Monday, March 27, 2006

The Emerging Global Society - and Its "Living Constitution"

These two articles go well together, one by Pastor Chuck Baldwin and the other from the Washington Times (courtesy of Joan Masters--thanks). The former spells out well what we are facing. Of course, the emerging New World Order will need something akin to a Constitution, given that it will doubtless be panned off on gullible populations as a "democracy." The Constitution supported by Clinton-appointee Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg won't be the one our Founding Fathers wrote, however; it will be the "living document" of 20th century social engineers, reinterpreted to mean whatever those in power want it to mean. Shall we see?


By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
March 24, 2006

Former President George Herbert Walker Bush was the first national figure to publicly use the term "New World Order." Since those days in the late 1980's, numerous notable personalities have advanced the concept of global hegemony.

As a student of the Scriptures, I am well aware that ever since the events surrounding the Tower of Babel (recorded in Genesis chapter 11), the desire for world conquest has repeatedly arisen in the hearts of power-hungry men. I also believe a vast number of America's political, commercial, media, and entertainment elite today knowingly assist and facilitate this emerging global village.

I further propound that since the end of World War II, the great majority of America's foreign policies have more to do with building Bush's "New World Order" than with protecting the people or interests of the United States. Yes, Margaret, that includes our current actions in the Middle East.

Both President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair speak boldly and often of their intentions to globalize the political and commercial affairs of the world's nations. One has only to listen to Bush's latest State of the Union address to get a glimpse of how immersed our political leaders are in the philosophy of globalism.

Just this week, Tony Blair gave a major speech on internationalism and the reason for Britain's (and America's) involvement in Iraq. In his speech Blair said, "This is not a clash between civilizations, it is a clash about civilization. 'We' is not the West. 'We' are as much Muslim as Christian or Jew or Hindu. 'We' are those who believe in religious tolerance, openness to others, to democracy."

Blair's speech, given at a Reuters newsmaker event, also said, "The only way to win is to recognize this phenomenon is a global ideology." Blair also boldly stated that the events in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, as well as climate change and poverty in Africa are all "linked."

Blair went on to say that there are about "40 to 50" countries that might require "interventionist" action in order to obtain global "prosperity and stability."

But George Bush & Tony Blair are not the only ones to espouse global government. Back in 2001, a U.N. official by the name of Edward Widmer made the following declaration: "Within 10 years time, you're going to see the beginning of an embryonic world order." I believe we are already seeing it.

Expressing the same thoughts as Bush, Blair, and Widmer, former newsman Walter Cronkite wrote in his book, A Reporter's Life, "A system of world government is mandatory. The proud nations someday will see the light and yield up their precious sovereignty."

Cronkite also told BBC newsman, Tim Sebastian, "I think we are realizing that we are going to have to have an international rule of law." He added, "We need not only an executive to make international law, but we need the military forces to enforce that law."

Cronkite went on to say, "American people are going to begin to realize that perhaps they are going to have to yield some sovereignty to an international body to enforce the law."

Remember also that President George W. Bush signed the Declaration of Quebec back on April 22, 2001 in which he gave a "commitment to hemispheric integration and national and collective responsibility for improving the economic well-being and security of our people."

Obviously, "our people" means the people of the Western Hemisphere, not the people of the United States. Phyllis Schlafly also recently reminded us that "Bush pledged that the United States will 'build a hemispheric family on the basis of a more just and democratic international order.'"

George Bush, Sr. calls it a "New World Order." Tony Blair calls it "Globalization." Walter Cronkite calls it "World Government." G.W. Bush calls it "International Order." Call it what you will, it means the end of U.S. sovereignty and independence. And a sizeable percentage of America's political, commercial, media, and entertainment elite are doing their best to bring it to fruition.

What will it take for the American people to wake up? Foreign troops on American soil? Already happening. Outsourcing every American asset, including our own security? Already happening. Putting American troops under foreign commanders? Already happening. Using American troops as U.N. "peacekeepers" and nation-builders? Already happening. Forcing "free trade" agreements upon the American people that steal their jobs and livelihoods? Already happening. Allowing and facilitating overwhelming and ruinous illegal immigration that sacrifices our culture and way of life? Already happening. Forcing Americans to adopt and accept foreign languages into the fabric of everyday life? Already happening. Ignoring or even ridiculing American history in our classrooms and entertainment? Already happening. What in the world has to happen to awaken and energize the American people? When will they determine to put a stop to this nonsense?

Americans (and perhaps Christians are the most blind and naïve regarding this reality) need to understand that there are not two parties in Washington, D.C., but only one: the Globalist Party. If you don't believe it, just check out the list of people from both parties who belong to the cabal of wealthy elitists whose goal is global government known as the Council on Foreign Relations. [Read] and [Read] Isn't it amazing that no matter who is elected President and from which party he hails, the list of CFR members in appointed government positions never decreases!

Folks, let's face it: the terms "conservative" and "liberal," "Republican" and "Democrat" mean very little these days. Instead of thinking in traditional terms, we need to start thinking in terms of "American" and "Globalist." Once we come to realize that the vast majority of the national candidates from both parties are Globalists at heart, it would be a simple matter to repudiate them, fire the ones that are already there, and start electing some real Americans to high public office once again. I don't know about anyone else, but that's the way I'm voting from now on.

© 2006 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved


Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, "Chuck Baldwin Live" This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet and newspapers.

To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: When responding, please include your name, city and state.


By Terence P. Jeffrey
The Washington Times
Published March 27, 2006

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's authority, she apparently believes, extends all the way to rewriting the Declaration of Independence. Words written by Thomas Jefferson and edited by Benjamin Franklin won't do for her.

"A Decent Respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind," she titled a speech delivered last month at the Constitutional Court of South Africa.

The address might have gone wholly unnoticed were it not belatedly reported last week that Justice Ginsburg took the occasion to reveal that some idiot writing on an Internet chat site a year ago had called for violence against her and then-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor because they had cited foreign laws and judgments in their opinions.

Of course, the Internet-idiot deserves Justice Ginsburg's scorn and ours. But that should not immunize the justice against the criticism she deserves for what she actually said in South Africa. While she began her speech with a politically correct rewrite of the Declaration, her main point was that she and other justices have the authority to change the Constitution -- and use foreign laws and rulings as inspiration for doing so.

"The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions ... is in line with the view of the U.S. Constitution as a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification," said Justice Ginsburg. "I am not a partisan of that view. U.S. jurists honor the Framers' intent 'to create a more perfect Union,' I believe, if they read the Constitution as belonging to a global 21st century, not as fixed forever by 18th-century understandings."

The problem here is that the Framers did not give judges the authority "to create a more perfect union." If any perfecting of our Constitution is to be done, the means are spelled out in Article 5 of the Constitution itself, which authorizes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose constitutional amendments and two-thirds of state legislatures to convene constitutional conventions. The Framers intended to make it so difficult to actually "perfect" the Constitution, however, that they required three-fourths of the states to ratify any proposed amendment.

By contrast, Justice Ginsburg believes five justices can amend the Constitution if their personal opinions happen to coincide -- and if they can gain sufficient ideological reinforcement, if not actual authority, from foreign courts.

Quoting former U.S. Appeals Court Judge Patricia Wald, Justice Ginsburg said, "We refer to decisions rendered abroad, it bears repetition, not as controlling authorities, but for their indication, in Judge Wald's words, of 'common denominators of basic fairness governing relationships between the governors and the governed.' "

The sort of analysis Justice Ginsburg describes is not judicial, but legislative. There is nothing in our Constitution that bars members of Congress from looking at foreign laws to see what works and what does not, what reflects American values and what does not. As long as they don't exceed the constitutional limits on Congress' own authority, they may, if they wish, propose legislation mirroring a foreign law to see if they can win a majority for it and persuade the president to sign it.

Congress could clone Russia's 13 percent flat tax, arguing, as Justice Ginsburg or Judge Wald might say, that Russia's tax plan embodies Congress' vision of the "basic fairness governing relationships between the governors and the governed."

It would not matter if Justice Ginsburg preferred, say, Iran's tax system to Russia's. The Constitution, as written, does not authorize her to trump Congress' preferences in this area.

It is when Justice Ginsburg cites specific Supreme Court decisions she believes were beneficially influenced by foreign courts that the real heart of the matter is revealed: On certain cultural issues, she likes other peoples' values better than those Americans have expressed through the democratic process. Some voters in this country, she clearly believes, just didn't get it right on same-sex sodomy and the death penalty.

"On respect for the opinions of [human]kind," she said of the opinion declaring same-sex sodomy a right, "the Lawrence Court emphasized: 'The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries.' "

"Roper v. Simmons presents perhaps the fullest expressions to date on the propriety and utility of looking to 'the opinion of [human]kind,' " she said. "Holding unconstitutional the executions of persons under the age of 18 when they committed capital crimes, the court declared it fitting to acknowledge 'the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty.' "

Justice Ginsburg has every right to embrace foreign opinion on these issues. But if she wanted to act on those opinions officially, she should have resigned from the court and run for a state legislature first.

Terence P. Jeffrey is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?