Tag Archive | "Bellinger"

The Globalist Rule of Law

Tags: , , , , ,

By Patrick Wood, Editor

To the global elite, the meaning of the phrase “Rule of Law” has been rede­fined according to a global phi­los­ophy that does not embrace the sov­er­eignty of nation-states nor the U.S. Constitution.

A per­fect example is John B. Bellinger, the Legal Adviser to the Sec­re­tary of State and the prin­cipal adviser on all domestic and inter­na­tional law mat­ters to the Depart­ment of State, the For­eign Ser­vice, and the diplo­matic and con­sular posts abroad. He is also the prin­cipal adviser on legal mat­ters relating to the con­duct of for­eign rela­tions to other agen­cies and, through the Sec­re­tary of State, to the Pres­i­dent and the National Secu­rity Council.

Mr. Bellinger is the con­sum­mate glob­alist lawyer. His title of a mere Legal Advisor dis­arms the fact that his staff con­sists of 171 highly edu­cated glob­alist lawyers, along with their sup­porting staff.

Fur­ther, Bellinger cut his legal teeth with Wilmer Cutler & Pick­ering from 1991 to 1995. The late Lloyd Cutler, a founding member of the elite and glob­alist Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, also founded the law firm that bears his name.  Since 1973 WCP has had con­tin­uous rep­re­sen­ta­tion within the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion mem­ber­ship, and has played a major role in applying the global agenda to courts around the world.

So, when Bellinger speaks, he speaks with authority for the global elite. This includes his cur­rent bosses, Sec­re­tary of State Rice and Pres­i­dent Bush.

Bellinger declared the pur­pose of his speech, The United States and Inter­na­tional Law, which he deliv­ered at The Hague on June 6, 2007:

“My goal here is to clear up some common myths and mis­per­cep­tions — including that inter­na­tional law is not truly binding in our system.”

This sets the tone for a revealing look at how the tra­di­tional con­cept of “rule of law” has been reborn into a glob­alist con­text. The mag­ni­tude of this new body of law is seen in Bellinger’s comments:

“Every year we nego­tiate and con­clude hun­dreds of inter­na­tional agree­ments and treaties. We entered into 429 last year alone… And just recently, this Admin­is­tra­tion put for­ward a pri­ority list of over 35 treaty pack­ages that we have urged the Senate to approve soon, including the UN Con­ven­tion on the Law of the Sea.”

According to Bellinger, as a treaty or agree­ment is nego­ti­ated, the ques­tion is con­sid­ered, “Will we be in a posi­tion to imple­ment, or will there be com­pli­ca­tions because of domestic law?”

In a sub­se­quent state­ment, Bellinger tackles his inter­na­tional critics:

“I have heard people say that the United States, and this Admin­is­tra­tion in par­tic­ular, does not regard inter­na­tional law as “real law” — in effect, that we cast inter­na­tional oblig­a­tions aside when they would inter­fere with our imme­diate inter­ests. To the contrary…”

The stark impli­ca­tion is that inter­na­tional law is being prac­ticed and enforced in U.S. courts, regard­less of pre-existing U.S. laws to the con­trary. If domestic law is just too con­trary, then strike down domestic law!

Here is a case-in-point.

In the so-called Avena deci­sion, the Inter­na­tional Court of Jus­tice ordered the U.S. to review the cases of 51 Mex­ican nationals who had been duly con­victed of atro­cious cap­ital crimes, including the murder of children.

Bellinger notes,

“The ICJ judg­ment required us to dis­re­gard the normal rules of pro­ce­dure for our crim­inal trials. The Pres­i­dent, acting on the advice of the Sec­re­tary of State, nonethe­less decided to require each State involved to give the 51 con­victs a new hearing.”

Iron­i­cally, the President’s home state of Texas was the first state to be chal­lenged. The Texas Court of Crim­inal Appeals ruled that the Pres­i­dent “had no power to inter­vene in its affairs, even to obtain com­pli­ance with an order of the ICJ.”  (This is a proper inter­pre­ta­tion of States Rights, by the way, but are the President’s direc­tives an attempted vio­la­tion of the Constitution’s Sep­a­ra­tion of Powers?)

So how does Pres­i­dent Bush respond to Texas’ rebuff? According to Bellinger,

“This Admin­is­tra­tion has gone to the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse this deci­sion. We expect a ruling from that Court this time next year.”

The clear mes­sage to Texas and the other states where these con­victed crim­i­nals are incar­cer­ated is, “We will hammer you until you comply with what WE say is right!”

If the Pres­i­dent pre­vails in the Supreme Court, you can be cer­tain that tax­payers will pay for all the atten­dant legal fees to re-open these 51 cases, not to men­tion the enor­mous cost of launching a Supreme Court case against Texas.

Bellinger is not the first or only glob­alist with this unorthodox view of “rule of law.” In fact, it’s not new at all. Pres­i­dent George H.W. Bush (also a member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion) deliv­ered a speech in 1990 and stated,

“We have before us the oppor­tu­nity to forge for our­selves and for future gen­er­a­tions, a New World Order, a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, gov­erns the con­duct of nations. When we are suc­cessful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this New World Order, an order in which a cred­ible United Nations can use its peace­keeping role to ful­fill the promising vision of the U.N. founders.”

When Bush, Sr. says “when we are suc­cessful, and we will be,” there was no hes­i­ta­tion, pause or uncer­tainty in his voice

On June 14, 2007, during a hot debate on immi­gra­tion policy between White House spokesman Tony Snow and nation­ally syn­di­cated talk-show host Laura Ingraham, Snow stated that the three common goals of Pres­i­dent Bush’s immi­gra­tion policy are “Secure the border, restore the rule of law and make sure cit­i­zen­ship means something.”

For the pur­pose of this dis­cus­sion, the phrase “restore the rule of law” jumps out. This is an offi­cial talking point of the Bush Admin­is­tra­tion, but its meaning and rel­e­vance are never explained.

How would this phrase be inter­preted in light of the above discussion?

First, if one is talking about U.S. law, then “restoring the rule of law” is an issue of enforce­ment, not leg­isla­tive action. If existing immi­gra­tion laws are not enforced, why would the passing of new laws increase the odds of enforce­ment of those new laws? Of course, it wouldn’t.

Sec­ondly, “restoring” implies that we have fallen from a pre­vious period when immi­gra­tion laws were cor­rectly enforced. The pro­gres­sion of poor enforce­ment has been clear enough, but that pro­gres­sion has come at the hands of poor policy from the same people who now promise us that new laws will fix everything.

Rather, if Bush’s  “rule of law” is the same as the one ref­er­enced by his father in 1991, then it refers to the body of inter­na­tional law, rules and reg­u­la­tions as pro­mul­gated by the United Nations, the World Trade Orga­ni­za­tion and buried in a myriad of free trade treaties and agreements.

If immi­gra­tion laws are passed in 2007, they will undoubt­edly con­tain, even if hidden in foot­notes, ele­ments of new inter­na­tional laws that have been his­tor­i­cally con­trary to U.S. law. Oth­er­wise, why would the Admin­is­tra­tion pull out all the polit­ical stops and risk losing 86 per­cent of its public sup­port? Why stress over cre­ating laws that already exist?

If the ICJ’s Avena deci­sion can be enforced by using the Supreme Court as a sledge­hammer, then why not brow­beat the U.S. Con­gress into enacting new labor and immi­gra­tion policy that didn’t pre­vi­ously exist?

This writer is reminded of Tri­lat­er­alist Richard Gardner’s 1974 trea­tise titled “The Hard Road to World Order” in which he declared that the new world order would be better achieved, in lieu of a frontal attack, by “an end run around national sov­er­eignty, eroding it piece by piece…”

Indeed. The next time you hear the phrase “rule of law” drip­ping from the lips of the glob­ally elite, don’t take any com­fort that they might actu­ally have the best interest of our country at heart.  In fact, if Bellinger gets his way, we are all in a lot of trouble.

Ed. Note: If an external authority dic­tates cer­tain con­straints upon your actions and powers, then you are not sov­er­eign; the external authority doing the dic­tating is the real sov­er­eign. Hugo Grotius, the emi­nent Dutch legal the­o­rist of the 17th cen­tury, whose writ­ings many of the Founding Fathers greatly admired, put it this way: “That power is called sov­er­eign whose actions are not sub­ject to the legal con­trol of another, so that they cannot be ren­dered void by the oper­a­tion of another human will.“

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Premium Subscriber Access


Forgot Password

People want to know…


What is Globalization?

It is the col­lective effect of pur­poseful and amoral manip­u­la­tion that seeks to cen­tralize eco­nomic, polit­ical, tech­no­log­ical and soci­etal forces in order to accrue max­imum profit and polit­ical power to global banks, global cor­po­ra­tions and the elit­ists who run them. It is rapidly moving toward an full and final imple­men­ta­tion of Technocracy.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is the Tri­lat­eral Commission?

Founded in 1973 by David Rock­e­feller and Zbig­niew Brzezinski, the Com­mis­sion set out to create a “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order”, namely, Tech­noc­racy. The orig­inal mem­ber­ship con­sisted of elit­ists (bankers, politi­cians, aca­d­e­mics, indus­tri­al­ists) from Japan, North America and Europe. Col­lec­tively, they have dom­i­nated and con­trolled trade and eco­nomic policy in their respec­tive coun­tries since at least 1974.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is Technocracy?

Tech­noc­racy is a move­ment started in the 1930’s by engi­neers, sci­en­tists and tech­ni­cians that pro­posed the replace­ment of cap­i­talism with an energy-based economy. Orig­i­nally envi­sioned for North America only, it is now being applied on a global basis. Authors Aldous Huxley and George Orwell believed that Tech­noc­racy would result in a Sci­en­tific Dic­ta­tor­ship, as reflected in their books, “Brave New World” and “1984″.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is Smart Grid?

Smart Grid is the national and global imple­men­ta­tion of dig­ital and Wi-fi enabled power meters that enable com­mu­ni­ca­tion between the appli­ances in your home or busi­ness, with the power provider. This pro­vides con­trol over your appli­ances and your usage of elec­tricity, gas and water.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Who is M. King Hubbert?

Hub­bert was a geo-physicist who co-founded Tech­noc­racy, Inc. in 1932 and authored its Tech­noc­racy Study Course. In 1954, he became the cre­ator of the “Peak Oil Theory”, or “Hubbert’s Peak” which the­o­rized that the world was rapidly run­ning out of carbon-based fuels. Hub­bert is widely con­sid­ered as a “founding father” of the global warming and green movements.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Who is R. Buck­min­ster Fuller?

A pio­neer in global eco­log­ical theory, Fuller (1895 – 1984) was the first to sug­gest the devel­op­ment of a Global Energy Grid that is today known as the Global Smart Grid. Fuller is widely con­sid­ered to be a “founding father” of the global green move­ment, including global warming, Sus­tain­able Devel­op­ment, Agenda 21, etc.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Is the Venus Project like Technocracy?

The Venus Project, founded by Jacque Fresco, is a utopian, modern-day iter­a­tion of Tech­noc­racy. Like Tech­noc­racy, it scraps cap­i­talism and pro­poses that “a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common her­itage of all of Earth’s people, thus even­tu­ally out­growing the need for the arti­fi­cial bound­aries that sep­a­rate people.” The appli­ca­tion of tech­nology is the answer to all of the world’s prob­lems, including war, famine and poverty.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)