Archive for February, 2007

Although it was not billed as a major event it was a noteworthy one, and even as it went largely unreported by the mainstream media, to the extent that it was reported many details were left out.

It was Oct 31, 2006 in New York, the speaker was Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the host was The Council on Foreign Relations.

Although Clinton’s statements were to me striking at the time, they are even more reveling in context to the political landscape in Washington at present.

With the Bush Administration floundering, barring any unforeseen events, the call for a “new direction” may continue to gather momentum.

Many of us who follow current events already understand to a degree what this “new direction” is but the recent comments of Hillary Clinton make the alternative direction even more discomforting than the current one.

At present Hillary Clinton is one of the most powerful people in the Democratic party. It is possible that she could be the next president. Whether or not that happens she will remain greatly influential and the following comments may give a window into the future direction of American foreign policy and a loss of sovereignty to international consensus.

In a major policy address, Senator Hillary Clinton on Tuesday called for a “sea change” in US foreign policy that would include direct talks with Syria, Iran and North Korea and greater US engagement in promoting peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

“Let us never negotiate from fear, but let us never fear to negotiate,” she declared, quoting the late president John Kennedy. “Direct negotiations are not a sign of weakness, they’re
a sign of leadership.”

But she is talking about negotiating with terrorist, that is not a sign of weakness?

Her speech, delivered at the New York headquarters of the influential Council on Foreign Relations, also called for a “phased redeployment” of US troops from Iraq by the end of the year

“Phased redeployment” – nice soft way to say give up and surrender.

Clinton said Washington needs a bipartisan policy based on a blend of “both idealism and realism in the service of American interests” in which diplomacy is given a much higher value than the administration of President George W Bush has accorded.

Neville Chamberlain Diplomacy served European style! – Works every time – Not!

“This administration’s choices were false ones,” she declared. “Internationalism versus unilateralism; realism versus idealism … I think it’s fair to say we are now all internationalists and we are all realists.” …

Yes! let’s form an international collective body of power to forcibly solve the world’s problems! For Sovereignty of nations….Ops…rather, unilateralism is divisive!

….. until relatively recently she opposed withdrawing US troops, a position that has alienated the Democratic Party’s activist base.

But with the Iraq war having become increasingly unpopular, even among Republican candidates, and a growing number of voters seemingly losing confidence in Bush’s conduct of the “war on terror”, Clinton has apparently decided to become bolder in her attacks on the administration, as she was on Tuesday even as she appealed for bipartisan support. Her husband, former president Bill Clinton, who has harshly – but only rarely (apparently in order not to steal the limelight from his spouse) – criticized Bush’s foreign policy, told a private gathering on Tuesday evening that he had helped draft the speech.

Billary Clinton 2008! What you see is not all you get.

The senator said three principles should underlie a “bipartisan consensus” on national security: the renewal “by word and deed” of “internationalism for a new century”, in which Washington accords a “decent respect for the opinions” of other nations; an affirmation that direct negotiations with enemies “are not a sign of weakness”; and the blending of idealism and realism that she said had long characterized traditional US diplomacy “until a small group of ideologues” – an apparent reference to neo-conservatives and other hawks – came to power under the Bush administration.

“This administration has abandoned [the] tension [between realism and idealism] for a simplistic division of the world into good and evil. They refuse to talk to anyone on the evil side,” she said….

But isn’t Bush the evil side, or is it the terrorists? By all the rhetoric it’s hard to tell sometimes who is perceived the greatest threat. Also confusing is the fact that Arafat was the most frequent foreign guest at the White House during Bill Clinton’s presidency. I guess it all depends on what the definition of evil is.

… In particular, Washington should respond to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s call for more troops in Afghanistan and “improve the security situation with Pakistan”.

Here comes NATO again as the world police and peacemakers/keepers to enforce UN resolutions.

On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, she charged the Bush administration with “disengag[ing] at crucial moments”, although she indicated support for reported plans by Israel and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to dissolve the democratically elected Hamas government. “As events unfold, we need to be prepared, in close coordination with our Israeli ally, to resume America’s indispensable role in finding a just and lasting resolution,” she said.

She also came out squarely for bilateral talks with North Korea, noting that all of Pyongyang’s neighbors had called for direct negotiations. Past engagement with North Korea, she noted in an implicit reference to her husband’s policies from 1994 to 2001, had prevented Pyongyang from developing plutonium bombs and testing long-range missiles, both of which it has done in the past four months.

Yes Pyongyang did it all in 4 months – amazing! It had nothing to do with the US being taken in by N. Korea under Clinton.

So, how do you think this “new direction” will work out?

Is it really a new direction, or just the same old direction of appeasement being followed whole heartedly instead of half way?

source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HK02Aa01.html

I could not find a record in US publications of most of Hillary’s comments although there were a few reports with sparse details. Ultimately I had to go to an Asian publication to get quotes made in New York that directly impact US Policies.


Read Full Post »

‘Victims? Don’t be melodramatic. Look down there. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever?’ – Orson Wells as Harry Lime speaking to Joseph Cotton’s character in Carol Reed’s Classic Thriller “The Third Man” (1949).

The conversation takes place high atop a Ferris wheel in post WWII Vienna when Harry Lime is confronted by an old friend who has sought him out only to uncover Lime’s evil scheme to sell tainted penicillin on the black market. Lime points out the people moving about down below – ‘You see those little dots down there? – And if one of those dots were to stop moving, what would you care, really?’

It is metaphoric, being atop the Farris wheel represents the elitist mindset of those who see themselves as far above the masses of common people – those below are but little dots; they all stop moving at some point in time, but even so, there will always still be plenty more. They are so numerous, so dispensable and indistinguishable that their lives are insignificant, when one passes there is already another to take their place. Crimes against them are impersonal, for these little “dots” (people) looked down upon from far above are inconsequential in the whole scheme of things.

Such is the mind-set of the elitists both presently and down through history. The prize and the agenda is greater than the lives of the individuals involved – For it is often that rulers and governments sacrifice their people if they perceive gain, they are but fodder in their eyes – but how it is even more often that they sacrifice other nation’s people as both an end and a means to achieve their goals.

Babylon, Egypt, Rome, Nazi Germany, Russia, Communist China – where does the list start – where does it stop? – The New World Order, global courts, international law, a multi-lateral multi-cultural global society after the order of the Roman fasces.

A most riveting historical account of this elitist mind-set is chronicled in a recent article by Gil White entitled THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH
SELF-DEFENSE: Part 4 – The responsibility of the mainstream (Labor Zionist) Israeli leaders during the Shoah (‘Holocaust’)

In their time these were the elitists atop the Ferris wheel, so without conscience, being unaffected by the mass murder taking place in Europe – Even more so considering that steps were averted without regard which would have prevented future mass exterminations.

This mind-set works today, it is the collectivist mindset of elitists who pragmatically calculate possible outcomes, giving greater weight to desired circumstances than any value placed on an individual life, or two, or three, or four, or a hundred, a thousand…..or possibly twenty million – How many are too many? – In The Book, One.

In the elitist mind practicality takes precedence over conscience for the agenda is superior to the very lives of those who are recruited to serve it.

Although George Orwell’s book Animal Farm was written as a satirical analogy of Soviet Communism, it also bears out a repetition which takes place commonly in societies that come to power and plays itself out repeatedly, if only in different scenarios.

The historical record is that reactions of unbridled human nature to specific circumstances form consistent patterns. These repetitive cycles which take place in human society are well expressed in Animal Farm metaphorically. This is why they who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it, for the innate nature of mankind is subject to temptations of absolute power.

As in the past, this cycle is taking place today wherever corruption in government is overthrowing the remaining bastions of self rule, the only difference is in the details, and often when there is a clash of powers it is not good verses evil but evil challenging another evil, for it all comes down to a struggle for power between elitists. The powers work but the people regard them not until it is too obvious and too late.

World events in times past were the result of aspirations for power. Often human lives were weighed against desired outcomes and the sacrifice was made, sometimes setting in motion a counter force willing to make an equal or greater sacrifice to stop it. Moreover, it will happen again.

The moral bankruptcy of powerful elitists is that they view the end goal above all, higher than any morality or immorality of actions or events which need occur to bring it about.

As it was then, so it is now, the elitist world powers are currently weighing our lives and our world against a perceived world they imagine to create, and we are without much weight in their minds.

Read Full Post »

There are basically four groups of thought regarding the advent of a New World Order. We will call them, the skeptics, the anti-globalist left, the anti-globalist right, and the internationalist.

The first group are the skeptics who believe that the New World Order exists chiefly as an imaginative idea embraced by paranoid conspiracy theorists, or else it is an unrealistic ambition that is not attainable anytime soon due to the many obstacles and complex divisions of the world’s cultures.

The remaining three groups do believe that the world is converging into a global society, however, they differ on their perspectives of it. The first of these three groups are the anti-globalizationist on the left who believe that there is a conspiracy consisting mostly of powerful right-wing elitist who are bigoted, racist, and predominately white. These greedy white elitists who are obsessed with gaining more wealth and power reside for the greater part in the United States and fall into the fascist category having embraced a vision akin to Hitler‘s. Furthermore, they are seen as preying upon the ignorance and bigotry of conservatives and fundamentalist Christians in order to build a power base wherewith they can take control of society and further their imperialistic global agenda through U.S. power.

The next group of believers is a counter group to the former. Many adherents are conservative and religious. They also believe that there is a movement towards a one world controlled society which they attribute to secular progressive socialism. For the religious people in this group, a part of the foundation for their belief is derived from scriptures which depict a totalitarian global society in the last days united against God and his people. This world government determines to force all the inhabitants of world to submit to international law and sets its face against Christianity and Israel.

Others are convinced of a movement towards a socialist one world society simply by current tends, the weakening of nation-states in favor of international consensus, social and economic globalization, relaxation of borders, and the growing reliance on the United Nations along with recent movement towards an authoritative global judicial system.

Interestingly enough, groups on the left and right opposing the New World Order see each other as behind the move towards it, even as they both cite many of the same sources and point to the same evidence and events to substantiate their belief that a movement exists. They even go as far as acknowledging many of the same proponents who are pushing for a new world order, but they relegate them to each other’s side. There also exists a fringe in both groups that ascribe to the belief that there is a sublime Zionist plot involving Jewish internationalist which are the master-minds of behind this global conspiracy – This in light of the fact that the preponderance of individuals who advocate a world federation of nations are not Jewish, some are anti-Semitic, and most are anti-Israel.

In the last group are the cosmopolitans, internationalist who believe in the emergence of a global society, embrace the vision of it and facilitate its establishment. Many of those who fit into the anti-globalization left category fit into this group also, for their hostility to globalization is not an objection to a one world government, but to the shape and consistency of such a government. Generally speaking, leftist who oppose globalization do support international law but hate global capitalism. The answer to globalization in their view is world socialism fashioned upon Marxist philosophies. Thus leftist will support internationalism if it meets their specifications.

Who is right?

Is there truly a conspiracy for a one world order? If so, is who is behind it, and is it viable?

It is my belief that there does exist a movement towards internationalization. It is not a conspiracy in the traditional sense per se but rather a course of natural developments brought on in large part by BIG BUSINESS and global financial institutions who hold international interests.

For while the idea of a new world order may conjure up images of Hitlarian individual with political power who takes over the world by military force, what actually has happened is national interests are merging into common international interests.

Because the assets and financial interests of Giant corporations and banks are spread around the globe they have an agenda to protect and as much as possible continue to grow them. What we are seeing then is the globalization of economics and shared resources creating the necessity for control and harmony that can only be achieved by a universal governing system. And a universal governing system demands a degree of conformity among those who are governed.

Politicians in order to obtain power require the backing of these financial giants if they are to be viable candidates. They must be willing to service the financial institutions and international agenda in exchange for support. Therefore, not only have corporations merged with other corporations, but corporations have merged with politicians who will do their bidding in exchange for power. For this reason many of the higher up politicians share the same globalist agenda as international corporations, for through their collective power they imagine to practice social engineering on a global scale.

I often cite HG Wells who perceived this development taking place and said that world socialism was inevitable due to modernization of communications and transportation, which would dissolve national borders.

It’s the economy stupid!!!!!! Big business benefits by an international consumer base, societies have more goods at lower prices, but there is a trade off in that it changes the world we live into a global society which will lead to monopolies not only in commerce but in politics.

A globalsociety would not necessarily be bad if it was a just a free society that regarded individual rights, but because there will exist a monopoly of power it will over time become tyrannical. In his inaugural lecture at Cambridge University, Professor Lord Acton declared, “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The corruption of United Nations should be an indication of how the consolidation of power at the international level will work. If it is as bad as it is with limited powers, what would such a body do with unlimited power?

There is no room in this New World Order for Israel as a Jewish Nation or for American unilateralism or American patriotism or for free independent states.

Government consolidation of power works just like in economics where powerful corporations consolidate and merge to increase power, eliminate the competition and create a monopoly. The only difference is that instead of it being for money it is for power – although money and power are close relatives which overlap.

Why would it work differently? Why, when it happens, do people shrug it off as just “conspiracy theory”? The term “conspiracy” is used purposely with a connotation implying paranoia or delusion in order to discredit the notion.

Whether in business or politics, consolidation of power is a natural evolution of the stronger devouring the weaker, due in part to man’s flawed nature which introduces greed and unrestrained desire into the equation – Why would it take place in business but not in politics?

Today because of the power of high technologies and communications consolidation and control can take place on a larger scale and micro-management is possible to a greater degree than any time in history. Humanity today is in a place where it can realize not only the greatest benefits but the greatest oppression in history all depending on how the consolidation of power is used.

The historical trend is that gradually over time when the consolidation of power becomes great enough, those with that power use it to overcome the competition either by assimilation or elimination. Why then should it seem unreasonable that so many like minded people and organizations could eventually gain control and weed out opposition, not only in economics but in the higher levels of government? Without some separation of powers and nations corruption is destined to become universal and that is the threat we all face.

Read Full Post »

Do powerful elitists control finance, media, and to a great extent politics – and do they have an agenda for an authoritarian global society? Furthermore, do they conspire together, manipulate information and shape policies to achieve this?

Government consolidation of power works just like economics where powerful corporations merge to become more powerful and eliminate the competition to create a monopoly. The difference is that instead of it being for money it is for power – although money and power are close relatives.

Why would it work differently? Why, when it happens, do people shrug it off as just “conspiracy theory”?

It is a natural evolution of the stronger devouring the weaker, due in part to man’s flawed nature which introduces greed and unrestrained desire into the equation – Why would it take place in business but not in politics?
Today because of the power of high technologies and communications consolidation and control can take place on a larger scale and micro-management is possible to a greater degree than any time in history.

Gradually over time when the consolidation of powers become great enough, those with power use it to overcome the competition either by assimilation or elimination. Why then should it seem surprising that so many like minded people and organizations could eventually gain control and weed out opposition, not only in economics but in the higher levels of government?

For while it is true that in free societies you can vote, when the consolidation of power reaches the levels it has presently, all of the viable candidates are ones supported to some extent by those in the upper echelons, being that they possess the resources necessary to make a run for office. Thus, with few exceptions, you choose your candidate, but only from a pre-chosen field.

The process that leads to a monopoly of power has taken place in media, government, and finance, separately and together as a group, and so they work together to increase and maintain their power. Again, it is merely the natural course of power, it has been and will be as long as the world exists. I don’t know if “conspiracy” is the best term for it, especially since it is a term used purposely with a connotation implying paranoia or delusion to discredit.

However, I am so convinced that this is taking place in the world that any ridicule I would suffer for espousing it would have minimal or no effect. I have studied and followed it too long for it to be otherwise.

It seems so elementary, but for some reason people see what they wish to see and disregard the rest.

Read Full Post »

There has been much debate surrounding the facts of what actually took place over the past decade in the former Yugoslavia – who were the good guys, who were the bad guys, or if they were all bad guys. The larger issue however, is the intervention of NATO by the international community, for this will have longer lasting effects and greater ramifications globally in the future. What has been expressed here is a concern that the use of NATO in the Balkans is a harbinger of how the international community may settle future conflicts.

There is widespread political advocacy for an approach of multinational consolidation of power to manage world affairs and elitists in mainstream media support this notion. The common belief of these media elitists may well be expressed in Andy Rooney’s statement on CBS’s “60 Minutes” (October 12, 2003) when he said referring to the United Nations: “There has to be some power in the world superior to our own.”

This is merely and echo of Walter Cronkite, who received the World Federalist Association’s 1999 global governance award, and declared that “we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government” and that America must “yield up some of our sovereignty.” Afterwards Hillary praised both Cronkite and the WFA in a video-taped address.

When Bill Clinton was president his agenda was to facilitate international law and one step was that he signed the Treaty of Rome for the International Criminal Court, although he was unable to get it ratified. He also wrote a letter of support for world government to the World Federalist Association (which has now merged with the Campaign for United Nations Reform to form Citizens for Global Solutions (motto: Building a World Community Under Law)

Who is the World Federation that these elitists praise and support? – WORLD FEDERALIST ASSOSIATION.

Why is this important and what does it have to do with Serbia, Israel, the USA and the rest of the world? – Because, Kosovo was, and still is in the process of global engineering, and it won’t stop there.

On January 13, 1993 Warren Christopher discussed with Sen. Joseph Biden’s Committee on Foreign Relations the possibility of NATO becoming a peacekeeping surrogate for the U.N. “to foster the creation of a new world order.”

That is exactly what happened later in the former Yugoslavia and we are likely to see more of it in the future in the Middle-East with Israel being the focal point.

Why do I say that? Read the mindset of elitist politicians.

When Joe Biden U.S. and Senator Chuck Hagel (Republican from Nebraska) returned from their trip to the Middle -East Hagel said,

the Middle-East has moved “from periphery to center” in the U.S. foreign policy strategy and called on U.S. leaders to develop “a fabric of global alliances and coalitions” to deal with the region.

[this is a call for the consolidation and assertion of power by multinational coalition]

“America can no longer hover ‘over the horizon’ to defend and promote its interests in the Middle East. America must work through a multilateral, long-term coalition,”

“Ideologies, both nationalist [Zionism] and religious [Islam], animate and radicalize the politics of the Middle East, much like Europe hundreds of years ago.”

[In singling out nationalism, he seems to be blaming Israel’s nationalism as much as Islamic terrorism]

“Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens continue, and Israeli Defense Forces have killed women, children, and UN employees, and new Israeli settlements continue to be built on the West Bank. This cycle of violence must end.”

[Self defense is equated with terrorism as part of the cause]

In the Middle East as in Northeast Asia, our interests in disarmament and regional stability are best served by working with our allies, not by acting impulsively, preemptively, or unilaterally.

Fifty years ago last month, General Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected president. I mention this because this anniversary reminds us of Eisenhower’s policy of multilateralism … clear thinking, collective security,……America, now more than ever, requires steady statecraft, through coalitions of common interest,……. Henry Kissinger put it well in a Washington Post op-ed last week when he wrote that: The ultimate challenge for U.S. foreign policy is to turn dominant power into a sense of shared responsibility……….as if the international order were composed of many centers of power………”

“President Truman and General Marshall were architects of a post World War II world that formed alliances for collective security and coalitions of common purpose to deal with the realities and complications of a new world order. Organizations like NATO and the United Nations were part of – and remain integral to – this new hopeful world with new dangerous challenges.”

Now contrast that thinking the thinking of John Bolton in his 2001 essay THE RISKS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT FROM AMERICA’S PERSPECTIVE where he writes,

Explicitly espousing a foreign policy of “assertive multilateralism,” President Clinton launched an ambitious experiment in a U.N.-led “nation building”…[he] engineered a series of international agreements……..This penchant for multilateral solutions also reflected an enduring if often badly mistaken legalism that has permeated American foreign policy during the twentieth century….

No international organization that exists today honestly meets any acceptable test for accountable law-giving, law-interpreting, or law-enforcing institutions….

…..Proponents of international governance see the United States as the chief threat to the “new world order” they are trying to create. Small villains who commit heinous crimes can kill individuals and even entire populations, but only the United States can neutralize or actually thwart the “new world order” itself…..

[The Treaty of Rome] We are nowhere near the end of the list of prospective “crimes” that can be added to the statute. Many were suggested at Rome and commanded wide support from participating nations. The most popular was the crime of “aggression,” which was included in the statute but not defined. Although frequently easy to identify, “aggression” can at times be something in the eye of the beholder.Thus, Israel justifiably feared in Rome that its preemptive strike in the Six-Day War almost certainly would have provoked a proceeding against top Israeli officials. Moreover, there is no doubt that Israel will be the target of a complaint concerning conditions and practices by the Israeli military in the West Bank and Gaza. The United States, with continuous bipartisan support for many years, has attempted to minimize the disruptive role that the United Nations has all too often played in the Middle East peace process. We do not now need the ICC interjecting itself into extremely delicate matters at inappropriate times.

Any surprise Bolton is gone? Anyone who stands against them is demonized and targeted for elimination.

In my opinion, the elitists’ view is that there needs to be a new world order – a multi-national collectivist union that works together as an arbitrator and enforcer not only to judge nations but to impose “peace,” “stability,” and to serve “ justice”

Kosovo is a precedent for the future.

Read Full Post »

On February 2, 2007 an article appeared in UK’s The Daily Telegraph entitled EU Plans Far-reaching ‘Genocide Denial’ Law reveals that legislation is to be taken-up by the EU in the spring which raises issues of prosecution of free speech. It appears that under the law a person could face up to 3 years imprisonment espousing their views.

According to the article the law would be a double edge sword which could cut many ways depending upon the personal views of those who wield the power of it at the moment. It is another example of how traditional values are being replaced by collective consensus which then find their way into legislation. Even more disturbing is that in this case the law would be supranational.

EU Plans Far-reaching ‘Genocide Denial’ Law

People who question the official history of recent conflicts in Africa and the Balkans could be jailed for up to three years for “genocide denial” under proposed EU legislation.

Germany, current holder of the EU’s rotating presidency, will table new legislation to outlaw “racism and xenophobia” this spring……

…..Deborah Lipstadt, the professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University, Atlanta, believes the German proposals are misplaced. “I adhere to that pesky little thing called free speech and I am very concerned when governments restrict it,” she said yesterday.

“How will we determine precisely what is denial? Will history be decided by historians or in a courtroom?”

Berlin’s draft EU directive extends the idea of Holocaust denial to the “gross minimisation of genocide out of racist and xenophobic motives”, to include crimes dealt with by the International Criminal Court.

The ICC was set up in 2002 following international outcry about war crimes and alleged genocides in the former Yugoslavia and in Africa. It was felt that the courts in those countries were either unable or unwilling to ensure justice was done.

The draft text states: “Each member state shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable: ‘publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in’… the Statute of the ICC.” [There you have it, the International Court decides what you can and can’t say based on what they say is a “crime” or what is not – Do you see the implications for Israel and other nations who are in the minority opinion of international consensus? – me]

General Lewis MacKenzie, the former commander of UN peacekeepers in Bosnia, courted controversy two years ago by questioning the numbers killed at Srebrenica in 1995.

He took issue with the official definition of the massacre as genocide and highlighted “serious doubt” over the estimate of 8,000 Bosnian fatalities. “The math just doesn’t support the scale of 8,000 killed,” he wrote.

Balkans human rights activists have branded Gen MacKenzie an “outspoken Srebrenica genocide denier” and, if approved, the EU legislation could see similar comments investigated by the police or prosecuted in the courts after complaints from war crimes investigators or campaigners.

A German government spokesman said: “Whether a specific historic crime falls within these definitions would be decided by a court in each case.”

If agreed by EU member states, the legislation is likely to declare open season for human rights activists and organisations seeking to establish a body of genocide denial law in Europe’s courts. [Good for the clerical jobs market, US and Israel hating NGOs will be filing lots and lots of paper work – me]

European Commission officials insist that the legislation is necessary: “racism and xenophobia can manifest themselves in the form of genocide denial so that it is very important to take strong action”……..

Full Content of Article Here

An emotional cause that garners strong support is often used as an inroad to power. While many still sympathize with or feel guilt for what happened during the Holocaust, laws such as this could set a dangerous precedent which may cut in any number of directions. Once again we have another example of a cultural movement towards an authoritarian collective society based upon a foundation of moral relativism.

Decisions made in the International Criminal Court will by a tribunal of selected judges. Both judges and prosecutors are members of the court so there is no real separation of powers. Justice does not fair all that well in such environments where the presentation of “evidence” is controlled by the same people who will judge it.

Even Henry Kissinger who openly supports the New World Order stated that the checks and balances of the ICC are so weak that the prosecutor “has virtually unlimited discretion in practice”.

Here is some back ground on the ICC as it relates to Israel and the USA:

Israel states that it has “deep sympathy” with the goals of the court. However, it has concerns that political pressure on the court would lead it to reinterpret international law or to “invent new crimes”. It cites the inclusion of “the transfer of parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory” as a war crime as an example of this, whilst at the same time disagrees with the exclusion of terrorism and drug trafficking. Israel sees the powers given to the prosecutor as excessive and the geographical appointment of judges as disadvantaging Israel which is not part of any of the UN Regional Groups.

Israel voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute but later signed the Statute. In 2002 it submitted a letter to the United Nations declaring that it did not intend to ratify the treaty, using the same wording as the similar letter from the United States. – International Criminal Court, Wikipedia

….”The United Nations has not removed the name of the United States from the official list of signatories.” – The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Wikipedia


Part of the critic deals with the push by certain US elitists for the ICC and other parts address the ICC in relation to Israel and the former Yugoslavia:

[Bolton writes:]…Explicitly espousing a foreign policy of “assertive multilateralism,” President Clinton launched an ambitious experiment in a U.N.-led “nation building” in Somalia. The experiment collapsed with the deaths of eighteen Americans in Mogadishu in late 1993, and the vocabulary of “assertive multilateralism” largely disappeared.4

Nonetheless, although the rhetoric stopped, the underlying policy did not, revealing itself in a multitude of policy initiatives. The Clinton Administration engineered a series of international agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol,5 the Landmines Convention,6 the Convention on Biological Diversity,7 and many others, some of which it signed and some of which it did not for fear of certain defeat in the U.S. Senate. This penchant for multilateral solutions also reflected an enduring if often badly mistaken legalism that has permeated American foreign policy during the twentieth century.

Nowhere was this convergence of multilateral and legalistic thought more evident than in the Clinton Administration’s pursuit of a permanent International Criminal Court (“ICC”).8 In the eyes of its supporters, the ICC is simply an overdue addition to the family of international organizations, an evolution- [*pg 169] ary step following the Nuremberg tribunal, and a logical institutional development over the ad hoc war crimes courts in Bosnia and Rwanda.

So described, one might assume that the ICC fits logically into history’s orderly march toward the peaceful settlement of international disputes, sought since time immemorial.9 But the real (if usually unstated, and far distant) objectives of the ICC’s supporters are to assert the supremacy of its authority over nation states, and to promote prosecution over alternative methods for dealing with the worst criminal offenses, whether occurring in war or through arbitrary domestic power. This is but one of many reasons why the Statute of Rome10 is harmful to the national interests of the United States, is unsound foreign policy, and is a threat to the independence and flexibility that America’s military forces need to defend U.S. national interests around the world.

In fact, the court and the prosecutor are illegitimate. The ICC’s principal failing is that its components do not fit into a coherent “constitutional” design that delineates clearly how laws are made, adjudicated, and enforced, subject to popular accountability and structured to protect liberty. Instead, the court and the prosecutor are simply “out there” in the international system. This approach is clearly inconsistent with American standards of constitutional order, and is, in fact, a stealth approach to erode our constitutionalism. That is why this issue is, first and foremost, a liberty question……

……Indeed, the supposed “independence” of the prosecutor and the court from “political” pressures (such as the Security Council) is more a source of concern [*pg 174] than an element of protection. “Independent” bodies in the United Nations system have often demonstrated themselves to be more highly politicized than some of the explicitly political organs.25 True political accountability, by contrast, is almost totally absent from the ICC, which lacks both any semblance of democratic accountability or effective governmental oversight and control. If anything, “public choice” analysis tells us that the ICC will be “captured” not by governments but by NGOs and others with narrow special interests, and the time and resources to pursue them.…..

…..We are nowhere near the end of the list of prospective “crimes” that can be added to the statute. Many were suggested at Rome and commanded wide support from participating nations. The most popular was the crime of “aggression,” which was included in the statute but not defined.17 Although frequently easy to identify, “aggression” can at times be something in the eye of the beholder. Thus, Israel justifiably feared in Rome that its preemptive strike in the Six-Day War almost certainly would have provoked a proceeding against top [*pg 171] Israeli officials. Moreover, there is no doubt that Israel will be the target of a complaint concerning conditions and practices by the Israeli military in the West Bank and Gaza. The United States, with continuous bipartisan support for many years, has attempted to minimize the disruptive role that the United Nations has all too often played in the Middle East peace process. We do not now need the ICC interjecting itself into extremely delicate matters at inappropriate times. Israel, therefore, was one of the few governments that voted with the United States against the statute.

According to Bolton, it was Clinton’s ambition to validate the ICC but he did not take the political risk before the elections. The Congress was controlled at the time by Republicans and he feared the issue may cost him the Senate, thus, Clinton signed on to the ICC but waited to validate it.

Since that time Bush nixed it, however, because of the wording of the US withdrawal was not explicit the UN still lists the US as a signatory to it. Do you suppose Hillary will finish the job if elected in 2008?

The danger of the ICC becoming a world power is a lot nearer than some people think. I have said before and will state again, If we are Israelis or freedom loving individuals, Islam is only one threat we face today. The threat of international collectivism is a real threat that is near realization.

Read Full Post »

Nations work towards what they perceive to be their best interest, however, as globalization takes place, in many instances,  self-interests are becoming  intermingled and becoming collective-interest; for nations’ economies  have become interdependent upon each other for food, resources, and even some services. Many corporations and institutions also now serve a global market which will naturally place their interest and loyalties in the context of a global society.

This emerging collective interest, which is actually the consolidation of self interest,  demands the creation of international laws to regulate and manage the global society we are creating. The more interdependent nations become the more necessary it will be to establish global controls, universal standards, and a degree of conformity – There must also be the establishment of a global enforcement mechanism to ensure conformity.

These things will take place to facilitate global economics, but the establishment of a global economic system will demand global  government to regulate it – a global economy is the gate  to international law and eventual global government.

So then, what has been loosely termed by some as an international conspiracy to create a New World Order is actually the waning power of the nation-state giving way to the collective power of international consensus on collective interest.

Much of the anti-Americanism around the world today is a direct result of US resistance to certain aspects of global control. Because the US is seen by others as a defiant world bully acting upon its own interest, to make nice, a number of US power brokers are willing to surrender some power and sovereignty. Some are also willing to capitulate to hostile and rogue countries in an attempt to either buy them out or buy them in.

The International Criminal Court which was established in 2002 is set to hold its first trail. Even thought has been opposed by the US 104 nations have signed on to it and support is growing. Because leftist politicians support the idea of the International Criminal Court (ICC) there is the possibility that as the they gain more power in the US the US will recognize the court in the not to distant future. When this happens it is but another step to the destruction of sovereignty of the nation-state in favor of international consensus. The result will be mob rule by the nations.

And what if global consensus is wrong? – Injustice becomes universal and inescapable.

It is not far fetched that as nations develop a collective interest and build an international consensus that smaller nations which resist, and nations in conflict such as Israel will be ostracized, as well as certain groups of people residing within all nations.

In the case of Israel consider for a moment one particular aspect common among internationalists: They see Israel as an obstacle to global harmony due to the conflict in the Middle-East. Never mind whose fault it is, the Arabs have the oil, the internationalist want to appease them in order to keep it flowing freely.

Thus, globalization of economics and resources has brought us to a point that elitists are trying to figure out how to consolidate the world’s people and resources for management. The Islamic states are more difficult than Israel for convergence into the international community, nevertheless, it has been determined that it must be done – But how would they attempt to do this?

Ultimately the sacrifice of Israel will been seen as the most convenient and simple solution.

Today, the common people who love their freedoms and rights are being pressed upon from above and below, for elitists plan their enslavement and barbarians threaten them with destruction.

Moreover, many who can see the threat of radical Islam still deny that there are other powers working against them from above – Of them I would ask: If you believe the Islamic radicals when they say they want to eliminate Israel and bring down the Great Satan (USA), do you also believe the elitists who say openly that we need global government and it is coming?

I could quote them all day but here are some examples – do they mean anything to you?

“We must mobilize civil society in favor of international law and international institutions.” – George Soros

“In the next century[the current one], nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.” Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

“We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.” Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs (July/August 1995)

“…This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of “one world government’….National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept…” Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter.

“We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent.” Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg

“The world can therefore seize the opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a New World Order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind.” – George Herbert Walker Bush

“Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order.” Mikhail Gorbachev, in an address at the United Nations (December 1988)

“A colossal event is upon us, the birth of a New World Order.” Brent Scowcroft

“We believe we are creating the beginning of a new world order coming out of the collapse of the U.S.-Soviet antagonisms.” Brent Scowcroft (August 1990), quoted in The Washington Post (May 1991)

“We can see beyond the present shadows of war in the Middle East to a new world order where the strong work together to deter and stop aggression. ” Richard Gephardt

“Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an “extraterrestrial” invasion], whether real or *promulgated* [emphasis mine], that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.” – Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

“The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down…but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault.” CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April l974 issue of the CFR’s journal, Foreign Affairs.

“My country’s history, Mr. President, tells us that it is possible to fashion unity while cherishing diversity, that common action is possible despite the variety of races, interests, and beliefs we see here in this chamber. Progress and peace and justice are attainable. So we say to all peoples and governments: Let us fashion together a new world order.” Henry Kissinger, in address before the General Assembly of the United Nations

“How I Learned to Love the New World Order” Article by Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. in The Wall Street Journal (April 1992)

“How to Achieve The New World Order” Title of book excerpt by Henry Kissinger, in Time magazine (March 1994)

“NAFTA is a major stepping stone to the New World Order.” Henry Kissinger

“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…” Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A)

Read Full Post »