Council “dysfunctional.” Despite its Orwellian name, the Human Rights Council is run by the world’s worst human rights abusers, and dominated by the Islamic bloc of member states. It was the Human Rights Council that initiated the Islamists’ infamous “defamation of religions” resolutions and then pressured the General Assembly to pass them. The Obama administration actually co-sponsored with Egypt a resolution aimed at limiting free expression of the media if what they say is regarded as religious stereotyping. The administration’s representatives on this dysfunctional UN body have also stood by while Israel has been made its whipping boy.
Let’s call Obama’s engagement policies what they really are — lethal engagements, i.e., appeasement.
FP: In your book, you discuss the dangerous connection between the international norms produced by Islamic-dominated United Nations bodies such as the Human Rights Council and the judicial activists sitting in our federal courts who believe that foreign and international laws should be used in interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Please explain.
Klein: Our activist courts are increasingly bent on internationalizing the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law, particularly in the realm of human rights. This trend in the judiciary is an example of what the Hudson Institute Fellow John Fonte has called “transnationalism,” the global movement to merge the economic, social and legal systems of countries without regard to national sovereignty. President Obama’s two picks for the Supreme Court – Justices Sotomayor and Kagan – reinforce this trend.
The Islamists, with their anti-Western allies, have enormous sway in the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council, in which international legal norms are created and given global legitimacy. The Islamists’ power to influence those norms will lead to laws with a decidedly Sharia-friendly bias. The clearest examples are the series of resolutions passed by both UN bodies that declare ‘defamation of religions’ (in which only Islam is named) as a violation of international law that is not protected by the right of free expression. Transnational judges rely upon these very international norms to interpret our constitutional provisions in ways that best conform to international law. As American constitutional law morphs into international law, international law morphs into Sharia law — until eventually, Sharia law may well be declared “constitutional” and our First Amendment right of free speech is thrown under the bus. After all, as President Obama said in his Cairo speech, we must not do anything to impede the Islamists “from practicing religion as they see fit.”
FP: Share with the readers the steps you recommend in Lethal Engagement to rescue our country from the dangers you have described.
Klein: In the short term, we need more mass rallies such as the Tea Party movement protests, Glenn Beck’s Restore America rally and rallies protesting the building of the Ground Zero mosque. But beyond the rallies and a vote to kick out as many progressives as we can from Congress on November 2nd, I think we need to take the offense. In Lethal Engagement, I lay out a multi-pronged strategy that includes, for example, bringing lawsuits against the ACLU challenging their tax-exempt status, and against school boards and employers for unlawfully discriminating in favor of Muslim students and employees by giving them special accommodations to the detriment of non-Muslims. We need to do this rather than always letting the ACLU and the Council on American-Islamic Relations frame the legal issues as the plaintiffs. I also recommend a number of constitutional amendments to protect ourselves against the infiltration of Sharia, even if it means the convening of a constitutional convention to do so.
FP: Joseph A. Klein, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.
Pages: 1 2