Bøger udgivet af Encounter Books,USA

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.

Racing Against History is the stunning story of three powerful personalities who sought in 1940 to turn the tide of history. David Ben-Gurion, Vladimir Jabotinsky, and Chaim Weizmann-the leaders of the left, right, and center of Zionism-undertook separate missions that year to America, then frozen in isolationism, to seek support for a Jewish army to fight Hitler.Their efforts were at once heroic and tragic. The book presents a portrait of three historic figures and the American Jewish community-at the beginning of the most consequential decade in modern Jewish history-and a cautionary tale about divisions within the Jewish community at a time of American isolationism. Based on previously unpublished materials, the book sheds new light on Zionism in America and the history of World War II, and it aims to stimulate discussion about the evolving relationship between Israel and American Jews, as the Jewish State approaches its 70th anniversary under the continuing threat of annihilation. A book for general readers, history buffs and academics alike, it includes 75 pages of End Notes that enable readers to pursue the stunning story in further depth.

Understanding the role of combat in the Iraq war is essential for both the American people and the US military. This book provides such a framework to help understand not only where we have been, but also what happens as we move forward.

This collection of twenty of Kenneth Minogue's essays, written over a period of more than fifty years, celebrates the advent of modern liberty. They describe the conditions under which liberty and individuality can flourish and the threats to liberty's flourishing in our time. Minogue offers a powerful critique of political correctness, of ideological flights from reality, and of the deformities of study in the modern university.

Vladimir Putin has a master plan to destroy Europe, divide NATO, reclaim Russian influence in the world, and most of all to marginalize the United States and the West in order to achieve regional hegemony and global power. Putin's unified strategy and vision for Europe has not been thoroughly discussed or articulated in any meaningful way until now. Putin's Master Plan is the first comprehensive attempt to systematically explain Putin's global strategy, which could inevitably and inexorably lead to the breakup of the NATO alliance, and potentially to war with the West. Currently, the West has no strategy, no plan, and no tactics to confront Putin's master plan other than imposing limited economic sanctions, which have done little to deter Putin's aggression-and may well have encouraged and facilitated it. The viewpoint taken here is not just alarmism, but an accurate and, for the first time, clear and sober portrayal of a frightening situation that, more and more, serious observers of European and Russian politics are openly recognizing and acknowledging.Putin's Master Plan makes the case that it is essential to wake up to Putin's strategy to destroy Europe, divide NATO, and build a new empire in the former Soviet Union. Russia has demonstrated an extraordinary level of aggression, most boldly in its outright invasions of Georgia and Ukraine. American weakness and a divided Europe have left Russia's terrified neighbors without an alternative to Russian domination, and even once-stalwart American allies such as the Republic of Georgia are on the brink of becoming part of Putin's new empire in Europe. Putin has made it clear that he sees NATO expansion as a fundamental threat to Russian nationhood, and he is systematically challenging the NATO Alliance as well as the United States. So far, he is winning.

Philosophers usually emphasize the importance of logic, clarity and reason. Therefore when they address political issues they will usually inject a dose of rationality in these discussions, right?Wrong. This book gives a lot of examples showing the unexpected level of political irrationality among leading contemporary philosophers. The body of the book presents a detailed analysis of extreme leftist views of a number of famous philosophers and their occasional descent into apology for—and occasionally even active participation in—totalitarian politics. Most of these episodes are either virtually unknown (even inside the philosophical community) or have received very little attention.The author tries to explain how it was possible that so many luminaries of twentieth-century philosophy, who invoked reason and exhibited rigor and careful thinking in their professional work, succumbed to irrationality and ended up supporting some of the most murderous political regimes and ideologies. The huge leftist bias in contemporary philosophy and its persistence over the years is certainly a factor but it is far from being the whole story.Interestingly, the indisputably high intelligence of these philosophers did not actually protect them from descending into political insanity. It is argued that, on the contrary, both their brilliance and the high esteem they enjoyed in the profession only made them more self-confident and less cautious, thereby eventually making them blind to their betrayal of reason and the monstrosity of the causes they defended.

The 2008 financial crisis--like the Great Depression--was a world-historical event. What caused it will be debated for years if not generations. The conventional narrative about the financial crisis is that it was caused by greed on Wall Street and insufficient regulation of the financial system. That narrative produced the Dodd-Frank Act, the most

After the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got-a Republic or a Monarchy?? Franklin's response: "A Republic-if you can keep it.?This book argues: we couldn't keep it.A true republic privileges the common interest above the special interests. To do this, our Constitution established an elaborate system of checks and balances that disperses power among the branches of government, which it places in conflict with one another. The Framers believed that this would keep grasping, covetous factions from acquiring enough power to dominate government. Instead, only the people would rule.Proper institutional design is essential to this system. Each branch must manage responsibly the powers it is granted, as well as rebuke the other branches when they go astray. This is where subsequent generations have run into trouble: we have overloaded our government with more power than it can handle. The Constitution's checks and balances have broken down because the institutions created in 1787 cannot exercise responsibly the powers of our sprawling, immense twenty-first-century government.The result is the triumph of special interests over the common interest. James Madison called this factionalism. We know it as political corruption.Corruption today is so widespread that our government is not really a republic, but rather a special interest democracy. Everybody may participate, yes, but the contours of public policy depend not so much on the common good, as on the push-and-pull of the various interest groups encamped in Washington, DC.

When his teenage son Christopher, brain-damaged in an auto accident, developed a 105-degree fever following weeks of unconsciousness, John Campbell asked the attending physician for help. The doctor refused. Why bother? The boy’s life was effectively over. Campbell refused to accept this verdict. He demanded treatment and threatened legal action. The doctor finally relented. With treatment, Christopher’s temperature—which had eventually reached 107.6 degrees—subsided almost immediately. Soon afterward the boy regained consciousness and was learning to walk again.This story is one of many Wesley J. Smith recounts in his award-winning classic critique of the modern bioethics movement, Culture of Death. In this newly updated edition, Smith chronicles how the threats to the equality of human life have accelerated in recent years, from the proliferation of euthanasia and the Brittany Maynard assisted suicide firestorm, to the potential for “death panels” posed by Obamacare and the explosive Terri Schiavo controversy.Culture of Death reveals how more and more doctors have withdrawn from the Hippocratic Oath and how “bioethicists” influence policy by posing questions such as whether organs may be harvested from the terminally ill and disabled. This is a passionate yet coolly reasoned book about the current crisis in medical ethics by an author who has made “the new thanatology” his consuming interest.

There is no doubt that white settlers devastated Indian communities in the 19th and early 20th centuries. But it is our public policies today that have turned reservations into third-world countries in the middle of the richest and freest nation on earth.

The controversy over inequality has gathered steam with the publication of Thomas Piketty's new book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, a dense work of economic history that documents the rise of income inequality in recent decades and sets forth an agenda of taxation to deal with it. Piketty's treatise has turned into a rallying point for those favoring income redistribution and higher taxes on the rich.In this Broadside, James Piereson explains how Piketty's book is flawed and advances a narrow understanding of the market system. While misjudging the era in which we are living and misunderstanding the sources of inequality, Piketty's book proposes solutions that will make matters worse for everyone - the wealthy, the middle class, and the poor alike.